Scat.

Because poos ain’t poos.

Sooner or later, every Facebook discussion turns to shit. Yesterday, my friend Jo, who is a nurse quite familiar with the workings of the bowel, practically dared me to write a pome about the brown stuff. I so seldom get the chance to take up a dare these days, so I thought I would re-invent The Bristol Stool Chart in rhyming ploplets. 

You know. 

For shits and giggles. 

One is separate rock-hard lumps, and very hard to pass.
Two’s a lumpy sausage shape, a strain upon one's arse.
Three is like a chocolate bar, but cracked (not hard or knobby).
Four is smooth and serpentine, an easy-going jobbie.
Five consists of clear-cut blobs that don’t require a push.
Six has fluffy edges, ill-defined and boggy mush.
Seven’s got no shape at all; a watery suspension.
If you’re not doing threes or fours, your tummy needs attention.

Illustration by Jo Thornely (a completely different Jo)

Predictions

Because hurt feelings can't stop an epidemic.

Let's have a little look at how science works. 

1. Scientists observe something happening, and form a hypothesis about why. 

2. Scientists test the hypothesis by trying to make the same thing happen under controlled conditions.

3. If the same thing happens again and again and again while testing the hypothesis, scientists can make predictions about it happening in the future. 

4. If the predictions come true, the scientists are happy and the world has a tasty new morsel of knowledge. 

Now, let's apply this to something real, like, say.... a vaccine. 

1. Scientists observe that, when a high enough proportion of a population is vaccinated against measles, the disease virtually disappears from that population. Maybe the measles vaccine helps prevent measles?

2. Scientists test the hypothesis by measuring the incidence of measles in populations with a high percentage of vaccinated people compared to populations with a low percentage of vaccinated people.

3. Again and again, scientists find that, in highly vaccinated populations, measles outbreaks are small and rare, and in populations with low measles vaccination, lots of people get measles. They predict that in the future, when the percentage of vaccinated people drops below a certain amount, measles outbreaks will occur.

4. Late last year, a person infected with measles visited Disneyland in California - an area with a reasonably high proportion of vaccine refusers - and infected other people with measles. Quite soon after that, lots of people got the measles. 

Something else scientists could have predicted: The usual suspects of vaccine denialism began bending all the available information about the Disneyland outbreak to fit their pre-conceived idea that unvaccinated people have nothing to do with outbreaks of disease, and that relating an outbreak of disease to unvaccinated people is UNCOOL and HURTS PEOPLE'S FEELINGS. 

I totally understand that the feelings of people who go to great lengths to deny the effectiveness of vaccines might be hurting. And I totally don't give a rat's arse. If loads and loads and loads of studies have found that measles outbreaks occur more often in unvaccinated populations, and you continue to deny that the current US measles outbreak has anything to do with unvaccinated people, there's not much I can do to help you. If you're cranky because science disagrees with you, tough. If you're out of sorts because diseases don't comply to your special view of the world, too bad. If the well-supported theory of herd immunity gives you a frowny face, cry me a frikkin' river. 

But cheer up a little bit, because I wrote you a pome.

You can’t bring a cat to a dog fight

To watch it get mauled

And then act all appalled

At the dogs disobeying your rules.

You can’t throw a fridge down a staircase

And protest when it breaks

Because gravity makes

No exceptions for self-absorbed fools.

You can’t stick your hand in a blender

Then demand some redress

For the blood-spattered mess

‘Cause you liked how it was at the start.

You can’t help your kids catch the measles

By refusing a vax

In the face of all facts

But deny that you played any part.

When scientists make a prediction

Like the tides of the seas

Or the spread of disease

They’ve seen it again and again.

But your pox-ridden family is special!

And although their afflictions

Comply with predictions

YOU’RE RIGHT, and you’re going to complain.

Needle vs Haystack

Because one in a million isn't always good.

You went searching for a schism in the study of autism,

‘Cause you’re certain vaccines cause it, and that needs to be explored.

And for every tract or lecture in support of your conjecture,

You found many more against, which you summarily ignored.

All the scientists conforming to the norm of global warming

Are, in your opinion, wrong, or at the very least misled;

Since an expert crunched some figures, showing human-centric triggers

Are a load of crap, so never mind what other experts said.

You’ve heard claims that every fossil ever found makes a colossal

Case for evolution here on Earth, including humankind.

But you noticed an omission in the record of transition

From bacterium to human, so you’re sure we’ve been designed.

You could search the world all over for a tiny four-leaf clover;

Or a hidden ukulele in a pile of violins;

For a prickle in a thicket, or a lucky golden ticket,

Or a silver needle buried in a haystack full of pins.

You’ll find papers reinforcing the position you’re endorsing,

So hooray for you, you clever sausage! Everybody cheer!

But the confirmation bias of statistical outliers

Doesn’t make the weight of evidence against you disappear.

Therapy.

Because psychology has woo, too.

On Day Two of the Australian Skeptics National Convention last weekend, clinical psychologist Dr Garry Bakker talked about a range of treatments - evidence-based and otherwise - for depression and other conditions. Like many other areas of health care, psychology is not immune to the creeping influx of woo therapies that ebbs and flows as years go by. 

I studied just enough psychology at university to know that there's a lot more to it than most people who still think Sigmund Freud is relevant would imagine. While psychology has, historically, struggled to convince other doctrines that it is a real science, it can be scientific. But any practitioners who entertain therapies with no empirical evidence of effectiveness to back them up may, if you'll pardon the expression, get the hell off my lawn. 

Here's a wee pome I wrote about such a practitioner. 

Thank you, dear client, for coming to me

To discuss your continuing anxiety.

In a session or two, for a reasonable fee

I’m quite sure we can lessen your stress.

We can try a whole range of creative techniques

Some are new; some date back to the Classical Greeks

But I’ve tried them before, and in just a few weeks

Several clients reported success.

Now, although my advice might sound silly or wrong,

And you can’t see the purpose of playing along,

Anecdotally, evidence seems fairly strong,

So bear with me. Right, here’s what you do:

First, be mindful and challenge those negative thoughts,

While you sew a small crystal of zircon or quartz

In the hem of your jeans or a nice pair of shorts

And reprogram your neurons anew.

Have the static removed from the length of your spine

Try to keep both your feng and your shui in line

Mix with those of a fixed astrological sign

Picture me in a large purple hat.

Slow your thinking and exercise breathing control

Notice birdsong and breeze when you go for a stroll

Put three crow feathers into a platinum bowl

Give your sub-sternal chakra a pat.

Utter positive mantras and visualise calm

Wear a dove on an amulet wrapped ‘round your arm

Smear the end of your nose with olfactory balm

Drink some soothing valerian tea.

Shut your stress in a box by your bed for the night

Bathe your body in nut milk and indigo light.

Toss a mind-juggling ball right-to-left, left-to-right

Stick a needle or two in your chi.

I’m aware it seems strange to use such an array

Of unusual techniques when it’s safer to stay

With a method that’s tested by experts, but hey -

There’s a theory behind such a mixture

‘Cause I’m not very good at this therapy game

All these theories and systems, to me, look the same

But if somehow your symptoms subside, I can claim

It was something I thought of that fixed ya.

A love letter.

Because I want it to know how I feel.

Oh science. My darling.

I don’t remember when we met
Or how
But you’re with me now.
Making sense of time and space
The human race
The turning Earth
The rocks and trees and shifting seas.
The beasts with fur and scales and wings
The minuscule things
Planets and moons and the stars that go with ‘em
My four-chambered heart and its galloping rhythm.
Life, the universe and everything.

No matter what I want or mean,
Or think I might have seen,
Without you it’s all just faith and guesses
And shrug-shouldered reckons.
With you the present progresses
And the future beckons.

By knowing only what can be seen, heard, felt and measured
My senses are pleasured.
You melt my will as though with drinks
You don’t care what the public thinks
Flirtatious minx.

You drew me in with your premises.
Promises
Of rocket boots and flying cars
A holiday resort on Mars
Robocops and time machines
And designer genes.

And now, like Skinner’s pigeons, I can’t get enough.
You set me abuzz like a Faraday cage.
You fill me with life like a Cambrian age.

This love is no miracle, it’s strictly empirical
Bypassing my heart and my soul for my mind,
It’s hot and cold and cruel and kind
And double-blind.

We haven’t had a perfect run:
The Piltdown Man was embarrassing
And that Manhattan Project thing.
Thalidomide was not much fun.
But you never meant to hurt anyone.

Oh science, I’m not like those others
Who love you just for a little while
And wear you like a shawl
Of substance . They might be tender
for a minute
but their heart’s not in it.
They take what they want then run a mile
When you don’t fit their agenda
Like some factoid-fetching booty-call.

You know the ones.
They love you when you make iPads work and aeroplanes fly
And babies live and mosquitoes die.
But when you tell them fossil fuels
Can mess with how the planet cools
And you want to build a wind farm in their town
Or bring the population down
Or modify the food they eat
They’re not so sweet.

They don’t know
That you’re the reason they don’t have polio.
You’re what fizzes their beers,
Changes their gears
And makes their toilets flow.

But me? I’m sticking around
‘Cause you’re the best way humankind has found
To know the truth.
You strip away the layers of doubt
Until all that’s left hanging out
Is what’s what.
And that’s hot.

Name the Virus

Because good science isn't free.

The news cares not for sciencing;

Just rorts and Miley Cyrus.

You want to get involved with smarts?
Go here and Name The Virus!

Florey Institute researcher and general good bloke Dave Hawkes has, along with his colleagues, launched a project called Name the Virus, which seeks to raise funds for research into Big Important Diseases and other conditions such as anxiety, depression, eating disorders, strokes and many more. 

Says Dave of his work: 

"In order to help us, and other researchers, investigate what causes these diseases/conditions we create special types of non-infectious, non-disease causing viruses called viral vectors. These viral vectors can enter cells and change the way they behave; such as making those cells more or less active, or producing more or less of a specific protein."

He's much better at explaining what he does on the Name the Virus page,  and also using the sound of his voice here. 

Why "Name the Virus"? Because if you're extremely nice and donate money to the project, you can have the chance to put your name (or any other name you think up which isn't likely to offend anyone) to one of the Very Important viral vector thingies that Dave and his team develops. You can donate any amount from a couple of bucks up to a massive wad of cash, and receive a reward commensurate with your generosity, from public recognition to a lab tour and a home-cooked meal (because for this purpose, the Florey Institute's tea-room qualifies as a 'home').

GO.

I shall name him Dave.

Yo, Chiro.

Because chiropractors are the shizzle, so they tell me.

Every so often, a critical light is shone on the pseudoscience that is chiropractic, in particular the kind of chiropractors who claim that their brand of back-cracking can treat a wide range of conditions not even remotely related to the spine - claims for which there is no reliable scientific evidence.

The ABC's Catalyst program gave it a red hot go last Thursday night - you can watch it here for some rational and not-so-rational insight from both sides of the equation. It's worth it for spinal specialist Mr John Cunningham's epic face-palm alone.

My contribution, naturally, is to imagine what a chiropractor might say, if a chiropractor was also a rapper. Because it's high time chiropractors-who-are-also-rappers got a shout out on my diggety-dope blog thang.

Good morning, Ms O’Brien

I hear yo babby cryin’

You say she ain’t been sleepin’?

Her ear is sore and weepin’?

Don’t need no vaccination

It’s just a subluxation.

I gotta trick

Imma go CLICK

Imma go CLICK with my magic stick.

Lie down please, Mrs Proctor

You say you saw yo doctor

And gots a diagnosis

Of Endometriosis

Well put that quack behin’ ya

‘Coz I can realign ya.

I gotta knack

Imma go CRACK

Imma go CRACK on your healthy back.

I gots my awesome knowledge

When I went to a college

And studied for my final.

I learned all things are spinal,

And some joints are asthmatic,

And sickness is just static.

I gots degrees

Imma charge FEES

Imma charge FEES like da real GPs

So if you’re feelin' funny

Then gimme all your money.

Come see me every ten days

I’ll send you for some X-rays

Entrust your health to me, bro,

It works just like placebo!

You gots da ills?

Imma send BILLS

Imma send BILLS for my badass skillz.

Unscience

Because I learned a new word.

Today, thanks to the learned and most entertaining Patrick Stokes, I learned the word "Unscience". This is for you, Patrick. Thank you.

Stand up on a stage and shout,
Throw established science out,
Drama’s what it’s all about,
And rigid-lipped defiance.
Speak incessantly and fast,
Hoist your derp flag up the mast,
Claim your source is unsurpassed,
That’s how you do Unscience!

Do away with common sense,
Use whale.to in your defence,
Make sure you’ve an audience,
To see you do your thing.
Move your goalposts day to day,
Scoff at what real experts say,
Get some slides with graphs on. Yay!
Now you’re Unsciencing!

How You Know You're Not Doing Science

Because there's a right way and a wrong way.

Your opinions are eternal,

You call Nexus mag a “journal”,

All your papers have inadequate citation;

All your reasoning’s fallacious,

And your error margin’s spacious

You extrapolate a cause from correlation.

When the tests that you’ve completed

Come out different when repeated;

By researchers from another institution;

When your confirmation bias

And statistical outliers

Make you think you’re on the edge of revolution.

When you claim your measly sample

Of apologists is ample

To substantiate your derelict conjecture;

When you think, with pompous speeches,

You can obfuscate the breaches

In your study’s fundamental architecture.

You use paid search engine rating

And theatrical debating

To create a sound and ethical illusion;

Something suss is underlying;

Many big red flags are flying;

Your research is subsequent to your conclusion.

Skepticamp Sydney 2012

Because I haven't cacked my dacks yet this year.

Regular readers of this blog (Hi family members and Christian singles!) may recall my New Year's Resolution for 2012. I wanted to do something that really scared me, and I decided that getting up in front of an audience and trying to be funny into a microphone would achieve that goal nicely. 

But it was not to be. I chose Raw Comedy for my forum, which happens to be one of the most publicised, and therefore populated, open-mic competitions in the country. I was put on a waiting list for a heat, and there I sat until the waiting list petered out into nothing. 

But a deliciously superior alternative has presented itself in the form of Skepticamp Sydney 2012.

"What is Skepticamp?" you may ask, unless you're one of Australia's intellectual elite. And it is, according to the online home of Skepticamp:

"...an informal, community-organized conference borne from the desire for people to share and learn in an open environment. Everyone from casual skeptics to the experienced participate, give talks and get to know each other."

In other words, a big, cosy, critically-thought-out group cuddle. Nice. And it's all un-organised by some amazing people like Jason Brown, @tinydalek, Dave the Happy Singer* and a host of others that I plan to wrap my arms around in a non-creepy way** on the day. 

And yes, I plan to speak. If I can haul my tired bottom from the Central Coast to Sydney in time to pop my name on the speakers' list, I will step up to the mike and deliver a short speculative piece entitled 'A Day in the Life of a Scrupulous Woo Pedlar'. 

And yes, it rhymes. It's what I have instead of a science qualification. 

Now here's a revolutionary idea: WHY NOT COME ALONG? It's this Saturday 26th May at 10am at the University of Technology on Broadway in Sydney. Go here for free tickets and more words. 

Here are some statements in support of my revolutionary idea:

It's free. It's fun. It has very nice very smart people at it. You'll learn something. THERE ARE CUPCAKES. There is lunch. It is not dangerous. It will give you some exciting ideas. There are (probably) no zombies going. There will be drinks afterwards. If you've ever been to a sciencey skeptically conferencey thingy before, you'll enjoy it. If you've never been to a sciencey skeptically conferencey thingy before, you'll enjoy it. Because I said so. Because you can do a talk if you want. Because you have nothing better to do. 

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to bounce up and down with anticipation. 

*dot com

**unless otherwise requested

Homeopathy plus what?

Because dodgy, without evidence to the contrary, is dodgy.

There’s a business in my neck of the woods called Homeopathy Plus! run by Fran Sheffield, a long-time devotee and sometime spokesperson for homeopathy, or as I like to think of it, the centuries-old art of flogging questionable remedies for nebulous and subjective concerns.


Homeopathy Plus! was found in breach of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code in 2011 for claims made on its website about the effectiveness of so-called ‘homeoprophylaxis’ as an alternative to proper, tested, scientifically plausible vaccines. The TGA ordered Homeopathy Plus! to publish a retraction on their website, which the company promptly ignored before continuing to sell vibrated water as an impossible remedy for deadly diseases.

This situation, to me, epitomises the of attitude of so many complementary and alternative practitioners - that what they do and sell is far more important that whatever “science” has “proven”; or what the TGA considers "unlawful"; or what the ACCC considers “misleading”; or what the Advertising Standards Board considers "deceptive".

Now I have a particular question for Homeopathy Plus! regarding their business name.  I need to ask, plus what? Homeopathy is nothing more than plain water that’s been through a complex process of imaginary magicking and potentisation and behaves precisely the way any other, less expensive placebo behaves. In essence, Homeopathy is nothing. Presumably, Homeopathy Plus! sells more than nothing, or else they’d simply be charlatans and rip-off merchants. I suspect that the clue lies in the “Plus!” part of the moniker. So I’m really curious – what does Homeopathy Plus! sell besides nothing?

Plus what? Pray tell Ms Sheffield,

Homeopathy plus what?

Homeopathy plus everything that medicine is not?

Homeopathy plus praying?

Homeopathy plus lies?

Plus a principle to which no law of chemistry applies?

Homeopathy plus water?

Homeopathy plus air?

Homeopathy plus molecules of stuff that isn’t there?

Homeopathy plus smiling?

Plus a nice pat on the head?

Plus rejecting proper science ‘til your patient’s nearly dead?

Homeopathy plus sugar?

Homeopathy plus fraud?

Homeopathy plus bottles whacked against a leathered board?

Surely “Plus” applies to something

In your little online shop.

Otherwise you’re simply dodgy, and it’s time for you to stop.

The Pseudo-Scientist's Song

Oh, I am a pseudo-scientist and this is what I do:

I use big words and awesome-sounding claims to peddle woo;

I tout expired canards and convince you that they’re new;

And when I’m asked for evidence I sue, sue, sue.

I haven’t got a recognised or relevant degree;

I’ve got a snazzy website though, with photographs of me.

I always wear a stethoscope when I go on TV;

I don’t know how it works, but it lends authenticity.

Oh, I am a pseudo-scientist and this is what I do:

My studies always prove that my hypothesis is true;

I scoff at reasoned counter-claims and other points of view;

And when my method’s scrutinised I sue, sue, sue.

I kidnap terms from science but I don’t know what they mean;

I’m like an automatic multi-syllable machine;

My quantum-laden wellness-centric piffle fills your screen;

It’s slightly less coherent than a torpid Charlie Sheen

Oh, I am a pseudo-scientist and this is what I do:

I mess with graphs until they show a predetermined skew;

I ask some friends for favours and I call it ‘peer review’;

And if a journalist finds out I sue, sue, sue.

Denial

Because science.

“Oh no! The fridge!” she shouted, then more quietly she swore.

She was moving all her furniture down from the second floor.

Now the stairs were rather narrow; gravity a nagging pest,

So she thought that pushing items out her window would be best.

She could surely have avoided damaging her large appliance

If she’d only paid attention to the basic laws of science.

The Back-Crackin' Blues

As the highly capable and consistently awesome Dr Rachie has documented recently, there's been some trouble brewing in Australian chiropractic circles. For a long time, a significant slab of chiropractors have claimed to successfully treat all manner of disease and dysfunction, based on the scientifically-suspect notion of vertebral subluxation, originally proposed by "magnetic healer" Daniel David Palmer in the late 19th Century. Whenever such claims come under close scrutiny, it causes something of a hand-flapping flurry amongst the chiropractic community. Today I've attempted to capture the essence of their discomfort.

Woke up this morning

Was feelin’ fine

Thought I’d go stick my elbow

In a two-year-old’s spine.

I got the blues.

Got them back-crackin’ blues. 

D.D. Palmer’s my hero;

Chiropractic’s own king;

Claimed that subluxation,

Causes every damn thing.

I got the blues.

Got them quack-backin’, back crackin’ blues. 

When my claims about chiro;

For diseases and such;

Have been tested with science;

They don’t mean nothin’ much.

I got the blues.

Got them fact-lackin’, quack-backin’, back-crackin’ blues. 

I think most vaccinations;

Are as evil as hell.

‘Course that’s just my opinion;

And my colleagues’ as well.

I got the blues.

Got them vax-whackin’, fact-lackin’, quack-backin’, back-crackin’ blues.

Doctor What?

Because sometimes they is, and sometimes they ain't.

There are Doctors of Philosophy, who’ve earned their PhDs;
There are those who work in medicine, with medical degrees;
There are those who treat bad teeth, bent minds and lame, asthmatic horses;
There are those who filled in forms online for correspondence courses.

There is Doctor Nancy Malik and there’s Doctor Nimrod Weiner;
Then there’s Doctor Charlene Werner with her jovial demeanour;
There is Doctor Vicki Monroe, who can talk to wayward spirits;
And there’s Doctor Sherri Tenpenny, from whom I get the irrits.

Doctor Who, at least, has got a solid grasp of basic science;
And Doctor Faust was smart, despite his sinister alliance;
There was method to the evil plots of Doctor Fu Manchu;
And the bumbling but well-meaning Doctor Bunsen Honeydew.

Doctor Jekyll was quite clever, though his Mr Hyde was shocking;
And that Doctor Frank-N-Furter wore a fetching fishnet stocking;
Doctor Zaius had a brilliant mind AND thumbs upon his feet;
And few ills could not be soothed by Doc-Doc-Doc-Doc-Doctor Beat.

Doctor Feelgood made Aretha wail in special lady ways;
Doctor Dolittle could talk with hawks and chat with cats for days;
Doctor Strangelove could control a bomb, but not his maverick arm;
Doctor Evil was a modern Doctor No, without the charm.

With so many so-called doctors, maybe something needs explaining;
Which are worthwhile? Which are evil? Which are merely entertaining?
Any fool can pop some letters on the edges of their name;
So be wary of the difference: quacks and surgeons ain’t the same.

Now, a rose by any other name is still a lovely sight;
And if you call a spade a spade when it’s a shovel, that’s not right;
Elton John is just plain ‘Reginald’ when all is said and done;
And if you call yourself a Doctor, then that doesn’t make you one.


Hat tips: Bastard Sheep, Reasonable Hank and Carol C.

SensaSlim. Smells like chicken.

Because backing up claims of efficacy is such a hassle.

I'm going to pull an oldie out of the vault, because some companies who make extraordinary claims about their products would rather sue someone for criticising them than produce evidence.

What am I talking about? This: Ken Harvey taken to court; on the Australian Skeptics website.

Now, not every company who takes a critic to court is shonky. But on the  'How to Tell if a Product Manufacturer is Shonky' checklist in my head, this appears at the top in bold letters:
Does the manufacturer of the product make claims of amazing results, without any science to back it up?
and:
If you dare to suggest that the manufacturer produce evidence of the product's results, do they go running to court?

It kinda sorta looks like SensaSlim gets a big tick next to both those items. So...

When medical scientists test a new drug
Just how do they have it appraised?
A Clinical Trial is performed to debug
Any problems or side-effects raised.

Phase I involves just a small sample, and that’s
To determine its safety and dose
And to see if what worked well in rabbits and rats
Works in people, or even comes close.

Phase II looks more closely at safety and such
And effectiveness measured all ‘round.
More subjects are used in Phase II, as that’s much
More complete and statistically sound.

Phase III is quite thorough, as one drug’s compared
To others in mass circulation
Much data’s collected and test results shared
To prepare for its use by a nation.

Phase IV kicks in once widespread use is effected
And long-term impact is assessed.
So if anything pops up that wasn’t expected
Those problems can then be addressed.

There’s only one phase in a quack’s evil plot
They claim that their magic’s good for ya,
And if anyone else dares to claim that it’s not
They get huffy and call in a lawyer.

I am Skeptical

Because I can't help it.

I want to believe you; I honestly do.
I want to believe you’ve a cure for the ‘flu
And that just a few drops of your vivid green goo
On my tongue will convince me, at last, that it’s true.

But alas, though I risk sounding antipathetical
Claims, until tested, are just hypothetical.
Show me some proof. Until then:
I am skeptical.


I want to believe that you’re psychic; you bet!
I want to believe that you know how to get
Prior knowledge of things that have not occurred yet;
And can channel dead aunts I don’t want to forget.

But although your delivery’s truly protreptical,
And what you say sounds profound and prophetical,
It’s quite inaccurate. So:
I am skeptical.


I want to believe in your almighty guy;
I want to believe that, the day that I die;
I’ll be whisked off to heaven and live in the sky;
In a place so enchanted it makes people cry.

But astronomy’s findings, through means arithmetical;
Make those ideas and the truth antithetical,
While I’m alive, I admit:
I am skeptical.


I want to believe in all manner of stuff;
I want easy ways to make living less tough;
But a vague testimony just isn’t enough;
If it all sounds too good to be true, I call bluff.

Though my trite explanation’s somewhat catachrestical,
(Oft punctuated with thoughts parenthetical);
Nevertheless, it remains:
I am skeptical.

Two Worlds (The Ten23 Poem)

Because of codswallop.

Next month, I'm going to attempt homeopathic suicide as part of the Ten23 campaign in Sydney. So just in case it works, I thought I'd leave a few words behind to commemorate the occasion. I'll be quite disappointed if it works, though. I've always wanted to see pigs fly.

Oh, the physical world is a wonderful place,
Which no sensible person ignores,
Where the wonders of nature and humans and space
Are translated through physical laws.

Where, for centuries, people have figured things through,
By applying the methods of science
And when older discoveries make way for new,
We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

We’ve progressed from bloodletting to chloroform masks
To the treatment of multiple cancers,
And through testing and trialling, most questions one asks
About health and disease now have answers.

It’s a world in which water, when put in a beaker
Of other stuff, makes it dilute,
And the other stuff consequently becomes weaker:
That’s reasonably hard to refute.

In this world, if you’re after a stronger solution,
It’s not really much of a chore.
Make the level of solvent involved Lilliputian;
By making the solute much more.

Now this water I speak of is H2 and O
That’s all that you need to get wet.
And if water can feel or remember or know,
Then nobody has proven it yet.


But there is another, less rational world,
Of conjecture and magical tricks,
Which a young Samuel Hahnemann boldly unfurled
In the year seventeen ninety-six.

On a whim, he decided that ‘like must cure like’
Because something he took for malaria,
Made him woozy and sick, and his temperature spike
(Though he did no research in this area).

In this world, homeopathy came and it stayed,
For two centuries it’s been between us.
In that time, the perceptible progress it’s made
Is akin to a honey bee’s penis.

In this upside-down world, taking poison’s okay,
As long as it’s made a bit wetter,
And diluted so much that it’s all gone away,
Because when it’s not there, it works better.

But this remedy can be made stronger, of course:
Wrap a plank in an old leather jacket,
And to unlock the remedy’s energy force
You just shake it around and you whack it.

Now this water forgets all the salt of the shore,
And the fluoride and sewage and bubbles,
And the sponges and pipes that it’s been through before,
But remembers to fix all your troubles.

 

Important.

No jokes today. Just a bunch of jokers.

Ok, I know I've been blogging a lot about vaccination in a Very Serious Way lately, but I honestly haven't had a lot of time to do anything on this here page except pass on stuff from others. And now I'm about to do it again.

This pdf file is an open letter to parents about the big fat fibs told by the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), which, despite its important-sounding name, doesn't do anything helpful. Instead they try to convince people that childhood vaccines are more risky than beneficial. And that's not true. The Australian Skeptics have published this letter in order to have it freely distributed about the country, no doubt in an effort to destroy what little persuasive power and credibility the AVN has left.

Please print it, post it, paste it and do whatever you like with it. Unless you disagree with it, in which case, please do some more research.

Thanks, Australian Skeptics.

View from a high horse - embryonic stem cell research.

Putting leftovers to good use.
I'm one of those ultra-cool, happening young things who watches Foreign Correspondent on the ABC. This week's instalment featured a story on the good old embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) debate. The Foreign Correspondent folks did a pretty good job, displaying two views: one from a family with two diabetic children, who supported ESCR for its potential to cure, or at least prevent future cases of, Type 1 Diabetes; and the other from a family of two 'snowflake children', that is, children created from frozen embryos, who opposed ESCR.

I am loudly, unashamedly in favour of ESCR. I also like a good whine of an evening, so let me take issue with three of the 'snowflake' family's arguments against ESCR...

1. ESCR is "taking a life to save a life".
This argument implies that the embryos used for stem-cell research would otherwise be made into children, therefore making an otherwise barren and desperate family extremely happy indeed. Which is, of course, bollocks. Stem cells are taken from frozen embryos that have been knowingly donated by their creators, and would otherwise be chucked in the bin. Sure, they have the potential for life if they are thawed and implanted, but they're not, and they're never going to be. On the other hand, they may hold the key for saving hundreds or thousands of lives.
Of course, many people do believe that a bunch of fifty cells in a test-tube is a living human being. Obviously I am not one of those people.

2. Messing with embryos for research is "playing God".
How can the parents of 'snowflake' children make this argument with a straight face? The couple in this story argued that ESCR and cloning constitute "playing God", and that people should accept themselves and their kids the way God made them. If this couple followed their own advice, they wouldn't have any kids. Surely creating children from embryos frozen in a laboratory is messing with what the Big Fella intended?

3. Research that involves the destruction of embryos is baaaad.
How do these people think in vitro fertilisation was developed? Through a few pencil sketches and committee meetings? The research involved animal and human trials and (cue dramatic baddie music) the destruction or 'death' of embryos. But researchers rightly believed that it was worth risking some blastocysts and embryos for a method that has provided many thousands of childless couples with a chance of conceiving a healthy kid. Sounds like a bloody good reason to me.

Right. I'll pack up my soap-box now.

PS. I found a bunch of info at http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm#StemCells.