Skeptic TV

Obni

Forgot the second part of Dawkins' program - aaaargh!

Some interesting stuff on next week.
1. Tuesday 24th 9pm BBC1/2 - New series investigating alternative medicine starts with an in-depth study of acupuncture

2. Thursday 26th 9pm BBC2 - Horizon: Creationism

Peanut

Obni wrote:

...
1. Tuesday 24th 9pm BBC1/2 - New series investigating alternative medicine starts with an in-depth study of acupuncture

Sounds interesting... here's a page about it
Alternative Medicine

Although I strongly suspect the views brought forth will be at odds with the majority of posters to this forum

Obni

The program outlines written in rather skilful diplomatic tones. With Kathy Sykes in charge I would have no fear of this turning into some sort of CAM roadshow. Quite the opposite.

Peanut

From the site-

"So although it's possible to show that homeopathy and acupuncture have effects on the body's cells we cannot show exactly the means by which this works when a person takes a homeopathic medicine, a TCM herbal medicine or has acupuncture."
http://www.open2.net/alternativemedicine/test2.html

I have no problem with the above but I have an idea others might!
Although it depends on whether you think they're talking about placebo effects etc. or not.
(edit: actually they're not, if you read the previous sentence on the site.)

pH

HEALTH: Alternative Medicine
Channel: BBC 2 Northern Ireland
Date: Tuesday 24th January 2006
Time: 21:00 to 22:00
Duration: 1 hour.
The Evidence.
Acupuncture. Series that looks at different types of alternative medicine. Kathy Sykes investigates the 2,000 year-old practice of acupuncture. In a Chinese hospital she sees doctors perform open heart surgery on a young woman using acupuncture instead of a general anaesthetic, and finds that acupuncture is often used alongside Western medicine and, at times, as a replacement. She meets scientists in the UK and in the US and discovers that acupuncture can have a powerful effect on chronic pain.
(Followed by BBC Newsline Update, Widescreen, Subtitles)

Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=81506
Copyright GipsyMedia Ltd.

Peanut

"Acupuncture works by deactivating the area of the brain governing pain, a TV show will claim."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4631930.stm

pH

Interestingly there seems to be a long history of China's claims for using acupuncture instead of a general anaesthetic, including some rebutals indicating that some famous cases may be plain fraud.

http://members.aol.com/garypos/Rosenfeld_sram.html

The quote from digiguide also says "open heart" surgery, which is unlikely because an open chest makes breathing almost impossible without positive-pressure ventilation. There are some claims that patients can be trained to use a special type of breathing using their diaphram while the chest is open, but I have no idea why you would bother!

robindch

Horizon on Creationism this evening:

BBC2 at 2100h

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings/programme.shtml?day=today&service_id=4224&filename=20060126/20060126_2100_4224_19494_50

Myksyk

I missed this. Was it any good?

robindch

Could have done better -- they let the very presentable Dembski and Behe prattle on for far too long, and didn't really give enough time to Dawkins or Attenborough. Miller was good, as was an interesting Jesuit chap from the Vatican observatory, but overall, while ID was presented fairly clearly, the program was rather equivocal and, specifically, didn't really mention very much of the rank dishonesty which is characteristic of the ID and creationist movements.

carl_

I just came across the program by accident. Was a bit worried when so much time was being spent on ID at the start... seemed like it was going to be a whole program devoted to it, even trying to make the whole thing seem convincing.

Eoghan-psych

Obni wrote:

The program outlines written in rather skilful diplomatic tones. With Kathy Sykes in charge I would have no fear of this turning into some sort of CAM roadshow. Quite the opposite.

There was an awful lot of wishy washy nonsense in the show - far too credulous, given the supposed premise.

It was blatantly obvious that the brief was not to rub people up - instead of meeting daft claims with the "that's just nonsense" they deserved, they got an overly diplomatic "hmmm".

Acupuncture does have an effect above placebo. I can readily accept that. Acupuncture does not work by moving magic rivers of nonexistent lifegoo round the body. This we can say with a high degree of certainty. It should have been made very clear during the show that the proffered explanations for acupuncture are nonsense, which simply didn't happen. It's like the "psychic idol" show on Five - designed to *sound* like a sceptical investigation, but on paper only.

pH

Acupuncture does have an effect above placebo.

Are you saying anything more than -

"Sticking a pin in a person has an effect above not sticking a pin in a person? "

Of course it has an effect! The human body has a great deal of circuitry for detecting and handling sharp objects stuck in it. Also we know that a lot of pain is 'in the mind', concentrating on pain and thinking about it all has an effect. Does it do anything meaningful above a placebo (Cure a disease or reduce pain) - Absolutely not!

Peanut

I find the above two posts very strange in the light of the end of the programme, where they seemed to be saying fairly confidently that superficial acupuncture did not have a pain-reducing effect, whereas "real" acupuncture (needles inserted 1cm according to them), did.

They also stated that test subjects were not generally found to have known the difference between the insertion of placebo acupuncture needles, and the real version, at least in a previous study on this. This was an important part of the narrative.

Also I don't think anywhere in the programme did they say that any effect was due to 'chi', in fact they were pretty careful not to state this.

In doing so they were being more scientifically correct than pre-judging any theories out of hand, IMHO.

pH

I find the above two posts very strange in the light of the end of the programme, where they seemed to be saying fairly confidently that superficial acupuncture did not have a pain-reducing effect, whereas "real" acupuncture (needles inserted 1cm according to them), did.

If by the 'the end of the programme' you mean the MRI study then:

This is not a valid study, AFAIK the results have not been published or peer reviewed and it seemed to have a sample size of 2.
Anyway based on it's finding what can you conclude? That sticking a needle in deeper causes different areas of the brain to respond than a shallow prick?

It was basically scientific rubbish.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7535/241

Peanut

Yep, that's why I said "they seemed to be saying", as opposed to "they had shown".

Of course any TV study like that is not going to be comprehensive (it works both ways though - the Horizon 'refutation' of Homeopathy was trash too).

However, as I understand it, a sceptical view of Acupunture was that it had no pain-reducing effect above placebo, so if it can be shown to have such an effect (on the basis of a number of trials) - then surely this would lend it some validation. (let's forget about the chi aspect, it doesn't seem necessary to involve this just to test the effects of the procedure itself).

pH

Of course any TV study like that is not going to be comprehensive (it works both ways though - the Horizon 'refutation' of Homeopathy was trash too).

I'm not sure if you understand how scientific research is done, but your use of 'refutation' is troublesome. A study is repeated, and in the case of the the horizon/ennis replication of the original Benveniste study it wasn't replicated. Nothing was refuted, they simply failed to replicate the results.

Replication of studies is important, as has been seen from the Utah Cold fusion experiments and also the recent Korean cloning studies. Mistakes (and sometimes outright fraud) can happen, and independent replication is a vital part of the confirmation process.

However, as I understand it, a sceptical view of Acupunture was that it had no pain-reducing effect above placebo, so if it can be shown to have such an effect (on the basis of a number of trials) - then surely this would lend it some validation. (let's forget about the chi aspect, it doesn't seem necessary to involve this just to test the effects of the procedure itself).

To continue your homeopathic analogy, isn't this "forget about the chi" like claiming that in homeopathy the dilution doesn't work, but the water still does you a little good.

Acupuncture is about chi and meridians. It is about curing disease as well as easing pain. A claim that sticking pins in a sore knee reduces pain has as much to do with acupuncture as a claim that drinking water is homeopathic because it 'hydrates'

Peanut

pH wrote:

I'm not sure if you understand how scientific research is done, but your use of 'refutation' is troublesome. A study is repeated, and in the case of the the horizon/ennis replication of the original Benveniste study it wasn't replicated. Nothing was refuted, they simply failed to replicate the results.

My point exactly. Note the quote marks around 'refutation'. Now search this forum for 'horizon'.

pH wrote:

To continue your homeopathic analogy, isn't this "forget about the chi" like claiming that in homeopathy the dilution doesn't work, but the water still does you a little good.

It's similar, however 'dilution doesn't work' implies a pre-supposition that the experiment will fail. 'forget about chi' implies that we are not concerned about a given theory that tries to explain it, all we need to do is test the methodology.

pH wrote:

Acupuncture is about chi and meridians.

Sure, that's the core of the theory, however we do not need to believe in any given theory in order to test the claims of the methodology.

A given theory may influence how you construct a study, but to rubbish the entire process out of hand just because you disagree with a particular interpretation of how it works, is not conducive to objective research.

starn

I missed both these shows, and the Dawkins show. Are they due to be repeated at all

pH

A given theory may influence how you construct a study, but to rubbish the entire process out of hand just because you disagree with a particular interpretation of how it works, is not conducive to objective research.

That's not the point. Acupuncture has a methodology and system which can be tested. Sticking pins in a sore knee is not part of acupuncture.

Sure it can be tested, and it may work but it has absolutely nothing to do with acupuncture. Maybe there's a new theory called stickaneedleinmeopathy, and it has needles in common with acupuncture but it is not acupuncture.

Peanut

Ok, but who is going to test stickaneedleinmeopathy ?
No-one, because it would have been subsumed by what is known as acupuncture. Probably in the past acupuncture was stickaneedle..

The point is that completely proving a 'theory' in physical science is very difficult, as you would know. Hence 'theory of gravity' etc. It is enough to say that, under these conditions x, we find that y occurs. To require an explanation of chi or meridians into the bargain is an overly strict requirement.

robindch

> The point is that completely proving a 'theory' in physical science
> is very difficult, as you would know.

As Karl Popper pointed out, you can't "prove" anything right with lots of positive examples. All you can do is prove it wrong, with a negative one.

In the documentary, as far as I could make out, the physicist Sykes was ultimately able to show that at least one neuroscientist thought that at least two patients had reduced levels of limbic activity when they had needles inserted into them and twisted. That was the limit of what I could see.

Perhaps there was more to it than Sykes was telling us, but the evidence that she presented was weak and subject to several kinds of well-known bias -- not obviously peer-reviewed, not obviously double-blinded, not obviously a large sample, not obviously randomized, not repeated, and certainly subject to publication bias.

If she expects to be taken seriously as a medical researcher, she should wiggle her very presentable eyebrows a bit less and study medical experimental protocol a bit more.

Peanut

robindch wrote:

As Karl Popper pointed out, you can't "prove" anything right with lots of positive examples. All you can do is prove it wrong, with a negative one.

Yep, the problem is, how do you create a null hypothesis for a 'chi' effect?
You can't easily do this due to the nebulous definitions, therefore you have to work with the 'sticking needles in people' aspect.

The risk I'm trying to point out is that of a skeptical observer bias - throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

robindch

> you have to work with the 'sticking needles in people' aspect.

Yes, that's absolutely right -- that's something which is physically testable at the needle and brain ends.

If it's shown to work (repeatably, unbiassedly, etc, etc), then we can start looking for an explanation as to *why* it works. There's no point in assuming the consequent (that 'chi' exists and is meaningful), before determining that the alleged antecedent is true. Or in more prosaic terms, it's only useful to look for the second floor of a building if we can work that it's got a first floor to start with.

pH

Yes, that's absolutely right -- that's something which is physically testable at the needle and brain ends.

If it's shown to work (repeatably, unbiassedly, etc, etc), then we can start looking for an explanation as to *why* it works.

I'm struggling with this so please help me here!

There are an infinite number of things that could be tested (even for pain) here's just a few examples that might affect pain:

- Watching a flashing light.
- chewing mint gum.
- Hitting the area with a paddle.
- Looking at cats.
- Painting the skin with gold paint.
- Humming
- Stinging the area with nettles.

... I could go on you know!

So can you explain why sticking needles into a painful area should/could be investigated while any of these others should not? As far as I know in the same way no-one is claiming that humming reduces pain, acupuncture doesn't make these claims either. The methodology behind acupuncture is clear from this diagram :



What about using the tongue to diagnose?

So why pick one small claim to do with pain relief with needles, which we all know is going to be very difficult to test, call that acupuncture (when it's not) and add credence to acupuncture? This is more about publicity than science.

So why should we even start down this path. Because skeptics throw the baby out with the bathwater? to be sure to be sure? Every idiotic claim needs to be investigated we can't throw anything out?

We cannot research everything, so why should the sticking needles in someone be researched above the possibility that slapping the back of the head with a herring can reduce pain?

robindch

> so why should the sticking needles in someone be researched above the
> possibility that slapping the back of the head with a herring can reduce pain?

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that it works, for example, that girl who seemed to have a heart operation without anaesthetic.* So why not check it out to see if there's anything behind it?

It's well-known that massaging reduces pain by stimulating, afair, the release of neuroinhibitors intended to inhibit acute pain, but which also block chronic pain (ie, rub a sore ankle vigorously to make it less sore). So, extending this, it seems to my untrained eyes that we *might* have a *possible* mechanism to explain the apparent pain-relief effects of some consequence of acupuncture too. Even if it doesn't need, or use, maps of the ear or reference to 'chi' or some other inexplicable and nebulous lifegoo.

(*) The russians have apparently done heart ops with the chest chilled with heaps of snow. That sounds like it's worth following up too...

Peanut

pH wrote:

So why pick one small claim to do with pain relief with needles, which we all know is going to be very difficult to test, call that acupuncture (when it's not) and add credence to acupuncture?

I don't think fear of mis-interpretation of results should be a factor in deciding whether to research something! In fact I'd be pretty much sure that it shouldn't

pH wrote:

We cannot research everything, so why should the sticking needles in someone be researched above the possibility that slapping the back of the head with a herring can reduce pain?

Because it's a widespread practice? That alone is enough to warrant research IMHO, whether you disagree with the specific practice or not. You may not agree that it's testing acupuncture itself, but it's a step along the way, and better than not testing at all.

Obni

I finally made time to sit and watch the acupunture episode last night.

In many skeptic articles and at many skeptic lectures, I have encountered the recurring theme of the difficulty of promoting a skeptic viewpoint without the usual appearance of the-skeptic-as-spoilsport. The program is very clearly aimed at a mainstream audience, and as a professor for the public understanding of science, I felt Kathy Sykes did an excellent job of presenting the show as an enthusiastic and open-minded scientist willing to accept any reasonable evidence of the efficacy of acupuncture, while also pointing out in a respectful manner where some peoples claims fail to be substantiated. Respect for other peoples beliefs is part and parcel of what is best in civilised societies, although the line between respect and being overly cautious for fear of political incorrectness is a tough line to follow. Sykes is not a tenacious terrier, seeking out dodgy claims and disembowelling their proponents; she's a very media friendly face of science.

Before the posts start flying in, I am not defending the program as a piece of scientific endeavour, I am discussing the program in the context in which it was presented, i.e. a primetime, mainstream attempt to look at the facts behind some widely accepted alternative treatments. Treating the alternative medicine movement in a harsh manner in this kind of program may have pleased most of the posters on this forum, and infuriated the crystal-waving community, (both good things in themselves), but would have had the people in the middle-ground switchiing off in droves. Taking someone's beliefs apart on Horizon is fair-game (although last weeks show was well below par), trying to do the same on the Afternoon show between the cookery and fashion slots would just produce sympathy for the poor sods.

My main criticism, is that I would like to have seen a more definitie summarising of the entire program. Some unusual brain activity was detected in the small group tested during a certain type of 'needling' for pain-relief, but the many other claims of acupuncture were largely dismissed with the placebo argument. The girl undergoing heart-surgery had also been sedated and had her chest numbed. While sticking a needle into your knee and twisting it may cause an unexpected reaction in brain chemistry, this does not in any way support the claim that manipulating Qi is the explanation.

Looking forward to tonight's episode.

pH

Anyone think part 2 (Faith/Spiritual Healing) was better, though her sudden discovery of the placebo *after* the acupuncture episode is a little hard to swallow!

Another review of both episodes ...

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#bbc2

Myksyk

Anyone a regular viewer of Judge John Deed? I watch it and like it, generally. The last two episodes however make me think that the writers are a tad conspiratorial in their outlook. Afew weeks ago we had the story of the TV masts and mobile phones and how they were causing all sorts of problems for people. Then we had a rubbish episode where a woman went to court to make sure her child was not vaccinated with MMR because of all the possible consequences of doing so (not just autism but a host of other neurological and developmental problems). The drug company of course were evil buggers backed up by government guys with vested interests who had killed a scientist who had produced some research which questioned their endeavours). The woman referred to research by a Dr. Westwake (anyone remember Dr. Wakefield?) who had so they said produced almost incontestable proof of the negative effects of the MMR vaccine.

Now all of this is entirely and transpaently fictional but I couldn't help but think that if I was Joe or Joan Public watching it that it might have some impact on how I perceive this debate in the real world. Any thoughts?

torinoblue

I would definitely agree with those points, though I have never seen the show.

Has anyone being watching the Patrick Stewart science show on ITV. Has it actually used real science or pseudoscience?

I have never seen it either.