Stuff that occurs to me

All of my 'how to' posts are tagged here. The most popular posts are about blocking and private accounts on Twitter, also the science communication jobs list. None of the science or medical information I might post to this blog should be taken as medical advice (I'm not medically trained).

Think of this blog as a sort of nursery for my half-baked ideas hence 'stuff that occurs to me'.

Contact: @JoBrodie Email: jo DOT brodie AT gmail DOT com

Science in London: The 2018/19 scientific society talks in London blog post

Sunday, 13 July 2014

Dr Nancy Malik's homeopathy-supporting website mistakenly implies that it is HON accredited

Health on the Net (HON) accredit websites that offer health information if the website's content passes eight criteria (the 'HON Code'). Once this has been demonstrated the owner is given a bit of code (a 'widget') to add to their site which confirms that their site has been certified as giving good-quality information. This shows on the certified website as a side-panel badge which, if clicked, takes you to a page on HON's website that confirms the validated certificate.

There is another way of checking if a site is accredited. HON have created toolbar widgets for browsers that light up when the browser is visiting a HON-accredited site.

Here's what it looks like when visiting Patient.co.uk

and here's what it looks like when visiting Dr Nancy Malik's Science-based Homeopathy site

If you look for the blue and red icon on the right the difference is clear.

The website, Science-based Homeopathy, is not accredited by Health on the Net - though it was previously.

Health on the Net's certificate for Dr Malik's website currently says 'invalid' in bright red letters: https://www.healthonnet.org/HONcode/Conduct.html?HONConduct822331

Interestingly Dr Malik (or her webmaster) has removed the badge from her website and replaced it with the picture below. The text of the link on her site is 'verify here' which implies that visitors clicking that link will be able to check the validity of the certificate.



In fact visitors are now taken to a screenshot of the earlier certificate (when the site was still validated). The screenshot is hosted on Google, not Health on the Net and so is not 'live' as a valid certificate.

The person running this website (it may not be Dr Malik) appears to have removed a now-invalid certificate in order to replace it with an older once-valid copy to give the impression that the site is still certificated. Perhaps this is an honest mistake and not done deliberately but now that so many have pointed this out it seems strange for the error not to have been fixed.

In short, Dr Nancy Malik's website 'Science-based Homeopathy' has lost its HONCode certification.

Strangely, the site also hosts a blog and one of the posts* attempts to explain this away. The old certificate is shown on the post and the text around it implies that re-certification is imminent after a short audit period. This seems to be quite unlikely.

During the audit period HON did not rescind the certificate but instead stated that it was under review ('re-exam'). The fact that it has now been changed to 'invalid' strongly suggests that the audit period has finished and that there will be no re-certification unless significant changes are made on the website to bring it in line with the HON Code. However, the strange behaviour regarding the way the real (invalid) certificate has been obscured on the site doesn't really suggest that this site would be trusted again in future.

*http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/honcode-certificaton/




Friday, 11 July 2014

Once embedded in a blog post a tweet will stay there even if deleted from Twitter (in theory)

This is another one of those posts that's really just for me ;)

On 1 May 2011 I sent a tweet and then, a day later I deleted it. It's still there though because before deleting it I added it to Storify, and now it's trapped there forever. The take-home lesson from this is that even if a tweet's later deleted, once it's been saved in Storify it's permanently saved (you can also take screenshots etc).

I've never tried it in a blog post but am expecting it to work because Twitter's help files indicate that it should*. An embedded tweet inherits all the information that lets someone who's reading it on a blog post (instead of on Twitter) interact with it - they can favourite or RT it. If the tweet is deleted from Twitter this is no longer possible but the text of the tweet (and who sent it and when) remains.

Let's see... I just sent this and will soon delete it.

URL of tweet: https://twitter.com/JoBrodie/status/487658994925072385

Embedded version:



Now to delete it and see what happens. (According to the info below if I made my account private that would have the same effect).

Edit 
Now that the tweet is deleted you can see what it looks like above, and this is how it had appeared on this post before I deleted it from Twitter.

 

*"What if a user deletes a Tweet after it has been embedded on another website? Similarly, what happens to Tweets from users that change their Tweets from public to protected (or become suspended)?

In all of these cases, Twitter branding and Tweet actions will be removed from the embedded Tweet, but the content of the Tweet will still be visible."




Wednesday, 9 July 2014

How does Google's 'right to be forgotten' work? Actual question, not rhetorical trope :) #R2BF

Possibly this will be solved by 'reading more around the topic' but I've not spotted the answer yet and someone must know.

How does Google's "right to be forgotten" info removal service actually work?

If there is a web page that says stuff you don't like do you ask Google to
(a) stop indexing that page / those pages in the searches (ie provide Google with a list of pages for it to hide)
(b) not show in its search results any pages that mention specific keywords
or
(c) some other method

If (a) then presumably this can easily be thwarted by reposting the content onto a new page with a new address.

Also Google indexes most things on Twitter (admittedly transiently) so if someone was determined they could keep posting stuff there and it would show up in Google (as well as, obviously, on Twitter).

I can see (b) being mildly more successful but Google would have to throttle at the level of search, to prevent each new page with those words showing up. This seems like a lot of hard work.

Also, aren't there sites that monitor the requests made (similar to the ChillingEffects.org site that monitors requests for material under copyright to be removed). They've written on the right to be forgotten but I've not spotted the method Google's using.

If there are, don't bother looking in Google, just go to the relevant site and search there. Eg a Telegraph article I read this morning on R2BF suggests that Google has removed some of the Telegraph's links (suggesting method [a]...) on its search results about someone after they requested it, but searching on the Telegraph's site for the person mentioned in the article brings up other information, whether or not it's indexed on Google.

I'm sure the ethics, privacy, free speech aspects of this are all very interesting but what I'm actually intrigued by is just the practicalities.




Sunday, 6 July 2014

Video purportedly showing a cure of motor neurone disease, with #homeopathy - nope

A couple of weeks ago I rather lost my temper with the discussions on the #homeopathy hashtag when someone implied that homeopathy could cure Motor Neurone Disease (MND) and that there was video evidence for this. This is flat out untrue. Homeopathy pills are made in such a way (diluting, then a special kind of shaking called 'succussion', the more more diluting and so on) to the point that there's no, or negligible levels of, active ingredient in the end product. People might certainly feel better and reassured after talking to a friendly homeopath, or taking their pills - but they cannot cure any diseases.

"Case of MND Restored to Healthy State with Homeopathy By Prof Dr A K Gupta" - below I go through each of the segments, struggling to make much sense of it.



It's difficult to follow what's being said. Someone is definitely speaking some English words but the rest is spoken in an Indian language and I think there is also a translator, and the sound is not good.

At no point is any evidence offered that the patient has or ever had a correct diagnosis of motor neurone disease. We are presented with a man who is unwell (coughing, difficulty speaking) and we all seem to be accepting that he has MND. Perhaps he does but this video doesn't bother to offer any robust confirmation.

We first see the patient on 10 July 2010 and the screen titles notes that he is experiencing "Coughing with difficulty in speaking, falls back when sitting". I cannot understand what is being said but the doctor (presumably) is asking a series of questions and the patient answers them through coughing.

We next see the patient on 11 August 2010 where his "Coughing, Fasciculations* (and) Muscle Pain (are apparently) Reduced", though he seems to me to be in more discomfort. *involuntary muscle twitching which can be of the harmless eye-twitch variety if you're a bit tired to twitching that's associated with a variety of more serious conditions.

Then on 15 December 2010 his "Speech (is) slightly better, Fasciculations much better" - the clip is too short to see how he's really changed but he seems fairly similar to the video from his first clip. Of course it's impossible for me (who doesn't speak the language) to know what's going on but it looks very much like the poor man is anxious and appears to be looking at someone else for support - if that was what he was after I hope he was getting it.

11 March 2011 "Speech nasal but much better, Choking Better, No More Falling Back" - the man's speech seems worse if anything but he looks happier at least.

We're now 2m 35s into an 8 minute video and there's been NO CONFIRMATION about what condition he may have or have had.

10 September 2011 "Swallowing improved, overall symptoms are better, patient feels stable" - I keep hearing the word 'fasciculation' and wonder if the doctor is just asking him if his fasciculations are better. While I agree that patients should be asked about their symptoms it would seem that fasciculations produce signs that are fairly obvious.

There's a risk, with self-reported improvements, that the doctor hears what they want to hear... the coughing seems better but the speech doesn't.

31st October 2011 "Better in general, speech affected due to Pollution of crackers during Diwali" - er, what? The crackers were polluted, or eating crackers polluted treatment? No indication given. I'm none the wiser.

7.1.12 "Choking & Suffociation completely cured" - I'm glad to hear it but at no point in this video (we're 5m 21s in) has there been any evidence offered that the man has ever been correctly diagnosed with any particular health condition, let alone MND.

No information is given about his other treatment (is he under the care of a neurologist?), none about the natural course of whatever condition he might have (does it progress relentlessly or are there periods of remission). Is it possible that he has been misdiagnosed and has another condition that is resolving by itself (so far I've not seen much evidence of dramatic improvement overall, and of course I am probably being led to look for things by the intertitles telling me how he's improving in certain aspects).

With the benefit of the doubt I'm going to assume that it's not fake (ie not an actor portraying symptoms) but of course that can't be ruled out as literally no evidence is offered for what's going on in the video. It's just a man talking to another man in an office in a language I don't understand. This is emphatically NOT evidence for homeopathy. If you're using this as evidence for homeopathy I recommend not doing that as it doesn't prove anything and the video is incomprehensible enough to be working against you.

At this point in the video I'm struggling to see much improvement in his speech, though it is slightly better - to be honest I didn't know what his speech was like previously.

At 6m 33s the intertitles state "Wife thanks homeopathy and Dr A K Gupta in restoring her husband's almost bed ridden condition & inability to eat / drink", then "Lost voice, choking, fasciculations back to near NORMAL HEALTHY STATE. Now he does not has (sic) to write to communicate."

We then see the man's wife (presumed) sitting in front of a calendar from Dr Reckeweg (seller of homeopathic tissue salts, though possibly not in the UK) who then (apparently) reads something from a cue card (she's looking away from the camera unless a question is asked, though perhaps she's just sitting opposite her husband and is looking at him). As I don't understand the language I don't know what she's saying.

Having now watched the full video at the request of a homeopathy supporter I have to assume I'm being expertly trolled and have been bested by their quick-thinking mockery. Well done homeopathy supporters and I think we can all agree that this video offers zero evidence in favour of (or against, it literally offers no evidence of any kind) homeopathy.

The Motor Neurone Disease Association were also tagged in the tweet sent to me with the video link so I had a look at their pages to see what they say about homeopathy. Sadly they don't say "it's a load of nonsense" but they do at least make it clear that you need to be talking to your doctor:
"Homeopathy
The objective of homeopathy is to alleviate illness or conditions by stimulating the body’s own natural healing processes. Homeopathy can be applied to the symptoms of many illnesses, as well as causes. As people can present varying symptoms, separate remedies may used for the same condition or illness for different individuals.

It is essential that a qualified homeopath be consulted, as their first task is to identify which remedies may work for the individual involved.

Note: it is important that you consult your doctor before taking any homeopathic remedy to ensure there is no conflict with any other medication you may be taking."

See also
Motor Neurone Disease Association website
The Homeopathy Awareness Week website on why people should be very, very aware of homeopathy.

Comments on this post
I am no longer adding further examples of these almost-identical generic comments despite receiving between three and five a day of them as I think their purpose (which is to help people be aware that they're spam comments in case they come across them elsewhere) is served already. Anyone trying to leave a comment of that nature here, with promises of miracle cures and whatnot, has been pre-cursed by me and will experience dreadful pains before a lingering death. It's only what you deserve ;) Mwahahaha.



Tuesday, 1 July 2014

It seems the magazine 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' doesn't like me

I was surprised to discover this afternoon that I've now made it into yet another* Facebook rant from the people behind What Doctors Don't Tell You (there have been many rants though this is my first inclusion). They've been escalating their rants about skeptic activists (while unironically noting how few of us there are) ever since Tesco decided to stop stocking their magazine. The reason Tesco gave was that the magazine wasn't selling^ - I've no idea if this is true or if Tesco really did listen to the complaints against the magazine's content (or possibly they just read it and drew the relevant conclusions themselves).

*https://www.facebook.com/WDDTY/posts/770960436257904
^https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152543438997767&set=p.10152543438997767&type=1&theater - this link might take you to a picture shared on WDDTY's public page, it's a screenshot of an email from Tesco saying that they'd removed it in response to feedback.

Anyway, What Doctors Don't Tell You is now blaming skeptics for the withdrawal of the magazine and is now reduced to publicising personal and work information about us. To me this is very telling. Each of us has blogs where we've criticised the magazine's content or the framing of its content. If they think we're wrong it would be better to point out where we've missed something. The fact that the chosen tactic relies on personal attacks speaks volumes.

Remember that a number of the advertisers in the magazine have been found to be in breach of the advertising standards guidelines and in one particularly amusing case, someone whose research was written about in the magazine pointed out that the author had got it wrong.

Here's what WDDTY would like you to know about me... or at least someone whose name rhymes with mine (I have spelled it as Jo Brodie for... ooh, forever).


The bits that are accurate are fine. The bits that are inaccurate are quite wrong (surprise!) and it ropes in another Jo Brodie who might be a bit miffed to find herself (himself? Jo can be a man's name too) connected with this, so my post here is published to clarify my own 'involvement' in the list of skeptical activists. At the end of this post I'm including links to any other relevant blog posts that clarify the misinformation in the WDDTY Facebook post.

My work / volunteering
I do indeed work two days a week (2.5) for the CHI+MED project, yes. It's funded by the EPSRC (one of seven research councils) which are funded by the taxpayer. We are not paid by the pharmaceutical industry or, for that matter, the medical devices industry. We do work with medical device companies - we're trying to reduce the harm that can happen when complicated devices are used under stressful conditions.

My job is partly to update the website and expand the project's online presence - fair enough. I also give talks about our research, in particular the work we've done on public (& stakeholder) engagement and science communication.

For the rest of the week I do not work at Diabetes UK and haven't done since June 2012. Diabetes UK made the entire Science Information Team redundant then (5 people affected) but I'm on friendly terms with them, they do good stuff and I learned a lot while there.

I have never worked for Prof Wharton and until today had never heard of him. If you google his name and add mine you'll find that he does have a secretary with my name (spelled -ie not -y) but it isn't me. There are a surprising number of people called Jo Brodie who aren't me in fact. Prof Wharton's based in Sheffield, I'm in London. I'm sure I'd do quite a good job if I did work for him though as I have a Masters degree in Neuroscience and he seems to work in that sort of area.

For the rest of the week I actually work (1.5 days) on the Teaching London Computing project - supporting computing teachers who'll be delivering the new subject / curriculum. I also volunteer one day a week (1d) at JDRF (the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) so that I can put my diabetes statistics knowledge to good use.

"I'm not medically trained"
The reason I freely admit that I'm not medically trained is because it's true and some of the things I post here touch on health and medical topics. I think it's important to state this so that people aren't misled - I am not qualified to give advice, in much the same way that this magazine isn't qualified to give medical advice. To be honest even if I was medically qualified I'd still not be acting appropriately in giving advice because I don't have access to your medical records and might give advice that isn't relevant to you.

This concept was made very clear to me while working at Diabetes UK. We took calls from the public, explained that we were science information officers and then hopefully did a competent job of explaining complex topics simply. Quite a few people referred to us as 'doctor' (of course we corrected them) and many callers maintained the belief that we were medically trained, some were surprisingly quite deferential. That bothered me because we were trying to signpost them to information, not give them medical advice, and we certainly didn't want to misrepresent ourselves. I hope to make it clear from the outset (in the blog bio bit at the top) that I'm not medically qualified and I also re-mention it in relevant posts too.

Qualifications and competence
The post mentions several other people, largely to try and imply that we're a bunch of un-medically-qualified folk who are not fit to assess the content in the magazine. By contrast, their own advisors include:
"seven medical doctors on its editorial panel, plus several PhDs and highly qualified practitioners of a number of alternative disciplines. Thousands of doctors and health practitioners of every persuasion regularly read WDDTY and comment enthusiastically. The two editors of our magazine have been medical science writers for 25 years, and every word in our pages is checked by a science editor with a an extensive history of writing and editing medical studies for the pharmaceutical industry."
You might be interested in the background of these doctors...

I'm amused by the bit pointing out that a fact checker worked for the pharmaceutical industry - the magazine often criticises Pharma for distorting evidence so I'm not sure what to make of that. Also if the magazine is called What Doctors Don't Tell You it seems odd to tout the fact that you're taking editorial advice from them.

While I am not a medical science writer I've done a fair bit of it (only 8 years, so I can see immediately how my qualifications fall dramatically short of theirs) and am not too bad at critical appraisal. Really, anyone who's been trained as a scientist is reasonably competent to critically appraise scientific or medical information - and we can all improve with practice.

WDDTY's message is that we're not qualified to comment on their magazine. While I maintain that anyone who can make sense of evidence is qualified to do this, it's not at all clear who WDDTY would accept as suitable:
  • Not the eight of us because we're not medically trained
  • Not doctors because they are medically trained...
  • ... except some doctors who agree with them.
In addition to my sciencey qualifications I actually think that my most relevant-to-WDDTY one is that most of the complaints I put in to the ASA result in upheld adjudications or are informally resolved. I can think of only two that were rejected outright - one because the ASA disagreed with me and thought the advert wasn't misleading, the other one (recently) was because the complaint didn't actually fall within their remit.

Others have shared the Facebook status, taking WDDTY's message that we're not qualified to comment -


Personally I think the first line should read "This important magazine is being written by people who have no credentials whatsoever to give opinions on medical issues..."  my criticism is not about anyone's qualifications but based on the evidence of the magazine's published output. 

I'm a little bit miffed about the last line of course because my qualifications and experience are all about the health and medical field, just not as a doctor.

They end with:
"...write to Tesco today and ask them to re-stock What Doctors Don’t Tell You. And tell them a bit more about the people who fire off ‘complaints’ – that they are neither true customers nor people with either the training or experience to evaluate the information in our pages: customer.service@tesco.co.uk"

Unfortunately for WDDTY I (and the others mentioned) have both the training and experience to evaluate the information in their pages, and that's why they're a bit mean about us.

Others' take on being included in the list (will add as more are written)
Skepticat aka Maria
http://forum.thinkhumanism.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=6604

Guy Chapman's blahg
WDDTY goes "the full Errol"

WWDDTYDTY (What What Doctors Don't Tell You Don't Tell You)
Meet the people who would dictate your health care