Tweets for 2009-10-08
October 8th, 2009 12:30 am by admin
- RT @lessthancred Latest Post!: The Plight Of The Candycapped http://bit.ly/3nw0qF #
- Rust on the Tin Ear: http://bit.ly/3383ry Latest post from Less Than Credulous #skeptic #science #
Rust on the Tin Ear
October 7th, 2009 10:36 pm by Shane
The health care debate "raging" in Washington is one reason I stopped doing a political podcast. I don't want to rehash the arguments, because it just rots my soul. I try as hard as I can, often failing, to not talk about it with anyone. However, no matter what side of the debate you're on, any time you hear ads for homeopathic treatments, you should get a little angry. Here we are, as a nation, deciding how much real money we went to dedicate to public health insurance, and we have to contend with nonsense like homeopathy. Americans spend around $34B a year on homeopathic remedies which have no therapeutic effect. Considering that the health care bills are estimated to cost anywhere from $75B to $110B a year for the next ten years, the homeopathic spending isn't insignificant.
So what got me annoyed today? Not more than ten minutes after listening to a caller to the Dave Ramsey Show announce that he had $118K in student loan debt for going to college to learn chiropractics, I hear a commercial for "Quietus", a "natural" cure for tinnitus. When it comes to medicine commercials with the word "natural" in them, my BS detector immediately goes off. The commercial was as lame as you would expect. A bunch of "testimonials" were interspersed with claims of how "natural" the medication was. I was driving in my car at the time, so I had to wait a little bit to check out their website, and oh was it worth the wait.
First off, let's define tinnitus. Most people would instantly associate it with "ringing in the ears." That is exactly correct, but the causes are varied. Infections, side effects from medication, wax build up and loud music can all cause tinnitus. Most importantly, almost all cases of tinnitus are measured subjectively. In fact, most cases are called "subjective tinnitus". "Objective tinnitus" is pretty rare. One very important point to make, is that people who have tinnitus do hear a ringing or buzz, and are unable to focus on anything else.
I won't say that tinnitus isn't uncomfortable and a real quality of life issue. It definitely is. It's just that we can't leave out how people with tinnitus focus their attention on the noise. Imagine sitting in a room watching a TV show, focusing intently on the action on the screen (I suggest The Mentalist btw). You may not notice a beeping sound from a smoke detector with a weak battery, or in my case, my wife asking me a question. Once our attention focuses on the new sound, though, we may not be able to stop hearing it (in my case, I should). There is a distinct subjective almost psychosomatic quality to tinnitus that can't be ignored.
Now back to "Quietus". Googling "quietus" brings up a bunch of pages that have nothing to do with the homeopathic medicine. They obviously didn't do their homework on that one. "Quietus" apparently is the name of the suicide kit in the movie "Children of Men". The website is extremely hard to find from the name of the product. I did eventually find it, but I won't link to it from here.
The website is lacking any real information. No ingredients, no testimonials with names attached, nothing. You can't order from the website; the only way to order is to call as far as I can tell. Not sure if it could come off more like a scam, short of saying that a Nigerian Prince has decided to bequeath his family secret for curing tinnitus if only you would send them your bank account number. It's just ridiculous.
Conclusion? We have a subjective symptom (literally named "subjective tinnitus") that is difficult to measure. We have a "medication" made up of homeopathic ingredients (water). My strongly educated guess is that Quietus is a scam and depends on the placebo effect and subjective self reporting to have any effect. Save your dollars.
The Plight Of The Candycapped
October 7th, 2009 2:28 pm by Jonathan
Just in time for Hallowe'en, Cardiff University recently released an article saying that a study showed a direct link between the consumption of sweets by children and violent tendencies later in their lives. The British Journal of Psychiatry studied the long-term effects of those who consumed candy regularly versus those who did not. According to the study, of the 69% who were violent by the age of 34, all had eaten candy nearly every day of their lives, compared to the 42% who were rather imbellic.
Now, despite the seemingly skewed statistics (or lack of complete statistics, as they are presented) the article sums up that there is a direct link to children being given candy as a means of keeping them quiet or sated and the development of tendencies to satisfy immediate gratification later on in life. If a child cries or complains, feel free to give her or him sweets to calm the tantrum, but understand that the child may grow up to use more nefarious means to get what she or he wants when the world isn't going right.
Lots of candy during the formative years = a violent society later in life.
I take issue with this on a number of levels. Firstly, instead of having those with violent tendencies own up to their mistakes (not everyone has a chemical imbalance caused by sweets that is irreversible and must have constant psychiatric supervision), or looking toward poor parenting (I'll touch on this in a little bit), we are looking to the manufacturers of confections and the stores that make them available to the general public.
Maybe, here in the United States, we should appoint a Candy Czar (who will, I predict, resign within a month of appointment when it's discovered that she/he once gave candy to a minor) to make certain that sweets are given warning labels based on sugar intensity, flavor, and portion size. Maybe those ratings could be devised by a federally-funded third party that works in conjunction with the FDA to audit what is allowed on store shelves and what a proper age is for someone to buy certain candies without a parent or guardian being present. Perhaps we can keep candy locked up (much like razors in many stores here), or allow only a certain amount of sugar to be purchased in an allotted period, much like certain over the counter medicine is in many states. There should be panic in the streets! Parents should arm themselves in protective gear and crowd control devices in case roving bands of elementary school students start to exhibit violent tendencies or become overly exuberant when out trick-or-treating this year, either from too much candy, or from being denied candy. (Don't forget to look for popular gang colors in the kids' costumes, as well. To help the parents reading this, black, orange, red, green, and purple are good indicators.)
I am not a parent, and probably will not have an opportunity to raise a person from childbirth to adulthood. However, I have been a child (and still have the mentality of one, as both my proponents and detractors will tell you), and observed the methods my parents (and others) have used throughout the years, and have looked back at what I and others used to do as kids.
Kids can be terrors. You set boundaries, and children always want to know why those lines are drawn, and what's on the other side. Kids cry, yell, and (when they think no one is looking) will explore to see what is denied them by the powers that be, and will go to great lengths to get what they want. This is burgeoning human curiosity, and something to be commended.
However, when this curiosity is not sated, or the reasons for restrictions are not explained in full (or in a manner that a child can understand), then the rebellious behavior increases. Many parents would see it as a win-win situation just to give the damn kid the candy and have peace and quiet, rather than yelling and crying or destructive behavior.
I don't want to limit this to candy, either. Candy seems like a concern because it is present almost everywhere we go. It is tangible and attainable by people of virtually any age with loose change in their pockets. It's colorful, sweet, and often advertized in an appealing manner in print, on-line, and during commercial breaks on television when broadcasting shows intended for children. Candy manufacturers are not preying upon children. There is no evil candy conglomerate working in association with The Illuminati and The Rand Corporation to corrupt the youth of the world and have them as a sugar-addicted army bent on crushing all existing authority; ready to carry out any order blindly for a taste of a chocolate bar (or one of those very sour candies, if you are the author of this article). Candy companies know their target demographic, and want to do what most companies in any industry want to do: make money.
I think we all know what they're getting at here.
Do you want to help fight the evils of sugar? Do you want to curb the potentially violent tendencies of children (especially yours, even though I'm certain you know they are darlings without any faults directly or indirectly related to how you raise them)?
Then stop combating the large corporations who make candy, the television networks who advertise candy, and companies who may make and publish games, movies, and books for children featuring candy, and take responsibility into your own hands! “No” means very little to most children, except as a cue to scream louder and be more persistent. This is where you need to start thinking and reasoning. I'm not talking about cheap bargains like offering the child a new toy if he or she stops crying about wanting candy for five minutes, or anything like that. You've lost the war and given your child the reins at that point. You need to reason with your child. Let kids know why you are denying them things like a ton of candy, hours in front of the television, or a later bed time. Explain it in a way they can understand, and encourage them to question why you do things as a means of understanding and (in some cases) compromising. Heck, all parties may even learn something about each other.
However, this can be very taxing, in which case I advise you to cut a few lines of Pixy Stix on the Sit N' Spin and let the little tykes have at it. Then tell them you'll show them how to smuggle condoms filled with peanut butter cups via a demonstration using a Mr. Potato Head figure (that hatch is not just for storing the pieces and accessories). Tell them if they do a good job, that you'll take them to the store and get them anything they want, if they go out and bring you the neighbor's credit card. Oh yeah, tell them where the neighbors keep their candy before you send them out to ply the knowledge and trade you taught them, through the power of good and responsible parenting!
Contraband goes here.
Now, where are my cigarettes? I swear I'll just kill someone if I don't have one now.
Tweets for 2009-10-05
October 5th, 2009 12:30 am by admin
- http://bit.ly/3ZtFwi I look at "5 Scary Cryptids" #
Five not so scary cryptids
October 4th, 2009 11:04 am by Shane
I've been interested in cryptozoology since I was a kid when I would find every book I could in the library on Bigfoot, Nessie, or the Yeti and read them voraciously. I was too young to be able to separate the totally bogus books from the somewhat bogus books. I watched any "In Search Of..." I could, and any "Bigfoot" special that came on. As I got older, though, I learned that much of what I read was exaggerated bunk. However, no matter what, in the back of my mind I'd like to think it's possible in the remote parts of the Himalayas to be some undiscovered primate. I'm not hopeful, but I'd like to think it's possible.
Today, cryptozoology includes a lot of cryptids that I never heard of until I started listening to Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM show about a decade ago. At this point, all it takes is one report from someone really scared to create a new cryptid. Recently on Coast to Coast AM, George Noory had a paranormal investigator named Joshua Warren on for a segment to talk about the "Five Scariest Cryptids", cryptids you would never want to meet (in real life? ). The list, taken from here, http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/09/22:
* 5) Devil Dragons-- seen in South Carolina, these huge pterodactyl-like creatures have piercing eyes and flapping wings.
* 4) Batsquatch-- with glowing yellow eyes, this flying creature reportedly caused a truck's engine to shut off near Mount Rainier.
* 3) Wendigo-- according to Native American lore, this hairy shape-shifting giant was once a human, but after performing acts of cannibalism, it turned into a shaggy monster.
* 2) Hellhounds-- Dating back hundreds of years, reports detail hulking Rottweiler-like dogs that suddenly appear and tear people to shreds.
* 1) Popobawa-- A 7 ft. tall black-winged demonic entity that is said to brutally molest men in Zanzibar.
On the show, both George and Joshua referred to photographs of a Devil Dragon that were supposedly very intriguing. If you look at these pictures, though, you should be less than impressed. Here are links to the pictures themselves:
* http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/devildragon1.jpg
* http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/devildragon2.jpg
Have you ever seen less convincing photographs of anything? It's pretty obvious that what's being photographed is the reflection off of some sort of mist or smoke. These are awful pictures. I can't believe anyone would believe they are "Devil Dragons".
In all seriousness, I believe Joshua Warren wants his work to be taken serious, but how do you when he takes pictures of smoke or mist and passes them off as "Devil Dragons." It's a symptom of what has ruined the magic of cryptozoology for me and for so many skeptics. It's too mysticall now. Cryptozoology used to be stories about people in the woods observing animals and substances animals leave behind. Sure, most of the time (if not all the time) it comes down to misidentification of known animals, but at least there is something physically there.
The other things on the list? Batsquatch? Really? Are we to take serious Wendigos, Hellhounds and Popobawas? They're just legends, that's all. It's almost certain that Sasquatch and the Yeti are too, but at least people try to find something physical that can be tested. To be accurate, Joshua Warren call these cryptids "phantimals", which means they appear and disappear from our world, but seem physical when they're in it. In other words, more new age junk.
I know it sounds silly to hear a skeptic complain about cryptozoology not being about real enough creatures, but the pursuit of previously unknown creatures is a valid science. Examining local legends to see if they have a kernel of truth is sound work. What Joshua Warren is promoting, though, is the uncritical acceptance of any and all claims that sound spooky. That's my complaint. I'm less than credulous.