Mental Hygiene
A story caught my eye earlier today – it was entitled “Boost Mental Health – Do Housework” and was based on a study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. This is the news story and here is the abstract of the study, titled “Dose response relationship between physical activity and mental health: The Scottish Health Survey”. The strongest effect was actually for sport rather than housework, but never mind – I reckon housework makes for a better headline. What’s good about this study is that the message is less likely to be perverted by salesmen in the way that any study claiming health benefits from food or food components would instantly attract nutritionists and food supplement companies eager to cash in. Unless gyms start puffing the study to attract members I suppose. The physical activity in the study was self-reported and the problems with self-reported data have been discussed in several places. Apparently, subjects tend to report what they believe the researcher expects to see, or report what reflects positively on their own abilities, knowledge, beliefs, or opinions. Another concern about such data centers on whether subjects are able to accurately recall past behaviors. [1] If I were asked about my physical activity I might exaggerate the amount of exercise I take (and I may well understate the amount of alcohol I drink if my doctor asked me) and to me this seemed the most obvious danger of the self-reported element of this study, but if most people exaggerated the amount of exercise they took to more-or-less the same extent then I guess the results would not be that badly distorted. Also, there were 19,842 participants and “statistical theory tells us that the reliability of observations is proportional to the square root of their number. The more observations there are, the more random influences there will be. Statistical theory holds that the more random errors there are, the more they are likely to cancel one another and produce a normal distribution” [2].
This is good – it looks as if there is something relatively safe [unless you rick your back doing the hoovering, or break a rib playing five-a-side] that we can do to reduce the risk of psychological distress. And as an added bonus, our homes will be cleaner and we might see side-benefits in our general fitness. But who didn’t already know that was beneficial for them? There are an awful lot of people out there who know that exercise good for them, yet they don’t take it. They might take other things – like dubious remedies that cost them money yet have no known benefits. And they would probably go on buying the pills and forgoing the exercise if the facts were explained to them. Very often, the easier option is not the right option – but it is nonetheless the one we choose. So we spend our money on junk remedies like homeopathic pills and potions and ignore the basic, common-sense advice to eat a healthy balanced diet, exercise, drink only in moderation and refrain from smoking because it doesn’t fit it with the way we want to live – it seems that us lazy fat smokers with terrible fat-, sugar- and alcohol-filled diets are only interested in taking advice if it comes from someone humiliating us on television. I think You are What You Eat and Fat Camp are the programmes I had in mind. It’s just a shame that we don’t listen to more sensible advice. From, say Diabetes UK or The British Dietetic Association [EDIT: or the DoH, or our GPs…]
[1] Cook and Campbell (1979)
[2] Deese (1972)
[3] The Cook & Campbell and Deese quotes came from this page.
Edited to add: Spotted via Ben Goldacre’s miniblog, the following recent NY Times-hosted blog post is on the perils of Self Reporting. [Also discussed on the Bad Science Forums]. Technorati Profile. 
Top Stories
This Post is Dedicated to…
Everyone who has been slated by John Scudamore on Whale.to. The pharma gang and shill pages are my favourites. Frankly, I’m a bit gutted that I don’t get a mention – I’ll have to be more vocal in my criticism of JABS and Whale in future. Richard Doll is a shill (as are Ernst and Goldacre) so I don’t think it would be appropriate for someone of my limited talents to be listed on that page, but how about a mention on the ‘pharma gang’ page John? Honestly – it would be like a badge of honour for me. The really interesting thing is that one name on the pharma gang page is John Stone. Is it a mistake or are there ideological differences (and perhaps even ‘trust issues’) in the JABS camp? Just in case it is a mistake and John Scudamore realises his error, I’ve JKN’d the page here.
Wakefield – Scapegoated by The Media?
The Independent this week reported on the MMR-autism scare (or, as I like to call it, The Media’s MMR Hoax) and named only one person who was to blame. Andy Wakefield. Now don’t get me wrong – I am certainly not about to defend Wakefield, or the Lancet paper, or the fact that Wakefield had been told his PCR results were false positives yet still failed to retract… Read the rest of this entry »
Ctrl C, Ctrl V
Psychiatrist* Dr Raj Persaud has been in the news this week following revelations that parts of articles and a book he had written were plagiarised. Read the rest of this entry »
The Atheist Thirteen
Some atheist Q&A (via PJ):
Q1. How would you define “atheism”?
A lack of belief in Gods. The term can also be used to denote a positive belief that there are no Gods or a belief that the existence of a God or Gods is highly improbable, but I’m probably most comfortable with the first definition. It’s simple, it’s inclusive and it makes no claims as to the non-existence of God.
Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?
Not overtly. One parent is atheist and I could never figure out the other’s religious viewpoint. Probably some kind of agnostic Protestant. As a young child, I thought a lot about whether there was a God – but found it too difficult to work out whether God existed or not. I think part of my problem was that not only did I believe nothing could come from nothing but I also found it hard to believe that God and/or the universe could have always existed. At the time I decided that there was no God, on the basis that belief in God struck me as being quite similar to belief in the tooth fairy and that as one was invented by adults it was likely that the other had been too [not great reasoning I admit, but then I was only about 8-years-old]. As a teenager searching for meaning, I gave supernatural religion another try but it seemed somehow unsatisfactory. I eventually decided that, since there was no good reason to believe in God, the most sensible course of action was not to believe in God until I found good reason to. I’m still waiting.
Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?
Dishonest. [It is creationism, just rebranded and presented as if it were scientific]
Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?
Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?
Is there an atheist community? I thought organising atheists was like herding cats.
Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?
I tend not to answer hypothetical questions as I am often surprised by how I react to situations.
Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?
“Nothing can come from nothing” and I suppose my immediate response in that case would probably be to question where God came from.
Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?
Don’t know if this is controversial, but: Dawkins is wrong and religion is not actually a delusion. [A delusion is an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary – and we don’t have evidence that God doesn’t exist, I therefore consider that believers are ‘thinking wishfully’ rather than deluding themselves]
Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?
Dawkins – those of his books that I’ve read so far have been excellent. Actually, the God Delusion was possibly the least impressive of these, but it was still in a different league to Alister McGrath’s Dawkins Delusion.
Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?
Jesus.
Them’s my answers. Now, I have to name three other atheist blogs that I’d like to see take up the Atheist Thirteen gauntlet: http://orandath.blogspot.com/, http://www.theipu.com/, http://humbuggery.net/.
BBC Guidelines – Worthless
OK, it’s just a brief post today instead of my usual Friday verbosity – because I’m watching the Holland game tonight.
I’ve been trying to find out more about why the BBC links to JABS and how they can justify doing so. Between my complaints to the ECU and my FOI requests, I’ve managed to get an initial opinion of a BBC employee that their linking to JABS would be “well within what is permissable in [their] guidelines”. I am grateful to my correspondent for passing this on, but I am appalled that the BBC have issued guidelines on external linking that allow them to link to a site such as JABS that contains dangerously wrong information. If they can link to the views of HIV-denialist Doctors and laypersons who advise parents of infants to discontinue medical treatment and switch off baby monitors, then the BBC can link to anyone and, this being the case, there is no point having guidelines on external links in the first place. As a tenacious obsessive, I’m inclined not to let this go. I am still awaiting the outcome of my complaint to the ECU, but I don’t expect to get the result I was hoping for. So what’s next? Do I join the green ink brigade and start a letter-writing campaign in the style of John Stone or do I go for the sit-down protest outside Broadcasting House? You decide.
Why does the BBC link to JABS?
EDIT 7.45pm: I’ve noticed a perceptive comment on the Bad Science forum from DeeTee: “they [JABS] are a single issue action group, and not a support group. Why cannot the BBC realise this?” – which is something I should probably stress to the BBC next time I contact them.
My BBC Complaint
Below is a reproduction of a complaint I have submitted to the BBC:
On 12th May, I followed up an email I had sent complaining about the BBC linking to JABS. I have yet to receive a response, so have copied and pasted my email below:
I am still concerned by the assumption that linking to JABS somehow provides ‘balance’. I was interested to note that you stated the BBC must link to JABS for balance – implying that you are somehow impelled to link to that site in order to make articles on vaccines fair and balanced.
Can I please ask the following questions:
Whose decision was it to link to JABS for balance?
How was that decision made?
Are there any sites other than JABS that the BBC could link to for ‘balance’?
Does the BBC link to alternative sites (a) for every story specifically in the health section of the BBC’s website and (b) for every story on the BBC’s website?
Would the BBC ever link to an alternative site other than JABS that gave reckless health advice?
Would the BBC consider a site propagating holocaust-denial appropriate to link to for articles about WWII?
Would the BBC consider a site propagating 9/11 conspiracy theories appropriate to link to for articles about 9/11?In addition to providing you with the text of my email, I would like to draw your attention to examples of the nature of the site that the BBC is linking to. This post on JABS gives an indication of the quality of advice – http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1138 – note the recommendations of the first respondent. First this poster advises someone to take their child off antibiotics that have been prescribed by a medical professional, they then advise Cod Liver Oil, Probiotics and Homeopathy as alternative treatments and, finally, they finish by advising that wireless devices – including baby monitors – be switched off or removed. Other posters: deny that HIV causes AIDS, advise homeopathy and quantum touch healing instead of conventional medicine and link to the website whale.to – which includes a whole page on HIV/AIDS denialism. Proof of JABS regulars linking to whale.to on HIV/AIDS denialism and a copy of the page itself are available.
Regardless of the disclaimer displayed on its website, I feel that the BBC should not be able to abrogate all responsibility for the content of external sites linked to from said BBC website. The BBC links to JABS, the BBC has been made aware of the nature of JABS by several people and the BBC has made the decision to continue to link to HIV-denialists who give dangerous medical information to vulnerable parents. It is time the BBC took some responsibility for their decision to link to this site – and it’s time they stopped providing links to JABS.
I’ve submitted some more information to the BBC to show what kind of site they are linking to. I’ve basically just posted a link to these HIV denialism posts: here and here. The first thread begins here: page 1.
Stuff And Nonsense 