Comments on: The man behind the Mop of Death http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/ Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column from the Guardian and more... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:24:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: MMR and MRSA – health scares and bowel movements | Lack of Environment http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-38533 MMR and MRSA – health scares and bowel movements | Lack of Environment Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:13:15 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-38533 [...] Therefore, having lived through both of these health scares, imagine my surprise to read in the final chapters of Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science that both the MMR and the MRSA health scares were entirely manufactured by journalists whose sole aim was to increase their readership! This is the scale of Goldacre’s claim and, as with everything else in his book, he backs it up with great wit and style (oh, and a lot of logic and evidence too). [...] [...] Therefore, having lived through both of these health scares, imagine my surprise to read in the final chapters of Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science that both the MMR and the MRSA health scares were entirely manufactured by journalists whose sole aim was to increase their readership! This is the scale of Goldacre’s claim and, as with everything else in his book, he backs it up with great wit and style (oh, and a lot of logic and evidence too). [...]

]]> By: wayscj http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-29143 wayscj Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:32:52 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-29143 ed hardy <a title="ed hardy" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy</strong></a> ed hardy clothing <a title="ed hardy clothing" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy clothing</strong></a> ed hardy shop <a title="ed hardy shop" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy shop</strong></a> christian audigier <a title="christian audigier" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>christian audigier</strong></a> ed hardy cheap <a title="ed hardy cheap" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy cheap</strong></a> ed hardy outlet <a title="ed hardy outlet" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy outlet</strong></a> ed hardy sale <a title="ed hardy clothes" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy sale</strong></a> ed hardy store <a title="ed hardy store" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy store</strong></a> ed hardy mens <a title="ed hardy mens" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk/mens.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy mens</strong></a> ed hardy womens <a title="ed hardy womens" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk/womens.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy womens</strong></a> ed hardy kids <a title="ed hardy kids" href="http://www.edhardyworld.co.uk/kids.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy kids</strong></a> ed hardy kids ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids

]]> By: An4FyFlZ8C http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-2957 An4FyFlZ8C Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:12:03 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-2957 XC7jRxLgHhLQZ jFFGh8oUXHgzM s4A6amIYhx XC7jRxLgHhLQZ jFFGh8oUXHgzM s4A6amIYhx

]]> By: Oli http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-577 Oli Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:21:08 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-577 Would this be the same Kary Mullis who believes that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that the ozone layer isn't damaged by CFCs, and that global warming isn't caused by CO2 emissions? Sounds like good science indeed! Wonder if he has a shed. Would this be the same Kary Mullis who believes that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, that the ozone layer isn’t damaged by CFCs, and that global warming isn’t caused by CO2 emissions?

Sounds like good science indeed!

Wonder if he has a shed.

]]> By: Tessa K http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-481 Tessa K Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:42:31 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-481 Statistician: > If they can find a way to get sex into it, I say even sooner than that. Statistician: >

If they can find a way to get sex into it, I say even sooner than that.

]]> By: A statistician http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-480 A statistician Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:06:05 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-480 Adrian, The reason you shouldn't get exicted is that your interpretation is correct! At the end of the day, all 'good' studies should state a priori what their primary outcome is, and not fudge it when they report. Here it was number of colds. This was found to be statistically significant. I'm no clinician, I don't know whether it is important from that perspective. The main inference should be on that. Secondary outcomes are so called as they are less important. The fact that one of the 3 reported is non-significant doesn't affect the primary outcome. As to what is a large trial, well we could argue that all day. Given that they report how the sample size was calculated, and that their actual sample size was greater than this, even after dropout, i am convinced it was large enough. You may not be. Thats life. The really relevant question is 'how long before the daily mail has a 2 page article touting the 'miracle' of ginseng?" (and also flogging it through the advert pages). I give it a week. Adrian, The reason you shouldn’t get exicted is that your interpretation is correct!
At the end of the day, all ‘good’ studies should state a priori what their primary outcome is, and not fudge it when they report. Here it was number of colds. This was found to be statistically significant. I’m no clinician, I don’t know whether it is important from that perspective. The main inference should be on that. Secondary outcomes are so called as they are less important. The fact that one of the 3 reported is non-significant doesn’t affect the primary outcome.

As to what is a large trial, well we could argue that all day. Given that they report how the sample size was calculated, and that their actual sample size was greater than this, even after dropout, i am convinced it was large enough. You may not be. Thats life. The really relevant question is ‘how long before the daily mail has a 2 page article touting the ‘miracle’ of ginseng?” (and also flogging it through the advert pages). I give it a week.

]]> By: Alex B http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-479 Alex B Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:09:21 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-479 from someone whose doing an experiment using 2 populations of 5 organisms, 300 people is a huge study :D from someone whose doing an experiment using 2 populations of 5 organisms, 300 people is a huge study :D

]]> By: Adrian Gaylard http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-476 Adrian Gaylard Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:35:38 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-476 Statistician: 300 odd people is hardly a large study either. I do, however, take your comment on the use of the word significant. I still cannot get excited by 95% CI's that include zero. I wonder, to what you would ascribe the reason for this? Statistician: 300 odd people is hardly a large study either. I do, however, take your comment on the use of the word significant. I still cannot get excited by 95% CI’s that include zero. I wonder, to what you would ascribe the reason for this?

]]> By: A statistician http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-475 A statistician Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:45:07 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-475 Adrian, I'm not sure the study is 'small'. Generally statistiicans are employed to make sure the study is powerful enough to detect differences by making the study large enough. Given the calibre of statistician employed in this trial (Allan Donner is world class) I doubt the statistics are dodgy. Although the 95% confidence interval (1 in 20 chance) is reported, they also report the actual p-value of 0.017, which is much stronger evidence there is a true difference - more like a 1 in 60 chance there is no effect of ginseng. other results for the secondary analyses are even more compelling, suggesting 1 in 1000 or greater chance there is no effect. "there is a small but significant chance of the treatment group faring worse than the placebo group" I would caution your use of the word significant here. It doesn't aid explaining statistics to people to use that word in any other context than statistical significance, or clinical significance. Any non-significant confidence interval is by definition going to include the potential for 'negative' results the answer to be question may well be that this is one of the studies that is incorrect by chance. See http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 and http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/322/7280/226 for more on this 'fascinating' topic. Of course it may well be that ginseng does in fact work, but as neatly summarised in the companion paper http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/173/9/1051 " The proposed mechanism of action of ginseng is unclear. The authors provide a summary of the immunologic effects of North American ginseng, but it is not clear how these relate to viral respiratory infection." And until they tell me how i shall remain sceptical Adrian,
I’m not sure the study is ‘small’. Generally statistiicans are employed to make sure the study is powerful enough to detect differences by making the study large enough.
Given the calibre of statistician employed in this trial (Allan Donner is world class) I doubt the statistics are dodgy.
Although the 95% confidence interval (1 in 20 chance) is reported, they also report the actual p-value of 0.017, which is much stronger evidence there is a true difference
- more like a 1 in 60 chance there is no effect of ginseng.
other results for the secondary analyses are even more compelling, suggesting 1 in 1000 or greater chance there is no effect.

“there is a small but significant chance of the treatment group faring worse than the placebo group” I would caution your use of the word significant here. It doesn’t aid explaining statistics to people to use that word in any other context than statistical significance, or clinical significance. Any non-significant confidence interval is by definition going to include the potential for ‘negative’ results

the answer to be question may well be that this is one of the studies that is incorrect by chance. See
medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
and
bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/322/7280/226
for more on this ‘fascinating’ topic. Of course it may well be that ginseng does in fact work, but as neatly summarised in the companion paper
www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/173/9/1051
” The proposed mechanism of action of ginseng is unclear. The authors provide a summary of the immunologic effects of North American ginseng, but it is not clear how these relate to viral respiratory infection.” And until they tell me how i shall remain sceptical

]]> By: Adrian Gaylard http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-473 Adrian Gaylard Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:35:55 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-473 This is a small study conducted over a short period of time. The results demonstrate its limitations. If you look at Table 2 in the paper, the entries for "1 cold" have 95% CI's (for the differences between placebo and treatment) which span zero (i.e. "no difference".) This is saying that their is a small but significant chance of the treatment group faring worse than the placebo group, not a result to be proud of! The CI's for other entries are broad, and their lower limits are close to zero. For example, the outcome for mean number of colds per person (Jackson+cold) is 0.25 with a 95% CI from 0.04 to 0.45. In other words these data indicate that their is a 95% probability the advantage of the treatment, for this outcome, is between 0.04 (very small!) and 0.45 (subatantial). The data do not really allow one to conclude whether the treatment is worth the candle or not. Add to this that the 95% confidence level allows for a 1 in 20 chance that the value estimated lies outside the very broad CI's and the statistics do not look very compelling. Finally the sub-division of the data could be hiding more problems. Why split the data into 1 cold and >2 colds? If it was split into 1,2 and >3 colds what would the result look like? With this sort of choice there is always the chance that the data have been analysed in such a way as to give the most publishable outcome (inadvertantly, I am sure). This is a small study conducted over a short period of time. The results demonstrate its limitations. If you look at Table 2 in the paper, the entries for “1 cold” have 95% CI’s (for the differences between placebo and treatment) which span zero (i.e. “no difference”.) This is saying that their is a small but significant chance of the treatment group faring worse than the placebo group, not a result to be proud of!

The CI’s for other entries are broad, and their lower limits are close to zero. For example, the outcome for mean number of colds per person (Jackson+cold) is 0.25 with a 95% CI from 0.04 to 0.45. In other words these data indicate that their is a 95% probability the advantage of the treatment, for this outcome, is between 0.04 (very small!) and 0.45 (subatantial). The data do not really allow one to conclude whether the treatment is worth the candle or not.

Add to this that the 95% confidence level allows for a 1 in 20 chance that the value estimated lies outside the very broad CI’s and the statistics do not look very compelling.

Finally the sub-division of the data could be hiding more problems. Why split the data into 1 cold and >2 colds? If it was split into 1,2 and >3 colds what would the result look like? With this sort of choice there is always the chance that the data have been analysed in such a way as to give the most publishable outcome (inadvertantly, I am sure).

]]> By: Tessa K http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-472 Tessa K Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:53:14 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-472 Edward: it might help to know how many colds the people in the treated group had in the same four month period in the previous year. They may well have had less than the control group during the trial, but it was a small test and some people are less prone to colds than others. That's all I can think of. Edward: it might help to know how many colds the people in the treated group had in the same four month period in the previous year. They may well have had less than the control group during the trial, but it was a small test and some people are less prone to colds than others. That’s all I can think of.

]]> By: Edward Bozzard http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-470 Edward Bozzard Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:10:06 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-470 A group in Canada is claiming that Ginseng does actually have an impact on the common cold - While i'm loathed to believe this, their methods do appear ot be quite sensible. Can anyone reading this suggest any reason why their results wouldn't be Kosher? http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/173/9/1043 A group in Canada is claiming that Ginseng does actually have an impact on the common cold – While i’m loathed to believe this, their methods do appear ot be quite sensible. Can anyone reading this suggest any reason why their results wouldn’t be Kosher? www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/173/9/1043

]]> By: Adrian Gaylard http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-469 Adrian Gaylard Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:48:52 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-469 Reflectivity is a surafce property, depending on surface finish (as well as composition). To benefit from the reflectivity of silver preventing overhheating in hot climates (or reverse the shiney side to keep the heat in, in cold climates), as claimed, the magic cloth would require a polished (shiney) silver finish (silver foil?). As has been pointed out, these thermally based claims are, to be polite, sheer bunk. Reflectivity is a surafce property, depending on surface finish (as well as composition). To benefit from the reflectivity of silver preventing overhheating in hot climates (or reverse the shiney side to keep the heat in, in cold climates), as claimed, the magic cloth would require a polished (shiney) silver finish (silver foil?). As has been pointed out, these thermally based claims are, to be polite, sheer bunk.

]]> By: GWO http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-468 GWO Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:58:36 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-468 <blockquote><i>Except that blood is not ferro-magnetic.</i></blockquote>It's not? Damn, I've been totally lied to by my X-Men comics.

Except that blood is not ferro-magnetic.

It’s not? Damn, I’ve been totally lied to by my X-Men comics.

]]> By: Ray http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-467 Ray Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:07:30 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-467 And another thing: why does this Magic Cloth always work in an advantageous direction? "<i>Silver is thermally the most conductive and reflective element, and Toray products therefore assist in temperature regulation. Patients are effectively kept cool in hot climates and body heat loss is restricted in cool climates.</i>" Why not this? "Patients swelter in hot climates because the silver efficiently conducts external heat to their bodies, and freeze in cool climates as it conducts their body heat away". And another thing: why does this Magic Cloth always work in an advantageous direction?

“Silver is thermally the most conductive and reflective element, and Toray products therefore assist in temperature regulation. Patients are effectively kept cool in hot climates and body heat loss is restricted in cool climates.”

Why not this? “Patients swelter in hot climates because the silver efficiently conducts external heat to their bodies, and freeze in cool climates as it conducts their body heat away”.

]]> By: Ben Goldacre http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-466 Ben Goldacre Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:07:27 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-466 And everyone who went into an MRI scanner would explode. And everyone who went into an MRI scanner would explode.

]]> By: DaveGodfrey http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-465 DaveGodfrey Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:02:18 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-465 's a good thing blood isn't ferro-magnetic, Every time you listened to a walkman you'd runa a risk of having a minor stroke. ‘s a good thing blood isn’t ferro-magnetic, Every time you listened to a walkman you’d runa a risk of having a minor stroke.

]]> By: Tessa K http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-464 Tessa K Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:51:32 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-464 Apparentl,y magnets work on blood because there is iron in it and improve circulation. Except that blood is not ferro-magnetic. Apparentl,y magnets work on blood because there is iron in it and improve circulation. Except that blood is not ferro-magnetic.

]]> By: Ray http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-461 Ray Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:55:55 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-461 Quite. I've no problem with the idea that silver ions in solution might have a bactericidal action (a situation you'd get with a silver-doped dressing in direct contact with body fluids). Maybe that's what they're trying to convey, rather than "ionizes", which has a very specific meaning. However, the <i>promoting the healing process through magnetic force</i>" is prime-cut pseudoscience. Silver isn't magnetic. Quite. I’ve no problem with the idea that silver ions in solution might have a bactericidal action (a situation you’d get with a silver-doped dressing in direct contact with body fluids). Maybe that’s what they’re trying to convey, rather than “ionizes”, which has a very specific meaning. However, the promoting the healing process through magnetic force” is prime-cut pseudoscience. Silver isn’t magnetic.

]]> By: Alex B http://www.badscience.net/2005/10/the-man-behind-the-mop-of-death/comment-page-1/#comment-460 Alex B Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:25:54 +0000 http://www.badscience.net/?p=180#comment-460 I would love to know how magnetic force could possibly promote "the healing process" (i.e. inflammatory response). I am no physicist, but yet again the trusted google search gives you a little info on this fantastic magnetic force. unfortunately, and I say this with a trult heavy heart, the Lorentz Force Law does not SEEM to explain how the magnetic force would lead to a higher production of cytokines or t-cell proliferation. the equation is as follows: Fqv x B accordingly, the main premise is that "The force is perpendicular to both the velocity v of the charge q and the magnetic field B" PERHAPS they are trying to tell us that the magnetic force is causing an increase in the velocity attained by our trusted T-cells to get to areas of damage??? Well I will be damned. Next time I am in a rush to get somewhere I will make sure to charge up my transportable magnetic field inducing backpack and activate it as to increase my velocity so I can get everywhere faster! (And incase you are wondering, yes I do have more important things I should be doing, but I cannot be bothered to do some work on 'sustaining the variety of life' at this time of day- far too early). I would love to know how magnetic force could possibly promote “the healing process” (i.e. inflammatory response).

I am no physicist, but yet again the trusted google search gives you a little info on this fantastic magnetic force. unfortunately, and I say this with a trult heavy heart, the Lorentz Force Law does not SEEM to explain how the magnetic force would lead to a higher production of cytokines or t-cell proliferation. the equation is as follows:
Fqv x B
accordingly, the main premise is that “The force is perpendicular to both the velocity v of the charge q and the magnetic field B”

PERHAPS they are trying to tell us that the magnetic force is causing an increase in the velocity attained by our trusted T-cells to get to areas of damage??? Well I will be damned. Next time I am in a rush to get somewhere I will make sure to charge up my transportable magnetic field inducing backpack and activate it as to increase my velocity so I can get everywhere faster!

(And incase you are wondering, yes I do have more important things I should be doing, but I cannot be bothered to do some work on ‘sustaining the variety of life’ at this time of day- far too early).

]]>