charlatan
Pre-hypertension, or stage 1 hypertension as it is also called, is usually defined as a systolic pressure reading between 120 mmHg and 139 mmHg, or a diastolic reading between 80 mmHg and 89 mmHg. It remains a significant public health challenge and appropriate intervention is required to stop its progression to hypertension and cardiovascular diseases.
This double-blind, randomized, two parallel arms, placebo-controlled study tested the effects of individualized homeopathic medicines (IH) against placebo in intervening with the progression of pre-hypertension to hypertension.
Ninety-two patients with pre-hypertension were randomized to receive either IH (n = 46) or identical-looking placebo (n = 46). Both IH or placebo were applied in the mutual context of lifestyle modification (LSM) advice including dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH) and brisk exercises.
The primary endpoints were systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP); secondary endpoints were Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile version 2.0 (MYMOP-2) scores. All endpoints were measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months.
After 3 months of intervention, the number of patients having progression from pre-hypertension to hypertension between groups was similar without any significant differences in between the groups. Reduction in BP and MYMOP-2 scores were also not significantly different. Lycopodium clavatum, Thuja occidentalis and Natrum muriaticum were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No serious adverse events were reported from either group.
The authors concluded that there was a small, but non-significant direction of effect favoring homeopathy, which ultimately rendered the trial as inconclusive.
We have come across this terminology before; homeopaths seem to like it. It prevents them from calling a negative trial by its proper name: A NEGATIVE TRIAL. In their view
- a positive trial is a study where homeopathy yields better results than placebo,
- a negative trial is a study where placebo yields better results than homeopathy,
- an inconclusive trial is a study where homeopathy yields results that are not significantly different from placebo.
Is this silly?
Yes, it is completely bonkers!
Is it dishonest?
Yes, in my view, it is.
Why is it done nonetheless?
Perhaps a glance at the affiliations of the authors provides an answer:
- 1Dept. of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, affiliated to The West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Govt. of West Bengal, India. Electronic address: [email protected].
- 2Dept. of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, affiliated to The West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Govt. of West Bengal, India.
- 3Principal and Administrator D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, affiliated to The West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Govt. of West Bengal, India.
- 4Dept. of Practice of Medicine, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, affiliated to The West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Govt. of West Bengal, India.
- 5Dept. of Practice of Medicine, Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Howrah, Govt. of West Bengal, affiliated to The West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Govt. of West Bengal, India.
- 6Dept. of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Block GE, Sector III, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700106, West Bengal, India; affiliated to The West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Govt. of West Bengal, India.
- 7Dept. of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, State National Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Lucknow, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, affiliated to Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar University, Agra, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh), India.
- 8Dept. of Repertory, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, affiliated to The West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Govt. of West Bengal, India.
Despite these multiple conflicts of interest, the article carries this note:
“Declaration of Competing Interest: None declared.”
By guest blogger Ken McLeod
RICHARD MICHAEL NILSSON is the owner of Colloidal Minerals Australia Pty Ltd, ACN 003 484 955, of Wyongah New South Wales (NSW), Australia. On August 13 he was convicted in the Wyong Court, after pleading guilty to offences including intimidation with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm.
Nilsson is a prolific antivaxxer, deluging unlucky politicians, journalists, health officials, etc with emails containing misinformation about vaccines and warning of the dire consequences to come to anyone involved in vaccination programs. He has been known to harass and threaten. Usually recipients have better things to do than engage with a crank, but he has been known to go too far.
As the Sydney Daily Telegraph reported on 14 August 2021: “Anti-vaccine activist Richard Nilsson pleads guilty to sending death threats.”
“A Central Coast anti-vaccine campaigner who sent death threats to The Sunday Telegraph journalist Jane Hansen has pleaded guilty to the charge of using intimidation to unlawfully influence a person.
“Richard Nilsson, 66, from Wyongah, sent an email to Ms Hansen’s work email address on the evening of February 27.
“The subject of the email was “WHEN IS A MURDER WARRANTED? YOURS, YES?”
The contents of the email read: ‘I am proposing that your murder might well be a celebration of not life but death! And what a celebrated and glorious one at that!
‘I know ten thousand that would do it, but of course it only needs one and you will never know until it is too late!
‘I expect you might meet your maker, maybe in the near future … the sooner the better, yes?’
“Ms Hansen has reported widely on vaccination since 2013 when The Sunday Telegraph launched the No Jab No Play campaign, and more recently has reported on the vaccine rollout for Covid-19.
“On February 27, the evening the email was sent, Sky News re-ran a documentary made by Ms Hansen called Big Shots, which looked at anti-vaccine activity in relation to the pandemic and the vaccine rollout.
“Mr Nilsson followed up his email with another with the subject line: “WHEN IS SLUT NOT A SLUT AND IS A SELECTIVE SLUT STILL A SLUT?” before launching into a barrage of abuse.
“Mr Nilsson, who runs a business selling colloidal silver, faced Wyong Court on August 11 and pleaded guilty to a charge of use intimidation/violence to unlawfully influence a person.
“He received an 18-month Community Corrections Order to be of good behaviour.
“Ms Hansen said threats to journalists who write on the subject of vaccination were not unusual but Mr Nilsson’s emails were unsettling in their violence.
‘All journalists get abused on occasion, especially on the currently highly emotive topic of vaccination, and mostly it is best ignored but this email was next level and no one should have to put up with such vile abuse,’ she said.
“Mr Nilsson is well known by politicians, who have also received numerous emails from him suggesting all manner of conspiracies, including that Covid vaccination is a mass depopulation exercise.”
Nilsson appeared before His Honour Ian Guy in case number 2021/00159728, R V Richard Michael Nilsson. He was convicted of stalking or intimidation with intent to cause fear of physical or mental harm, an offence under section 13 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW). This attracts a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or $5,500. He could also have been convicted of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence, an offence under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth of Australia). That carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment.
He was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order requiring him to be of good behaviour.
A rational person would have thought themselves lucky that they had avoided years of a high-fibre low-calorie diet of porridge and baked beans, but we are not dealing with a rational person here.
Hardly was the ink dry on the Court file, than on the 15th, two days after he was found guilty, Nilsson pounded his foam-flecked keyboard and sent another rant in an email to 130 people and organisations, including politicians, Skeptics groups, a Radiation Oncologist, government departments, doctors, political parties, people in the horse-racing industry, scientists, journalists, lobby groups including climate and conservation organisations, mental health groups, the National Security Hotline, and a coal mining company.
It reads: “Subject: FW: The Hidden Victims of the Covid Vaccine and why I included you all in this email…
“When will it be that enough lives have been ruined and enough have been murdered? And when will the maiming and the killing end?
“My hope is that some of you here own up and confess (I know who among you are in this group and I suspect in time you will all pay a heavy price for your crimes and transgressions), while others it is incumbent upon you to inform all those you purport to represent that the maiming and killing that has transpired and of course is inevitably and scheduled to transpire will continue until such time we say: f_ ck you!
“I know, and some of you know too, who the traitors are. Scott Morrison is just one and Greg Hunt is another and of course Jane Halton, Brendan Murphy and Paul Kelly are other worthless humans and are included and we know they are just tools – plasticised and fake as they are.
“I have an incomplete list of those who need to answer for their crimes and it does not include all I have included in this email.
“Add a Mr Skerrit. His evilness is seen in his face and in his utterings and communications and his connection with Jane Halton and the WHO and the so-called, Australian Health (sickness proliferation) Dep’t and Event 201 should not be lost on anyone with brain cells that still operate and are able to coordinate.
“Wake the f_ _k up!”
All emphases and redactions above are as in Nilsson’s email. Scott Morrison is the Prime Minister, Greg Hunt the Commonwealth Minister for Health, Brendan Murphy is a former Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Australia and now Secretary of the Department of Health. Paul Kelly is the current Chief Medical Officer, the “Mr Skerrit” he refers to is Adjunct Professor John Skerritt, Deputy Secretary, Health Products Regulation Group, Therapeutics Goods Administration. “Jane Halton” is a former Secretary of the Commonwealth Dept of Health, now Council Member of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
The “Event 201” that Nilsson refers to was a tabletop exercise conducted in October 2019 by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (CHS), the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in New York City. According to the CHS, “®he exercise illustrated areas where public/private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences”.
Event 201 simulated the effects of a fictional coronavirus originating in bats but passing to humans via pigs. Claims that Event 201 was a rehearsal for the COVID-19 pandemic have been debunked by fact-checking outlets such as USA Today and FullFact, but facts have never matter to antivax conspiracy theorists and other assorted cranks. All emergency response authorities and health bureaucracies conduct exercises to identify threats and to develop and improve response plans. There was nothing unusual in “Event 201” except in the fevered imaginations of nutters and fruitloops.
Does Nilsson, with no qualifications whatsoever, really think that he knows more about emergency response and immunology than those distinguished experts, and all the scientists researching Covid19 and vaccines? How does 20 minutes reading email conspiracy theories trump PhDs, professorships and Nobel Prizes? How conceited does someone have to be to imagine that? Where is the boundary between conceit and dementia? So does accusing honourable people of ‘crimes and transgressions,’ ‘maiming and killing,’ being ‘traitors,’ are evil tools, ‘who need to answer for their crimes’ constitute the good behaviour that the Court imposed? And coming within hours of the Court hearing?
Watch this space.
Guest post by Norbert Aust and Viktor Weisshäupl
Imagine you recently published an excellent and rigorous trial providing solid evidence that a certain therapy is able to help patients suffering from some inevitably fatal condition. You proved that your therapy is able to significantly prolong the patients’ lifetime, much longer than with the current state-of-the-art therapeutic approach. But the patients not only live considerably longer, but they also do so with a much better quality of life (QoL) and subjective well-being. In short: this therapy marks some progress that would otherwise take years or decades of scientific effort.
And then someone comes forward and points out your data apparently were manipulated. Essential parameters of this trial were modified sometime after data collection was completed, with the patients’ outcome and first analyses available. Thus the results were biased in a certain direction and the critics show that the results as published in your study show characteristics that such manipulations would evoke. After all, this holds an implication of scientific misconduct that could, if verified, ruin your academic reputation more or less completely.
What would you do?
Ignore the preposterous concerns because you know your methods and performance were rigorous and solid? After all, anytime some real academic criticism arises you are ready to prove your findings are well-founded results of accepted scientific methods. Or would you publish data or documents that your critics were too ignorant to find or to understand, and thus to stop such rumours once and for all? Maybe you could even clarify some of the issues raised by those critics, maybe add some follow-up information or data to ensure no more misunderstandings occur. Or would you try to find some clues for a libel lawsuit?
Well, we thought some of the above would happen after we contacted the authors of the recent study on adjunct homeopathy in non-small cell lung cancer. On that date, we forwarded our detailed analysis to the lead author and all the co-authors.
Of course, we even considered the possibility, not very likely though, that we would receive some explanation for the numerous exclusion criteria while other serious conditions that coincide with advanced age did not preclude enrollment. Or an updated CONSORT diagram accounting for the patients excluded. Or some explanation just why the numerous amendments to the protocol were necessary but not important enough to mention them in the published paper.
But nothing of this happened as yet (July 2021). Instead on June 14 and 16, 2021, not two weeks after our messages to the authors, the registration data at ClinicalTrials were updated once again and a new version of the protocol was uploaded [3]. And this update looks pretty much like it is meant to cover up and blur the former data that we based our analysis on. Of course, these data and the former version of the protocol are available still – just one layer further down, and you have to scroll to the bottom of the page to find the small link “history of changes”. Maybe not many visitors will do that.
In contrast to the versions before, now the uploaded data are in line with the study as published, namely, they include a full list of the exclusion criteria and the reduced observation time for QoL, which was the primary outcome. Note: throughout the trial until the end of data assessment those parameters were set with pregnancy as the only exclusion criterion and two years follow up time, only to be amended in the protocol uploaded two months after data collection was complete and analysis presumably was well underway.
In addition, there is a new version of the study protocol, this one dated Feb. 6, 2014. Of course, this protocol is fairly new, in spite of the date it carries. Why would the older version allegedly from January 2011 be uploaded to the register in September 2019, if this more actual version already had existed and was available?
Contrary to the prior version all the clues are removed that would indicate that this document was finished at a much later point in time than given in its date: References to some future software versions that were released years after the protocol was allegedly compiled are dropped. And this strange literature reference “25” that corresponds to the reference list in the final study as published but is pointless in the protocol without any reference list, is removed too. And of course, again contrary to the prior version, the exclusion criteria are identical with the final study as is the shortened follow-up time for QoL.
New to the protocol is a section “Bringing in the patient’s voice”, where the authors disclose how they want to “systematically research the ethical, legal, socio-political, and science theoretical dimensions of homeopathy as in the case of lung cancer (non-small-cell lung carcinoma) exemplified” in some “integral social scientific study”, where some “focus groups” of 4 to 10 participants together with their relatives, friends and caregivers included should be used to study “interactions between individuals, collectively shared and uncontested assumptions, and the emergence of collective meaning”.
But from all of this more or less meaningless but very sciency sounding socio-speak, not a single word found its way into the study. Nothing. So it is pointless to try to figure out what the content of this part of the investigation is all about.
Why then was this chapter added? This “integral social scientific study” was to start after the “third or fourth homeopathic treatment” (But why should patients not be included in this “research” from the very first beginning?). Is it perhaps to give some rationale why the follow-up time for QoL was to end after the third homeopathic treatment?
So what we see, when we look up the study at ClinicalTrials now, is a perfectly matching set of data and a protocol that corresponds to the study as published and looks as if it was published at a time where the trial was underway and the patients were still blinded. If you do not look very closely everything now appears to be perfect.
And here we would like to forward some critique to the register: The purpose of the study register is to prevent not only publication bias but misleading manipulation from happening as well. They do quite a good job in preserving former versions of data and documents and keeping them available to the public. Many national study registers do not offer this service. But you must be of a suspicious mind and of some persistence to actively search and find and check the history of modifications. Thus, a cover-up like the one we are witnessing here might well prove successful. We, therefore, propose to improve the presentation of the registration: If vital amendments occurred that may affect the outcomes – such as protocol changes, extensions of exclusion criteria, modifications of follow-up time – this should be indicated upfront in the study’s record instead of some small hint to “history of changes” at the very bottom of the page.
In conclusion, there appears to be no proof that the results of the study were produced using rigorous scientific methods. And the issues we raised in our report to the authors remain unresolved.
It has been reported that an Australian naturopath would refuse entry to her business to anyone who has received a COVID-19 vaccine in the past two weeks. In her original Facebook post, Ms. Holland said that vaccinated people would have to wait a minimum of two weeks after vaccination before attending her clinic due to “the shedding of spike proteins” caused by “these experimental treatments”.
Christine Pope, who is on the Australian Traditional Medicine Society (ATMS) board of directors, said she believed the views shared by the Warrnambool naturopath were part of the alternative medicine sector’s “fringe” and didn’t represent the industry. “We’re always very careful to tell our practitioners about posting appropriately and within their scope of practice,” Ms. Pope said. “These sort of comments to me look like they’re outside their scope of practice. We do a lot of training about making sure that you’re posting appropriately within your scope of practice and about things about which you are qualified in. As an association supporting natural medicine practitioners, it’s not really our job to promote or comment on the vaccination program – we’re not public health experts … and this is really outside my scope of practice. But from a public health perspective (vaccination) is the best option we’ve got.”
Sharon Holland, who runs a clinic in Warrnambool, cited on Facebook a number of discredited medical professionals who have become figureheads of the anti-vax and COVID conspiracy movements, including Judy Mikovits, Robert Malone, Peter McCullogh, and J Bart Classen. “Often de-bunked and fact-checked (by whom) can mean silenced,” Ms. Holland wrote. “We still have free speech available to some extent. This is a very emotive and divisive subject so my post was bound to ‘ruffle feathers’.”
The ATMS says its accredited practitioners need to “stay within their scope of practice” and avoid posting about vaccines they haven’t studied. Ms. Pope urged people to lodge a complaint about bogus health claims through the ATMS website or the healthcare complaint commissioner in the appropriate state.
___________________________
This course of events begs several questions. In my view, the most important are:
- Is Sharon Holland an exception, or are many/most naturopaths of her opinion?
- Instructing practitioners about “posting appropriately and within their scope of practice” sounds fine but might miss the point entirely. What really matters are the messages ATMS members orally convey to their patients. Is there any evidence on this issue?
- Surely, the anti-vax sentiments of naturopaths must originate from their education. Is there any evidence as to what they are taught about the subject?
- Is the ATMS going to take action against Ms. Holland and other members who endanger the public with their anti-vax stance?
Former chiropractor Malcolm Hooper, 61, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy provider Oxymed Pty Ltd have been fined following the death of a customer in 2016. They were each convicted of three work safety-related charges, all of failing to ensure a workplace is safe and without risks to health. Hooper was fined $176,750, while the company was fined $550,000. Oxymed was trading as HyperMed at its South Yarra premises in April 2016 when a long-term client with multiple sclerosis and a history of life-threatening seizures came in for treatment. He was later found unconscious in a single-person hyperbaric chamber, taken to hospital, and placed on life support, but died five days later.
The County Court heard that both the company and Hooper had an inadequate system in place for assessing the risks oxygen therapy could pose to clients, and an inadequate system too for developing plans to eliminate or reduce those risks. In her judgment, County Court judge Amanda Fox said HyperMed wasn’t a hospital nor a medical practice and had been described as an “alternative health facility”. Hooper had already been deregistered in 2013 by the national board for chiropractors for misleading and deceptive advertising about the benefits of hyperbaric treatment.
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy involves administering pure oxygen in a pressurised environment, with the heightened air pressure allowing a patients’ lungs to gather much more oxygen than would be possible under normal conditions. The therapy is not based on strong data. A systematic review failed to find good evidence for hyperbaric oxygen therapy as a treatment of multiple sclerosis:
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, inflammatory, and degenerative neurological illness with no cure. It has been suggested that Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBO(2)T) may slow or reverse the progress of the disease. This article summarizes the clinical evidence for the use of HBO(2)T in the treatment of MS. We conducted a literature review focused on the interaction of hyperbaric oxygenation and MS. In particular, we appraised the clinical data regarding treatment and performed a meta-analysis of the randomized evidence using the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration. We found 12 randomized studies in the area, all of which were performed between 1983 and 1987. A meta-analysis of this evidence suggests there is no clinically significant benefit from the administration of HBO(2)T. The great majority of randomized trials investigated a course of 20 treatments at pressures between 1.75ATA and 2.5ATA daily for 60-120 min over 4 weeks against a placebo regimen. None have tested the efficacy of HBO(2)T against alternative current best practice. No plausible benefit of HBO(2)T on the clinical course of MS was identified in this review. It remains possible that HBO(2)T is effective in a subgroup of individuals not clearly identified in the trials to date, but any benefit is unlikely to be of great clinical significance. There is some case for further human trials in selected subgroups and for prolonged courses of HBO(2)T at modest pressures, but the case is not strong. At this time, the routine treatment of MS with HBO(2)T is not recommended.
The case reminds me of that of John Lawler. Mr. Lawlwer’s chiropractor also used a therapy that was not indicated, broke his neck (to put it crudely), and subsequently proved herself more than inept in saving his life. It suggests to me that some chiros may not be trained adequately to deal with emergencies. If that is true, they should perhaps focus less on practice-building courses and more on first aid instructions.
Subluxation is … a displacement of two or more bones whose articular surfaces have lost, wholly or in part, their natural connection. (D. D. Palmer, 1910)
The definition of ‘subluxation’ as used by chiropractors differs from that in conventional medicine where it describes a partial dislocation of the bony surfaces of a joint readily visible via an X-ray. Crucially, a subluxation, as understood in conventional medicine, is not the cause of disease. Spinal subluxations, according to medical terminology, are possible only if anatomical structures are seriously disrupted.
Subluxation, as chiropractors understand the term, has been central to chiropractic from its very beginning. Despite its central role in chiropractic, its definition is far from clear and has changed significantly over time.
DD Palmer (the guy who invented chiropractic) was extremely vague about most of his ideas. Yet, he remained steadfast about his claims that 95% of all diseases were due to subluxations of the spine, that subluxations hindered the flow of the ‘innate intelligence’ which controlled the vital functions of the body. Innate intelligence or ‘inate’, he believed, operated through the nerves, and subluxated vertebra caused pinched nerves, which in turn blocked the flow of the innate and thus led to abnormal function of our organs. For Palmer and his followers, subluxation is the sole or at least the main cause of all diseases (or dis-eases, as Palmer preferred).
Almost exactly 4 years ago, I published this post:
Is chiropractic subluxation a notion of the past? SADLY NOT!
In it, I provided evidence that – contrary to what we are often told – chiropractors remain fond of the subluxation nonsense they leant in school. This can be shown by the frequency by which chiropractors advertise on Twitter the concept of chiropractic subluxation.
Today, I had another look. The question I asked myself was: has the promotion of the obsolete subluxation concept by chiropractors subsided?
The findings did not surprise me.
Even a quick glance reveals that there is still a plethora of advertising going on that uses the subluxation myth. Many chiros use imaginative artwork to get their misleading message across. Below is a small selection.
Yes, I know, this little display is not very scientific. In fact, it is a mere impression and does not intend to be anything else. So, let’s look at some more scientific data on this subject. Here are the last 2 paragraphs from the chapter on subluxation in my recent book on chiropractic:
A 2018 survey determined how many chiropractic institutions worldwide still use the term in their curricula.[1] Forty-six chiropractic programmes (18 from US and 28 non-US) participated. The term subluxation was found in all but two US course catalogues. Remarkably, between 2011 and 2017, the use of subluxation in US courses even increased. Similarly, a survey of 7455 US students of chiropractic showed that 61% of them agreed or strongly agreed that the emphasis of chiropractic intervention is to eliminate vertebral subluxations/vertebral subluxation complexes.[2]
Even though chiropractic subluxation is at the heart of chiropractic, its definition remains nebulous and its very existence seems doubtful. But doubt is not what chiropractors want. Without subluxation, spinal manipulation seems questionable – and this will be the theme of the next chapter.
[1] https://chiromt.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12998-018-0191-1
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25646145
In a nutshell: chiros cannot give up the concept of subluxation because, if they did, they would be physios except with a much narrower focus.
Harry G Frankfurt published his delightful booklet ‘ON BULLSHIT‘ in 2005 (in case you don’t know it, I highly recommend you read it). Since then, the term ‘bullshit’ has become accepted terminology even in polite discourse. But what exactly is bullshit? Frankfurt explains that is something between a lie and a bluff, perhaps more like the latter than the former.
Not least due to Frankfurt’s book, there is today plenty of research on the subject of bullshit. As much of it relates to so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), allow me to present here just 5 of the most recent papers on bullshit.
Navigating social systems efficiently is critical to our species. Humans appear endowed with a cognitive system that has formed to meet the unique challenges that emerge for highly social species. Bullshitting, communication characterised by an intent to be convincing or impressive without concern for truth, is ubiquitous within human societies. Across two studies (N = 1,017), we assess participants’ ability to produce satisfying and seemingly accurate bullshit as an honest signal of their intelligence. We find that bullshit ability is associated with an individual’s intelligence and individuals capable of producing more satisfying bullshit are judged by second-hand observers to be more intelligent. We interpret these results as adding evidence for intelligence being geared towards the navigation of social systems. The ability to produce satisfying bullshit may serve to assist individuals in negotiating their social world, both as an energetically efficient strategy for impressing others and as an honest signal of intelligence.
Research into both receptivity to falling for bullshit and the propensity to produce it have recently emerged as active, independent areas of inquiry into the spread of misleading information. However, it remains unclear whether those who frequently produce bullshit are inoculated from its influence. For example, both bullshit receptivity and bullshitting frequency are negatively related to cognitive ability and aspects of analytic thinking style, suggesting that those who frequently engage in bullshitting may be more likely to fall for bullshit. However, separate research suggests that individuals who frequently engage in deception are better at detecting it, thus leading to the possibility that frequent bullshitters may be less likely to fall for bullshit. Here, we present three studies (N = 826) attempting to distinguish between these competing hypotheses, finding that frequency of persuasive bullshitting (i.e., bullshitting intended to impress or persuade others) positively predicts susceptibility to various types of misleading information and that this association is robust to individual differences in cognitive ability and analytic cognitive style.
Recent psychological research has identified important individual differences associated with receptivity to bullshit, which has greatly enhanced our understanding of the processes behind susceptibility to pseudo-profound or otherwise misleading information. However, the bulk of this research attention has focused on cognitive and dispositional factors related to bullshit (the product), while largely overlooking the influences behind bullshitting (the act). Here, we present results from four studies focusing on the construction and validation of a new, reliable scale measuring the frequency with which individuals engage in two types of bullshitting (persuasive and evasive) in everyday situations. Overall, bullshitting frequency was negatively associated with sincerity, honesty, cognitive ability, open-minded cognition, and self-regard. Additionally, the Bullshitting Frequency Scale was found to reliably measure constructs that are (1) distinct from lying and (2) significantly related to performance on overclaiming and social decision tasks. These results represent an important step forward by demonstrating the utility of the Bullshitting Frequency Scale as well as highlighting certain individual differences that may play important roles in the extent to which individuals engage in everyday bullshitting.
Although generally viewed as a common and undesirable social behaviour, very little is known about the nature of bullshitting (i.e., communicating with little to no regard for evidence or truth; Raritan Q Rev 6, 1986, 81); its consequences; and its potential communicative utility. Specifically, it is hypothesized that bullshitting may be may be relatively influential under specified conditions. Experiment 1 participants were exposed to a traditional persuasion paradigm, receiving either strong or weak arguments in either an evidence-based or bullshit frame. Experiment 2 also incorporated a manipulation of a peripheral route cue (i.e., source attractiveness). Findings demonstrate that bullshitting can be an effective means of influence when arguments are weak, yet undermine persuasive attempts when arguments are strong. Results also suggest that bullshit frames may cue peripheral route processing of persuasive information relative to evidence-based frames that appear to cue central route processing. Results are discussed in light of social perception and attitude change.
Objective: Fake news represents a particularly egregious and direct avenue by which inaccurate beliefs have been propagated via social media. We investigate the psychological profile of individuals who fall prey to fake news.
Method: We recruited 1,606 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk for three online surveys.
Results: The tendency to ascribe profundity to randomly generated sentences-pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity-correlates positively with perceptions of fake news accuracy, and negatively with the ability to differentiate between fake and real news (media truth discernment). Relatedly, individuals who overclaim their level of knowledge also judge fake news to be more accurate. We also extend previous research indicating that analytic thinking correlates negatively with perceived accuracy by showing that this relationship is not moderated by the presence/absence of the headline’s source (which has no effect on accuracy), or by familiarity with the headlines (which correlates positively with perceived accuracy of fake and real news).
Conclusion: Our results suggest that belief in fake news may be driven, to some extent, by a general tendency to be overly accepting of weak claims. This tendency, which we refer to as reflexive open-mindedness, may be partly responsible for the prevalence of epistemically suspect beliefs writ large.
___________________________________
Yes, bullshit seems to be an active area of research. And rightly so! There is so much of it about. Those who regularly read the comments sections of this blog will probably agree with some of the writing above. The statement that ‘bullshitting can be an effective means of influence when arguments are weak’ rang particularly true, I thought. ‘Communication characterised by an intent to be convincing or impressive without concern for truth’ might perhaps also remind us of a few notorious commentators on this blog.
In any case, I am relieved to know that research into bullshit is buoyant – there clearly is a need to better understand the phenomenon. I for one intend to use this terminology more frequently in the future.
Italian authors recently published a remarkable review entitled ‘Systemic Agro-Homeopathy: A New Approach to Agriculture‘ (OBM Integrative and Complementary Medicine 2021, volume 6, issue 3 doi:10.21926/obm.icm.2103020). Allow me to present you with their (lengthy) conclusions:
The systemic agro-homeopathic approach considers the farm as a single organism, an agroecosystem of living and non-living elements, which establishes a dense network of interactions. Its purpose is to strengthen and intensify the relationships among the organisms to create a stronger and healthier agroecosystem, involving all the organisms within the agroecosystem. To fulfill this aim, the described approach allows one to control and manage the agricultural processes through the application of highly diluted and dynamized natural substances. The latter might restore the equilibrium in the agroecosystem by stimulating the natural resistance already present in the agrarian system. The identification of the correct mineral remedy, through the biotypes and pathogenesis levels, could allow one to act on the chronic conditions of the agroecosystem (imbalance in plant primary metabolism or cellular levels), whereas, the identification of plant/animal homeopathic remedy, based on the principle of metabolic similarity, might allow the management of the acute conditions (phytopathological diseases).
Till now, the systemic agro-homeopathic approach has been adopted by some farmers in Europe, particularly in Italy, for about six years and it is increasing interest, especially among organic producers. To date, several observations have been reported by farmers (personal communications), providing positive and encouraging perspectives, but some rigorous scientific experimentation at the farm level is needed to validate such results. If statistical data from field trials were to confirm the observations made so far, the systemic agro-homeopathic approach could represent an agroecological production model with a very low energy impact. Additionally, this approach could be in line with the current European community orientation (European Green Deal), which aims to promote a type of sustainable agriculture. In this context, systemic agro-homeopathy would meet the three pillars of sustainability: (1) economic, due to the very low use of raw materials; (2) environmental, by avoiding the use of chemical substances such as fertilizers, pesticides, etc.; and (3) social, with the production of healthy, safe, and high-quality food.
_____________________________________
Normally, when I encounter something weird, unproven, or incredible, I react by saying something like: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! In this case, I think any attempts to gather evidence might be a waste of time. Some things are just too idiotic to even test them. An open mind is usually a good thing, but one still needs to take care that one’s brain does not fall out.
These days, I live in France (some of my time) and I am often baffled by the number of osteopaths and the high level of acceptance of osteopathy in this country. The public seems to believe everything osteopaths claim and even most doctors have long given up to object to the idiocies they proclaim.
The website of the Institute of Osteopathy in Renne is but one of many examples. The Institute informed us as follows (my translation):
In addition to back pain, the osteopath can act on functional disorders of the digestive, neurological, cardiovascular systems or conditions related to ear, nose and throat. Osteopaths can promote recovery in athletes, relieve migraines, musculoskeletal disorders such as tendonitis, or treat sleep disorders. Less known for its preventive aspect, osteopathy also helps maintain good health. It can be effective even when everything is going well because it will prevent the appearance of pain. Osteopathy is, in fact, a manual medicine that allows the rebalancing of the major systems of the body, whatever the age of the patient and his problems. The osteopath looks for the root cause of your complaint in order to develop a curative and preventive treatment.
Who are osteopathic consultations for?
Osteopathic consultations at the Institute of Osteopathy of Rennes-Bretagne are intended for the following types of patients and pathologies
BABY / CHILD
GERD (gastric reflux), plagiocephaly (cranial deformities), recurrent ENT disorders (sinusitis, ear infections…), digestive, sleep and behavioural disorders, motor delay, following a difficult birth…
ADULT
Prevention, comfort treatment of osteoarthritis, musculoskeletal pain, functional abdominal pain, digestive disorders, headaches, dizziness, postural deficiency, facial pains…
PREGNANT WOMAN
Musculoskeletal pain (lumbago, back pain), digestive disorders, preparation for childbirth, post-partum check-up.
COMPANY
Prevention and treatment of MSDs (musculoskeletal disorders) linked to workstation ergonomics, stress, pain due to repetitive movements, poor posture at work, etc.
ADOLESCENT
Scoliosis, prevention of certain pathologies linked to growth, fatigue, stress, follow-up of orthodontic treatment.
SPORTSMAN
Musculoskeletal pain, tendonitis, osteopathic preparation for competition, osteopathic assessment according to the sport practised, repetitive injury.
In case you are not familiar with the evidence for osteopathy, let me tell you that as good as none of the many claims made in the above text is supported by anything that even resembles sound evidence.
So, how can we explain that, in France, osteopathy is allowed to thrive in a virtually evidence-free space?
In France, osteopathy started developing in the 1950s. In 2002, osteopathy received legislative recognition in France, and today, it is booming; between 2016 and 2018, 3589 osteopaths were trained in France. Osteopaths can be DO doctors, DO physiotherapists, DO nurses, DO midwives, DO chiropodists, or even DO dentists.
Thus, in 2018, and out of a total of 29,612 professionals practising osteopathy, there were 17,897 osteopaths DO and 11,715 DO health professionals. The number of professionals using the title of osteopath has roughly tripled in 8 years (11608 in 2010 for 29612 in 2018). There are currently around 30 osteopathic schools in France. About 3 out of 5 French people now consult osteopaths.
But this does not answer my question why, in France, osteopathy is allowed to thrive in a virtually evidence-free space! To be honest, I do not know its answer.
Perhaps someone else does?
If so, please enlighten me.
The UK Society of Homeopaths (the organization of the UK non-medically trained homeopaths) has featured on this blog many times, e.g.:
- The UK Society of Homeopaths, a hub of anti-vaccination activists?
- The Society of Homeopaths have a Code of Ethics, but seem to ignore it. I wonder why!
- How the UK ‘Society of Homeopaths’ prevents its members from practising homeopathy
- The UK ‘Society of Homeopaths’ is surpassing itself
- Drowning in a sea of misinformation. Part 2: The UK ‘Society of Homeopaths’
- The UK ‘Society of Homeopath’ is an anti-vaxx hub that endangers public health (in my humble opinion)
- HOMEOPATHS AGAINST VACCINATION: “The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone”
- Homeopaths ordered to stop claiming that homeopathy can treat medical conditions
- ‘Dr V’, diabetes, homeopathy and the ‘catastrophic’ consequences of homeopathy
- When the UK homeopathy sector issues a joint statement, hilarity is never far
- Enneagram + homeopathy = ??? (spoiler: nonsense + nonsense = nonsense)
- A truly homeopathic survey
- Homeopathy: does killing holidaymakers via bad advice count as ‘high standards’?
- Homeopathy = hubris in allopathic doses
- Is the BBC biased against homeopathy?
Now, the Society has released the following statement:
The Society of Homeopaths (the Society) has taken part in the Accredited Registers Programme run by the Professional Standards Authority (the Authority) since 2014. This accreditation has provided additional assurance to our members and their patients of the professional standards that we have promoted and maintained for over 40 years.
Public protection, patient safety and patient choice are paramount and built into all the Society’s processes and governance. Accountability is ensured through a balance of representation by practitioners and independent members on the Board as well as on the Society’s professional standards and education committees.
Since July 2020 the Society and its members have put tremendous effort into addressing the concerns of the Authority and following the suspension of our accreditation in January 2021, we said we would take time to consider both the Authority’s report and our own position. This has since been superseded by the Authority’s review of its own accreditation scheme and fee structure in the light of the proposed withdrawal of its government funding.
After a number of consultations with the Authority, it has become clear to the Society that the new fee structure for the Accredited Registers Programme disadvantages smaller organisations in favour of larger bodies, and the fee increase proposed by the Authority to the Society, aside from lacking clarity for the future, effectively prices us out of the scheme. Further changes to the Authority’s standards and criteria are also still to be confirmed. The Board has therefore made the decision to withdraw from the Authority’s voluntary accreditation scheme.
We will continue to strengthen our 43-year tradition of being the most highly valued and professional organisation for homeopaths in the UK. The Society’s mission remains to ensure that patients receive the highest standards of care from our trusted members.
I wonder from which organization the Society of Homeopaths might now obtain an accreditation.
Is there an ‘Unprofessional Standards Authority’?
If not, might they create one?
Watch this space!
