OLYMPICS MEDALS TABLE OF QUACKERY

MEDALS TABLE OF QUACKERY

GOLD crystal therapy (least credible)

SILVER Reiki

BRONZE homeopathy

4th Naturopathy

5th Harry Potter Healing Spells

6th Cupping

7th Acupuncture

8th Leaches

9th Various Herbs (most credible)

 

Posted with Blogsy

The Emperor's New Dress: #thatDress: A Case of Crowd syndrome?

The Emperor’s New Dress

If I were a clever writer, sadly I know I am not, I would write a parody blog providing scientific neurosciency explanation for why the King’s New Clothes do actually exist and simply cannot be seen by some people, but can be seen by others.  The kind of twine that is used is of a sufficient luminosity that some people simply fail to see it and despite the fact that he is really properly clothed, to some people he appears butt naked.  But Emperor's New Clothes is a very old phenomenon and that is exactly what has happened here.  I would have been the little boy that cried out from the crowd.. “but he’s naked!!”… and, I daresay, would have been dragged off and beheaded.  Hopefully those days are over, because here is my piece on #theDress #DressMeme.

Yes OK, I confess, I’m afraid this is yet another blog about the dress. I find whole phenomenon fascinating.  It is hardly surprising that someone who teaches the neuroscience of the eye, the visual cortex, rods, cones and opsins etcetera finds this phenomena interesting. However maybe you will be surprised at my perspective on the whole dress meme thing.

So let’s start with a summary of the facts (I think this is how Clouseau would begin in the Pink Panther movies?):  There is a dress apparently made by Roman that is black and royal blue. But a photograph of this dress has appeared where the colours are distorted and it looks gold and white or gold and pale blue.  Some people looking at the golden pale blue dress photo say that they see a black and royal blue dress. …and the internet has gone wild.  Scary.

There is also some confusion.  The question is not what colour is the dress, we know that in the high street store it is blue and black and it has just shifted colour to produce a funny coloured photo.  The squabble is that some people say that this specific picture looks blue and black.  There is no mystery about how digital photos of objects look different to the original, colour balance, colour temperature, exposure all explain that merrily.  The question is why some people say the gold looks black in this specific photo.

In response to this one scientist after another has trundled in to talk about perception differences between people, about the science of rods, cones, opsin proteins, wavelengths of light, processing in the visual cortex etc. but none of these “scientific” explanations explain the phenomenon.

My line is that the whole thing is nonsense.  It is probably a case of the “King’s New Clothes”.  There are a number of possible explanations from hoax to hysteria, otherwise known as “crowd syndrome”. If it is a hoax then how many how come so many people are a part of it? Well they aren’t really. My explanations are of hysteria, gullibility, or possibility sense of humour coupled to an innate sense of mischievousness in humans.  My only amazement is how few people can see the obvious flaws in the logic of the so-called scientific or visual perception anomaly theories.

Now why am I so confident that this is not a phenomenal about rods and cones and differences of perception? Because you can analyse the picture in heavy-duty imaging software and just get a simple answer on the RGB (Red, Green, Blue) levels of each portion of the picture. It’s true to say that when I see purple what registers in my brain maybe quite different from what you see when you see purple, but the problem here is that on a computer screen the world is less ambiguous.  “Black” in a digital photo means something quite specific.  It means that the RGB levels are either 0,0,0 or just close to this. For info, a typical digital photo consists of an array of pixels each with an RGB colour mix and each R, G and B value has to be a number between 0 and 255.  If they are all 255 that is pure white (255,255,255) and if we have black we have (0,0,0).  Of course (1,1,1) looks black and it gets less black as you move further away from (0,0,0). So there are a number of points around the RGB envelope that look black.  For example, below I have shown two very dark swatches. To me 40,40,40 looks pretty black. However, here’s the rub; we can analyse the gold in the photo and what do we get?

The figure shows the photo in question: and alongside it a swatch (A) coloured in the same colour OBJECTIVELY measured from the square using ImageJ software (NIH).  B and C are just examples of darker fills.  Below are three panels with the red, green and blue components separated, again in ImageJ, and the levels histograms from these presented below each.  For the record, the "blue/white" part is (126, 137,178).  There is no black guys.

So perhaps some people see 133,099,060 as black (“A” in the figure)?  …and always have… OK that’s possible, but that would mean they always would have done.  But millions of people have been viewing millions of gold dresses for years and how come no one spotted that gold looks black to some people before? It’s implausible. …and if it is true, well they are just colour blind in someway not observed previously.

Frequently optical illusions do occur, for example, running one colour, alongside another colour can give create an illusion that the second colour is different to its true colour. But you can “work it out” using objective analysis software (ImageJ et al.) as described above. Example: In theory… the red squares on the left look darker than those on the right? 

But are they? Simply analyse them in ImageJ:



Left:

Right

Histogram analysis shows that the mean colour intensity is 180 in both cases.  They really are identical. 

So since the digital photo clearly has no black in it what are the other explanations:

1. Confusion. People have seen that the original dress is really black and they are making the classical exam mistake of NOT answering the question. The question is not “what colour is the dress?”, the question is “what colour does the dress appear in this particular digital photo?”.
2. Crowd syndrome.  People are going with the flow.  Some people will be prepared to say what they think they should say, what they think the crowd expects them to say, to an extraordinary degree.  If we have an interview situation about this dress, with the interviewer asking what colour the guests see, s/he will be embarrassed if no one says black.  So some people will inevitably just have to throw a life line by saying it looks black to them, even though it doesn’t.
3. Sense of humour.  Well we are all having fun aren’t we, and that will require some people to perpetuate the myth by saying that the gold parts of the photo appear black to them.  Or the fun would stop.

…but visual illusion it isn’t :-)

Of course if 10% of sighted population do see 113,99,060 as black they will think this a really embarrassing diatribe.  Such is life.  I’ve done worse. There was even that one time……

The Oscar Pistorius Trial Verdict: Guilty of Bad Science

This Blog "The Oscar Pistorius Trial Verdict: Guilty of Bad Science" appears on the University of Liverpool website here:  

Placebo; something about nothing!

I am sorry to dissent from the general chorus of both lay and scientific praise for the Horizon placebo program (Medicine's of the Mind "Power of the Placebo"). Many people seem to have found it fascinating, I'm not one of them. I thought it was all nonsense (if you are quick you can still watch it here)!

One of the disappointing things science can do is take a really simple phenomenon and make it more complex. Science should attempt to do the opposite.  So to clarify; most lay people have never (IMHO) had a problem understanding any of the following cliches:

• If something excites you (not like THAT) your heart to beats faster.
• You get a performance boost from confidence and/or positive mental attitude.
• Under-performance can result from under confidence.
• Fear can turn your stomach.
• Fear can make you go weak at the knees.
• In a fight situation, humans and other animals can suppress pain and don't really hurt until they are out of the danger zone....

There are so many of these its crazy. Placebo is just another one of these; if you truly believe you will feel better, you will feel at least a little better.

In teaching its a critical factor.  Telling students they will all do well WILL improve their performance.  And if you are my students worry not, it's no trick, I don't mind if you read this because I am absolutely sure you WILL do well.  There is nothing like confidence for optimum performance.  I have seen students in the past so nervous they couldn't even write their own name on the front of the papers.  Guess what?  They do terribly in the rest of the exam too.  Listen to my voice my students:  you WILL do well, really you will!

Now the program went to great lengths to show that there were real chemical changes in the body whilst this was happening (after people took placebo). But HELLO!! we are little more than a collection of chemicals. Everything you sense, think or do involves changes of chemicals. If you see something, glutamate is released in the eye and various neurotransmitters are released throughout the brain. If you think or imagine something, chemical changes take place in the brain. If you believe you will feel better, of course chemicals will change. If you lift your own leg... chemical changes take place in the process.
A couple of specific points about the program; the cyclists performing better and/or feeling they performed better?  Well people are absolutely hopeless at assessing their own feelings to start with (as I discussed here), and any good coach would know a bit of appropriate inspiration at the right moment will improve performance.  Why do people break so many world records at the Olympics?  This is exactly the same as the benefit of a so called "pep talk".  The the "mystery" of the placebo was further illustrated with a patient who's symptoms improved even though she was told she was going to get placebo.  All that matters is whether you feel you will feel better.  ...and typically of course the disease they chose was IBS "irritable bowl syndrome".  This is notorious for being a "there's nothing wrong with you get out of my surgery" type of disease.  Frequently people can be really ill with it too of course, and disturbingly, my guess would be that people "diagnosed" with IBS are frequently suffering from undiagnosed Crohn's or coeliac disease. Nonetheless, in many cases it the GPs way of saying, "I don't deny there is something wrong with you, but I can find anything to account for the symptoms you are reporting".  Bottom line (pun intended).. its not a great vehicle for demonstrating the magic of placebos.  

So giving people placebo, results in them thinking differently to non-placebo people and this change in thinking results in change of chemicals. To me, it is no big deal.

So why am I so evidently wound up by this? For two reasons.

(1) The idea that we are anything other than a collection of swirling chemicals and electricity is patent nonsense.  I feel there is no place for such arcane pre-science gobbledygook.  If you are surprised that chemicals change in the body when people "think positive" where have you been!? ...and if you thought that and you are even a biological scientist... Wow.

(2) Throwing your hands up in the air with amazement when someone shows that thinking changes chemicals in the brain is opening the door for woo. Why do I say that? ...because the next thing will be TV showing how people feel better after taking homeopathic remedies (aka water) and correlating this to chemical changes in the brain. Look they will say, homeopathy changes chemicals in the brain... So it was true all along. Well no it wasn't. Homeopathy is nonsense and just try and remember chemicals are constantly changing within the body. And will do so until well after we all die.

And on that cheerie note, I think I shall go and buy a high fat pizza and bring my own demise a little closer!!

Posted with Blogsy

King Richard III's spine and the "ion channels", "TRPV4".

Funky ion channels in King Richard III's skeleton

I am sure that most sensible scientists, medics and vets would appreciate that ion channels are *the* most important proteins in the body? …OK all proteins are important, but none are as exciting as ion channels, which sit in the membrane of every cell and can control their functions.  …but I think it is about time to bring the word “ion channel” to the attention of archaeologists and historians through the medium of… Richard III’s skeleton.

The official line from University of Leicester (if there can be an official line) is that Ricky 3 had an idiopathic adolescent onset scoliosis.  Now the “scoliosis” bit just means “bent spine”, the “adolescent onset” bit is obvious and “idiopathic” is a posh way of saying “unknown cause”.

Therefore he had a bent spine since adolescence of unknown cause.  He also apparently had osteoarthritis.  It seems likely that a funky ion channel was at fault.  I have in mind, a particular ion channels with a gene name “TRPV4”.  In lay terms, it allows calcium to enter cells in response to movement.  Now what evidence do I have… .  eeerm…. none! That’s the great thing about blogs BUT just check-out the similarity of spine curvature with the bones of King Richard III and this well-studied literature example of a TRPV4 “channelopathy” below.

Parastremmatic dysplasia patient, with an ion channel disease

Not proof, I agree… but perhaps the many fans of Richard III should now start wearing tee-shirts with a TRPV4 channel on them… I present this suggestion below.  Have fun!!! 

Cartilage gets squished when you stand

Reprinted from Coleman et al 2012, yes with permission. It cost me $20 just to use it!
You can see the cartilage of a healthy human joint outlined in yellow (from an MRI).

I recently came across a great little paper on knee joint thickness by Coleman et al. It confirms what we may have already known or guessed.... but it does it beautifully and in a highly quantified manner. The data is from humans, but I would expect that similar would be seen with doggies! Very sophisticated experimental techniques, and modelling with some lovely beautiful pictures (!) and well controlled data.
Read the paper here Coleman et al 2012
The paper shows that there is a physical squeezing and compressing of cartilage when you stand up.  This has all kinds of ramifications to scientists who work in the area (like us!!).
The difference in thickness is quite small between day and night, but certainly significant in the knees.
Snippets of the data are that men's cartilage is much much thicker than womens'... and of course, there is a significant correlation between cartilage strain and body mass index (BMI).
...So if you want nice thick knee cartilage; be a chap, spend the day in bed*... but don't eat too much!!!

*...but seriously: it is generally accepted that moderate exercise is good for healthy joints, but excessive weight is an absolute no no......

Other blogs pertaining to osteoarthritis and exercise:
What Gives People and Animals Arthritis
Is Running Good for Your Health
Exercise and osteoarthritis

Posted with Blogsy

Bad Pharma and Negative Data

Negative clinical data.

This is a topic getting a lot of airplay and a lot of words! Here are a lot more (sorry). There is a huge issue with clinical trials failing to report the failure of a drug. There are also a number of quack remedies which have been tested frequently and usually deliver negative results that are never published. If ever, by the effect of pure chance, they do appear provide some marginal benefit, this is shouted from the rooftops. So how how are your sports team doing? There are two ways you could assess that, you could say they are 100% winners. To get this value you simply report the results where they won. However, a fairer assessment would be to report all the results and then you would see that if it were baseball, most likely, they loose half the time and win half the time. More-or-less. The withholding of negative clinical trials data is thus wicked, but I think outside of the people who do it, it is already universally condemned! This was discussed at great length by Ben Goldacre in his book Bad Pharma. It is indeed an excellent book and very important. Although I feel I can make four criticisms since I am pretty certain he would never follow me on Twitter!!! ...

"Reps may do bad things I suppose, unlike me. I do good things, but I just do them badly!"

(1) Bad Pharma was painfully long and I was quite frankly on my knees by the time I approached the end. (2) Ben is really horrid about drug reps. Ben seems to think they are evil, but I have known people go into drug repping and from my experience they were just ordinary people searching for a job. They may not love their job like the rest of us do, but they have to do it because it is their livelihood! I would blame the system that allows Vets and Medics to be ill equipped to handle the high pressure sales and gobbledygook "science talk". I feel sorry for drug reps trying to sell their wares to hospitals/GPs/Vets. (3) There were not many laughs in there, given how long the book is! (4) I don't think he quite gets the situation with negative preclinical data. So here's my bit on that.

"The Bad Pharma book by Ben Goldacre highlighted problems with negative data, but it treated clinical sciences and basic research just the same."

Negative Preclinical Data

It is not the same. I know the Journal Editors (I also Edit!), will all say negative data is perfectly acceptable, but the reality is; it is just not as hot.

"List all the Nobel Prize Winners you can think of that got the Prize by showing that their own theory was untrue"

Firstly, even I accept that negative data is less exciting; we knock about ideas in my lab... we wonder if this works like that. We do an experiment and we find.... it doesn't. No one can really pretend that is going to be a widely exciting read for others. RBJ had this great idea: His group spent months testing it and turn out to be wrong. Sure if there is some huge piece of dogma you can debunk you could probably publish this IF you also included an alternative positive set of data. Not true? OK lets have a competition, you list all the Nobel Prize winners who got their Nobel Prizes for the failure to discover something? OK I'll even allow you to throw in the discovery that something they thought might work.. doesn't work. Meanwhile, I will start to list Prize winners who were elected on the basis of positive data. Its all nonsense. A hypothesis constructed, tested and verified (positive data) is nearly always going to be easier to publish in a mainstream journal than "we tried this... it didn't work".

Am I complaining? Not about the fact that negative scientific data is tricky to publish, it has always been like that. My gripe is that (a) Ben and others seem to think this is in someway scientific corruption. (b) Editors need to have the courage to say, generally positive PRE-clinical data is more interesting and publishable than negative. I can have 10 new theories before breakfast, when tested, most of them will prove untrue I am sure, we can't fill the literature with disproving of all our own theories!

"None of us want to spend our days reading about how Jo Blogs tested his own private theory and found it to be untrue!"

The last point, wouldn't it be useful to have access to negative data to stop scientists around the world keep trying the same things and getting the same negative results? Oh yes indeed. Little journals or peer-review repositories which specialise in negative data are the way to go. They exist already, so lets just use them (if you are a scientist) and stop confusing the shocking hiding of negative clinical data, with the quite legitimate low profile publishing of negative data and broken hypotheses.

There feel better now.

Posted with Blogsy