This is basically my "collected snark" from a variety of comments I've made, as a Sidewiki 'overlay', on websites where my content has been stolen or they've made some ridiculous claim about something, or failed to acknowledge some other important fact. The fact that Sidewiki is no more means I have to find other ways of making a nuisance of myself on your iffy website ;)
Roll on "Web of Trust"... I've written another post recently on the layered web.
-------
Jo's entries using Google Sidewiki
Interesting exchange on their selling homeopathy pills
Despite no evidence of efficacy for homeopathic remedies a number of supermarkets are still selling them. In the UK we've not had much success in persuading Boots to stop selling them (although there's been greater success with getting these pills off the NHS) but it's interesting to read about similar campaigns in other countries http://www.bayanimills.com/2011/07/03/coles-supermarkets-finally-responds/
Thanks for fixing
The content taken from my blog has now been removed and I'm happy to update my sidewiki comments to reflect that.
Thanks for fixing
The content taken from my blog has now been removed and I'm happy to update my sidewiki comments to reflect that.
Thanks for fixing
My content has now been removed from these pages on my request (the site had used content from my blog without my permission) and I'm happy to update the sidewiki to reflect that.
This content was stolen from my blog
Always a bit disappointed to find people stealing other people's content. This time it's mine - I originally posted this to my own blog in April 2010 and have significantly updated it since then - so not only is this content stolen, it's now irrelevant and out of date. You can find the latest information here http://brodiesnotes.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-air-cinema-screens-in-london.html The stolen content appears on an almost-identical page http://guerillacinema.org/inflatable-movie-screen-open-air-cinema-in-london/ and I have posted this notice there too.
This content was stolen from my blog
Always a bit disappointed to find people stealing other people's content. This time it's mine - I originally posted this to my own blog in April 2010 and have significantly updated it since then - so not only is this content stolen, it's now irrelevant and out of date. You can find the latest information here http://brodiesnotes.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-air-cinema-screens-in-london.html
The Alzheimer Test makes it to the BMJ
More information about the test and the results here http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d3732.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=jS44KG3X7VrksnM
Bit surprised that this wasn't included in the research information sheet
Can't help thinking that in the absence of evidence a "Let people choose" website is somewhat shutting barn doors after horses have bolted. I was particularly interested in a review of the evidence by the Homeopathy Research Institute, whose conclusion was "Homeopaths often treat insomnia, however, there is currently a lack of high-quality sufficiently powered studies assessing the effectiveness of either homeopathic medicines or treatment by a homeopath for this condition. There is a need for further well-conducted clinical trials of treatment by a homeopath in order to examine fully the clinical and cost effectiveness of the therapeutic system of homeopathy in the management of insomnia. This evidence will enable patients, clinicians and healthcare commissioners/insurers to make informed decisions regarding the homeopathic treatment of insomnia." http://www.homeoinst.org/sites/default/files/newsletters/HRI_Newsletter_Issue09_Summer%202010.pdf (hat tip @lecanardnoir) Just checked and actually I can't access the Research information sheet either...
Unclear advice
As noted, chest pain can be caused by several things such as indigestion or something more serious. Homeopathy is of no use here and if someone is in doubt about the cause then they should get themselves to A&E / the emergency room. Happily, many people do not die from a heart attack but isn't there a danger of unnecessary damage to the heart if time is wasted choosing the right sugar pill instead of getting the patient to someone who can assess and treat them appropriately? I think this post should be much clearer in stating that as 'Some disorders are immediately life threatening' A&E should be the first port of call.
Whoops
http://charman-anderson.com/2011/04/27/zephoria-inc-about-to-find-out-how-social-media-really-works/comment-page-1/ http://www.betabeat.com/2011/04/27/tumblr-gave-danah-boyds-username-to-a-marketing-company/
Top internships auctioned for £3,000
"David Cameron was accused of 'gross insensitivity' last night after it was revealed that internships with City hedge funds were sold to wealthy Tories' children for thousands of pounds to raise cash for the party." http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/work/article.html?in_article_id=522795&in_page_id=53928.
Oops
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13search.html?_r=2&src=busln&pagewanted=all
Where's the evidence?
I'm not aware of any good quality evidence that this diagnostic test can detect what it claims. While there's plenty of testimony from happy customers this doesn't constitute good evidence.
Irrelevant evidence
Animal studies, or human studies using single ingredients in capsules tell you nothing about how a skin patch will work when loaded with several different ingredients. No information has been provided about how effective these patches when studied in human trials.
Unconvinced by these claims
The clinical studies tab contains irrelevant information. The trials listed are on individual ingredients (and not the full formulation) so it doesn't tell us anything about how the ingredients work when combined together. More problematic is that none of the trials have tested the patch - there are references to capsules (an oral route isn't the same as across the skin so these trials tell us nothing either) and some of the studies are on mice and so aren't necessarily relevant either.
Unable to add this to comments...?
Thanks for your interesting post, which I've just read from following a link on Phil Bradley's post http://philbradley.typepad.com/phil_bradleys_weblog/2011/01/no-google-i-know-best.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Reading his post and yours made me reflect on my mild annoyances with Google recently - more along the lines of it clearing the search box when you discover it's set to 'Instant on' and switch it to off. I'd not really known that much about SEO etc (very little cause to) though was well aware of the 'judicious' use of keywords and whatnot. Recently, when trying to find out about the quality of evidence for claims about a weight loss supplement (advertiser now reported to the Advertising Standards Authority) I came across a forum for the people who create the scam sites - there were a couple of 'how to' posts too http://www.freezepage.com/1293992484HYABCLJDIJ and http://www.freezepage.com/1294067830IQSVXDGXTH - doesn't look like this is likely to go away soon! I also found, and was grudgingly impressed, that the scammers have even appropriated the word 'scam'. Pick any unevidenced nutritional supplement and add the word scam to the Google search to see what I mean ;) ---- This is the error message I received when trying to post this as a comment via the usual mechanism ---- You did not enter the correct string displayed in the spam-prevention image box. Please look at the image and enter the values displayed there. Your comment could not be added because comments for this entry have either been disabled, you entered invalid data, or your comment was caught by anti-spam measurements.
Where is the clinical evidence for Roduve Slimweight patch?
I have looked at several affiliate websites which sell this product and while a number of them have a page on 'clinical evidence' none of them actually contain the relevant evidence. The trials listed do not test the patch (trials done using capsules are irrelevant because that is a different way entirely of getting ingredients into the body), do not test the entire formulation (the trials listed are of individual ingredients which fails to take into account how the ingredients might act when combined) and refer to a mixture of human trials and animal studies. The skin is a very good barrier and has evolved to keep most stuff out. By contrast the gut lining is very good at absorbing things and so the oral route is often the quickest (short of injecting) That is why it is important to have trials indicating whether or not the formulation works (all the ingredients, being delivered by the patch). Trials on individual ingredients taken by capsules or pills are not that relevant. I am intrigued by the concept of these ezine articles, hadn't heard of them before reading this forum post on how to market a product successfully http://www.moreniche.com/forum/main-forum-affiliate-lounge/15098-pureacaiberry-max-why-you-should-promote.html
Clinical trials of product
I'm hoping to hear back from the makers of this product (Roduve Healthcare Solutions) regarding the clinical evidence for it. Although this website makes mention of trials the information contained within the page isn't much use to me because (a) they are trials of single ingredients (b) not all done in humans and (c) not testing the patch delivery method. I'm really interested in hearing about a clinical trial of the patch as it would be used by a consumer (with all the ingredients together, not individual ingredients). Given that the skin is an excellent barrier, and the difficulties in getting reasonably sized drug molecules* across the skin (at least two companies are working on trying to get insulin delivered transdermally and that's just a single molecule) I'd be interested to know which component molecules were chosen from each ingredient plant and what techniques are used to actually get them across the skin. *It's a bit more complicated than molecule size...
Avoid the section on homeopathy
Homeopathy is of no help to people with diabetes.
Parking my comment here as I can't add it
Hello again The president of NaturEra has contacted me with some comments about my blogpost (linked above, or http://brodiesnotes.blogspot.com/2010/09/not-really-enough-evidence-for.html) which I've now posted on my blog along with reflections from me. I suggested that they may also wish to post their comments here as well. As far as I can tell, it's difficult to draw much of a conclusion as the research is yet to be published and digested by other scientists. I'm delighted that they contacted me and answered my questions though. Jo
The mind boggles
I can only assume that this is an extremly creative spoof and that I have entirely missed the joke. If homeopaths are linking film characters to remedies then I think skeptics can pack up and go home, our work here is done.
Strange behaviour from Westfield security
I found this an interesting, if disturbing, read. "Westfield heavies bundle librarians into street" http://shepherds-bush.blogspot.com/2010/11/westfield-heavies-bundle-librarians.html
A little more about 'Forsaken'
I found this blog post interesting and illuminating http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2010/11/03/forsaken/ on the background of the Forsaken organisation.
Spamming Twitter with this is pretty annoying
I just assumed, from the six spam tweets sent to me about this, that it's going to be a waste of time. Looks like the sort of thing that scrapes other people's content and reposts it without attribution, and you can use Twitterfeed for that already. At time of writing this Sidewiki the "here you can see some of the tweets people are posting through" the service are from accounts which have the default avatar, most likely bots. How does this add value to Twitter? I am yet to be impressed.
Utter nonsense
This article scatters wrong facts over an underlying structure of error. Save your money.
Not a tipping point for homeopathy, no
An article in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/26/conservatives-health-select-committee highlights a number of blog posts which have comprehensively debunked this paper, including a comment from one of the journal article's authors who criticised the methodology http://scepticsbook.com/2010/02/14/a-giant-leap-in-logic-from-a-piece-of-bad-science/#comment-13891 This paper has nothing to add to the field of cancer research.
Content apparently stolen from...
...me http://brodiesnotes.blogspot.com/2010/05/fda-sends-warning-letters-to-15-ear.html Bit annoying...
Extremely dangerous advice
This is possibly the most inaccurate and dangerous information I have ever read about diabetes. Relying on homeopathy to treat diabetes is extremely unwise and could even be fatal. Homeopathy is of no help to people with diabetes.
Interesting US experience of a Steiner school
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/lombard.html
Further info on FIH's closure from David Colquhoun's blog
"The end of the Prince’s Foundation for Magic Medicine" http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3023
I'm not surprised comments have been turned off
I'm slightly appalled that this nonsense is being perpetrated on young children. Where is the evidence that this device can be used meaningfully on adults let alone children? I hope people landing on this page are familiar with Simon Singh's work in exposing this, if not, google his name along with 'BCA'.
Oh good grief
Ben Goldacre's "Waxing Sceptical" article from 2004 points out several ways in which these candles don't work and can in fact do harm http://www.badscience.net/2004/03/waxing-sceptical/
I think some of the claims here are misleading
"A light suction action (chimney effect)" - this was shown to be false in 1996 - no such effect is found with ear candles. Reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8849790 "Tympanometric measurements in an ear canal model demonstrated that ear candles do not produce negative pressure." Information cautioning against the use of ear candles / ear cones / thermo-auricular therapy can be found in the medical literature - all of the case studies and review articles I've read so far indicate that (a) it simply does not nor cannot work as described (b) is of no health benefit either to the ears or any other part of the body and (c) has, in several cases, caused damage to the ear and hearing loss. These candles are best avoided.
Claims about the Sanskrit word for measles
Someone from the AVN (going under the Twitter name @nocompulsoryvac) has suggested that "Did you know: Measles in Sanskrit translates as "Gift from a Goddess" because huge developmental and growth spurts often followed infection." Source: http://twitter.com/nocompulsoryvac/status/12265765188 However this has been disputed by another Twitter user (@weezmgk) who points out that the Sanskrit words for 'measles' and 'goddess' have no such relationship. As I don't speak Sanskrit I can't double check this, but I think it's interesting to bear in mind - particularly if this misunderstanding has spread among those who may have concerns about vaccinations http://www.twitlonger.com/show/qe1th
Serious dangers associated with chiropractic
More from Simon Singh, writing in The Guardian, on this here http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/19/controversiesinscience-health "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."
Unusual use of microscopy...
Further information on the techniques and history of live blood analysis can be found here http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/livecell.html
Ethical remedies
Further information at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/may/26/you-ask-neals-yard-remedies
Rentokil's misleading marketing is "brilliant"
I've enjoyed reading the 'accompaniments' to the recent Rentokil v Ben Goldacre story, in particular comments from RMS staff praising Rentokil's marketing strategy. http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/18/rentokils-misleading.html
Some of this falls short of being good advice
While I struggle to be convinced that taking a very hot shower can help someone who's sunburned it's abundantly clear that relying on homeopathic remedies for malaria is a very unwise thing to do. A BBC Newsnight programme in 2006 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm) found that several homeopaths were giving incorrect advice to people considering travel to areas with malaria. To be fair, many other homeopaths have cautioned against this practice and recommend that the appropriate medications should be taken, along with other preventive measures. "So why not use homeopathy instead – it is gentler and safer, and probably more effective." I think this is wrong. Advising someone to take homeopathy instead of necessary vaccinations or tablets before a holiday is not good advice.
Generally I'd recommend linking to sources you cite
It's a shame that links aren't given to the blogs from which these examples are taken. I appreciate that you don't want to give 'Google Juice' to blogs you disagree with but you can usually post non-active links, or even use alphanum3rics to disguise in some way. The danger with not doing that is that other people are less able to check that you've not taken the comments out of context. Some of the skeptical things mentioned here I would agree with but I think you've put a very negative slant on them, so I wouldn't necessarily agree with your framing. I'm sure there are some thoroughly unpleasant skeptics and skeptical blogs out there which do prefer to mock and sneer, than engage with issues but we're not all like that and in general we are open to new evidence. Best wishes, Jo
Campaign is not to do with disproving homeopathy
I am not aware of any good evidence showing that homeopathy works beyond placebo. The lack of evidence was made very clear at the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's evidence check for homeopathy. The 1023 campaign is not really about disproving homeopathy further. The campaign is raising awarenss that a pharmacy, which has already admitted that it has seen no evidence that homeopathy works (beyond placebo), is continuing to sell these products. The part about diabetes is nonsense - people with diabetes are not in a hypersensitive state to sugar. They either lack the main glucose regulating hormone (insulin) or are less able to use it to regulate glucose. In a person without diabetes glucose will raise blood glucose levels but a series of regulatory mechanisms come into play quickly to regulate glucose, in someone with diabetes these mechanisms are less effective.
The campaign isn't really about disproving homeopathy
Homeopathic treatments do not work any better than placebo - this campaign isn't about proving that homeopathic remedies don't work (beyond placebo) as that is already known. The campaign is highlighting that a major company is selling, alongside medicines, products for which there is no good evidence (see the responses of Paul Bennett, Boots' Professional Standards Director, to questions 2-6 here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc45-i/uc4502.htm The section on diabetes (~4min) is frankly nonsense. People with diabetes are not 'in a hypersensitive state' to glucose or sugar, they either lack one of the hormones (insulin) that regulates blood glucose or they are not able to use insulin effectively.
0 comments:
Post a Comment