Business:
1) Second chance at excellence is due as a hard copy in class on Monday. Please include your name and NSHE.
Powerband/Applied Kinesiology and Testing
Pseudoscience, Spotting it, and How to Avoid Falling for It
James Randy and psychic surgery
Explaining Why Many People Don't Believe Belief the Scientific Consensus
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=UP_WBA_20140707&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=2
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/upshot/vaccine-opponents-can-be-immune-to-education.html?action=click&contentCollection=The+Upshot&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article&_r=0
Self-Deception and Testing
John Oliver on Science
Self-Deception in clinical trials
Therapeutic Touch, Non-Falsifiability, and Motivated Reasoning
Dousing and the Ideomotor Effect
California Farmers
Rom Houben
Ideomotor effect bomb detectors and liver disease detectors.
Nocebo and Placebo
EMF Sensitivity and nocebo:
a) Powerlines and causal explanations
b) Cell phone towers and wireless internet
Gluten and Nocebo
Self-Deception and Clinical Trials
Placebo Effect: A placebo is an inert substance that creates either a positive response or a negative response in a patient who takes it. The phenomenon in which a placebo creates a positive response in the patient to which it is administered is called the placebo effect.
“We found little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects. Although placebos had no significant effects on objective or binary outcomes, they had possible small benefits in studies with continuous subjective outcomes and for the treatment of pain. Outside the setting of clinical trials, there is no justification for the use of placebos.”
[IS THE PLACEBO POWERLESS? An randomized of Clinical Trials Comparing Placebo with No Treatment N Engl J Med, Vol. 344, No. 21 • May 24, 2001]
Nocebo Effect: In medicine, a nocebo (Latin for "I shall harm") is a harmless substance that creates harmful effects in a patient who takes it. The nocebo effect is the negative reaction experienced by a patient who receives a nocebo. (Wikipedia)
What should we do about placebo and nocebo in constructing trials?
Memory and Confirmation Bias: https://aeon.co/ideas/bad-thoughts-can-t-make-you-sick-that-s-just-magical-thinking
Fluoridation Studies/Article
Looking for citations: natural news positive thoughts and healing
Pareidolia
Pareidolia on Mars
Images
Bad Scientific Studies and Ideological "Science"
Case Study: Vaccines Didn't Save Us
"The mythology surrounding vaccines is still pervasive, the majority of the population still believes, in faith like fashion, that vaccines are the first line of defense against disease. The true story is that nutrition and psychological/emotional health are the first line of defense against disease."
Graphs of death rates""Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available - the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water."
CDC Graph
Hypothesis Testing for Vaccines vs Hygiene/Nutrition
Pre and Post Vaccine Mortality and Morbidity
Surveillance bias
paralysis in India
Autism Rates
How To Be A Scientific Skeptic
Natural News on Milk Thistle
Bad studies:
Green coffee bean extract
Faith And Healing: As reported
The study abstract
Subway Bread:
http://www.alternet.org/food/500-other-foods-besides-subway-sandwich-bread-containing-yoga-mat-chemical
Dosage-Response
Quantity Matters: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/
Ban Water! It kills!
Single Study Syndrome
http://scienceornot.net/2012/10/23/single-study-syndrome-clutching-at-convenient-confirmation/
Red Flags of PseudoScience
http://scienceornot.net/science-red-flags/
Example of applying the concepts
X Cures Cancer but the Gubmint is Hiding it!!!11!!
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/07/04/if-cannabis-and-vitamin-b17-kill-cancer-why-arent-they-approved-by-the-fda-let-me-explain/
Key Concepts:
Elements of a Good Clinical Trial:
1) Control Group: What success rate would we expect with chance? Unless you compare a treatment/intervention to chance/natural recovery rates there's know way to measure a treatment's efficacy.
2) Double blinding: You must prevent both researcher and subject bias. Double blind is the best way to do this.
3) A 3rd treatment Group: With some interventions we know that just about any intervention will be better than no intervention (e.g., suicidal behavior) so rather that having only no treatment vs treatment you need to measure new treatments vs the current standard of care/drug.
4) Objective outcome measures: Subjective measures are often the product of psychological effects and therefore highly susceptible to cognitive bias. It doesn't mean they are irrelevant--how people feel is an important component of health, however, someone's perception of attenuation of symptoms and whether the underlying cause is being treated are two different matters. For this reason it's important to have objective measures of efficacy (effect on tumor size, rate of viral or bacterial reproduction, effect on size of wound, etc...)
5) Random sample: The sample of subject should be randomly selected. Avoid self-selection (particularly common in weight-loss trials).
6) Placebo control: The control group should be given a placebo that appears indistinguishable from the actual drug/intervention/treatment.
Some Things to Look for when Evaluating a Study
1) Effect size: If the effect size is small, it's probably due to some kind of methodological bias in the study.
2) Duration of effect: An intervention might have only a short-term effect but claim to have a long-term effect. This type of problem is typical in weight-loss trials. Often interventions/treatments that only show a short-term effect are placebo.
3) Type of study: Was it a pilot study? A proof of concept study? An in vitro study? Animal study? Phase 1 clinical trial? Phase 2 clinical trial? Retrospective study? Longitudinal study? FDA trial? The lower the level the study is, the greater the chance of positive effects but this doesn't usually translate into efficacy at the human level under controlled conditions. The more rigorous and well-controlled the study (i.e., FDA study) the more likely there is to be a smaller effect.
4) Funding: Be aware of the relationship between funding source, the research institution, and who gains from positive findings. A vested interest doesn't mean the results are in valid but only that we should be extra skeptical.
5) Reporting: How are the results being reported in the media vs what does that actual abstract say?
6) Context: A single study carries very little weight and so single studies should be evaluated in the context of other similar studies. For example, if a study shows a positive result but 90% of other similar studies show no positive results, we should dismiss the one positive study (assuming it is of equal rigor).
7) Meta-analyses: Meta analysis are studies that combine all other similar studies on a topic to evaluate the overall trend. The rule of thumb for evaluating meta-analysis is "garbage in--garbage out". In other words, if most of the studies included in the meta-analysis are of poor quality then this will be reflected in the conclusion of the meta-analysis. When evaluating meta-analysis always read the section on inclusion criteria. This will tell you what the quality benchmark was for them to consider a study in the meta-analysis.
8) Replication: Has the study been replicated using either the same methods or (even better) have the results been replicated using a different method? If the answer is "no" then the results should not be viewed as definitive.
9) Impact Number of the Journal: One major problem that has arisen with the internet is that anyone with a computer and a few web design skills can start an "academic journal." There are a significant number (and growing) of online journals that *look* like legitimate peer-reviewed journals but aren't. They are ideological platforms. If you find a journal article that seems suspicious you should (a) look up the name of the journal in wikipedia to check its origins and (b) google the name of the journal plus "impact number". A journal's impact number is it's credibility rating.
1) Ideomotor effect: The ideomotor effect has to do with the influence that suggestion has on involuntary or subconscious actions. In motor behavior, there are two parts to the brain activity. The first is the activity that results in the motor activity; the second is the registration of that activity in the conscious mind. The ideomotor effect happens when the second part, the conscious registration, is circumvented. RationalWiki
2) Post-hoc (after-the-fact) rationalization: People's typically tendancy to rationalize a belief in the face contravening evidence.
3) Placebo: A placebo is an inert substance that creates either a positive response or a negative response in a patient who takes it. The phenomenon in which a placebo creates a positive response in the patient to which it is administered is called the placebo effect.
4) Nocebo: In medicine, a nocebo (Latin for "I shall harm") is a harmless substance that creates harmful effects in a patient who takes it. The nocebo effect is the negative reaction experienced by a patient who receives a nocebo. (Wikipedia)
Signs of Bad Science
Homework 13B
1. Pick one supplement/herbal remedy/alternative medicine treatment that you or one of your family members uses or one that you are curious about. Find a website or article that promotes that treatment and read what their supporting evidence is. Then go to quackwatch.com and/or http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ and search for the treatment. (If your supplement/treatment doesn't come up on one of those sites go to google and type in the name and the work "debunked"). Read the article: what does their interpretation of the evidence suggest? In light of the concepts we've learned today and throughout the class, write a short 1/2 page summary of your findings. Note: try not to focus too much on the issue of biases: focus on comparing the quality of evidence and arguments.
2. How to Make a Fad Diet. Make your own fad diet by following this handy-dandy guide
No comments:
Post a Comment