'Homeopathy works!' - Mail Online

Homeopathy really does work and doctors should recognise its healing effects, say researchers.

This is from the Mail Online website. I don't know if it's also in the printed version (I try to avoid the Mail if at all possible). But the title above, including the quotation marks, is the title used on the site. So maybe this is a sceptical report after all - who can tell? Is this an example of the Mail just presenting the facts, with no imposed spin?

A study found that allergy sufferers who were given homeopathic treatment were ten times more likely to be cured than those given a dummy pill instead.

What kind of study?

The study was carried out by doctors in Glasgow, led by Dr David Reilly of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital, one of five specialist hospitals in Britain. He said the difference in results from the two treatments was statistically significant.

Ah. Well he would say that, wouldn't he, being "of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital"?

Or perhaps I'm being unfair. Perhaps this was a double-blinded, randomised clinical trial. The phrase "clinical trials" is actually attributed to Dr Reilly later in the report, so I posted a comment* on the article, suggesting that we might like to see references to his study, so that it can be checked out, and perhaps reveal homeopathy to be the wonderfully efficacious evidence-based medicine it has hitherto failed to be considered as.

Or not.

*UPDATE 2008-07-01:

Well, I tried to post a comment. It didn't appear, and I can't believe I was the only one who tried. Despite the invitation to share your thoughts, it seems the Mail doesn't want any feedback on this article**.

**UPDATE 2008-08-01:

It has come to my attention that this is an old article from 2003. Unfortunately Mail Online gives no indication of this on its website, but it presumably explains why comments are not being accepted.

The Atheist Thirteen

Taking up Nullifidian's challenge:

(If you’d like to take part, copy these questions, and answer them in your own words on your own blog.)

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

Atheism is not believing in god(s). Strictly speaking, a-theism is not believing in a theistic god, so one could perhaps be an atheist and a deist at the same time. Whatever, atheism is not a religion. Nor is it, strictly, the active denial of the existence of gods.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Anglican. C of E. I went to a Methodist Sunday School.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Antiscience.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Computer technology. This is science that has direct and immediate impact on a huge number of people, in so many different ways.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

If only atheists could agree with each other, some momentum for social change could be built up. But that's a forlorn hope - atheists tend to be independent and freethinking. They arrive at their views by their own considered thinking process, so it's hardly surprising there's no agreed script. The religious have dogma, so they don't need to think about these things....

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

Surprise. Because, for a start, I don't have any children.

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

The teleological argument: that without God, the universe has no meaning or purpose. Guess what? The universe has no meaning or purpose.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

That religious moderates aren't really religious? I don't understand how anyone can be considered truly religious without being devoutly religious. And it's a short step from devout to fundamentalist - that's why I think religion should be stamped out.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Horses (horsemen) for courses: Dawkins for his careful consideration and precise expression; Dennett for his gentle, rational deconstruction of religion; Hitchens for his rapier intellect in a scrap; and Harris for his sublime mastery of language.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Pope Benny. There are lots of cranky religions out there, but the Roman Catholics have global reach, and their loony superstitions bear down with an alarming weight of numbers.

Now name three other atheist blogs that you’d like to see take up the Atheist Thirteen gauntlet:

1. Pharyngula
2. onegoodmove
3. Julia Sweeney

Hurry up now - there's not much of Friday the Thirteenth left!

The rational atheist - August Berkshire on KKMS Live! with Jeff & Lee

August Berkshire, president of Minnesota Atheists, was recently (23 May 2008) a guest on KKMS Live! with Jeff & Lee, during a segment entitled Understanding and Responding to Atheists' Beliefs. It was a generally civilised discussion, with people calling in with questions or comments. The audio is available as an mp3 file here:

http://www.kkmslive.com/MP3/17052308-AugustBerkshire.MP3

In his quiet, rational and persistently patient manner August dealt swiftly with every point raised. Anyone who consistently accuses atheists of being militant should listen to this 40-minute programme.

Thought for the Day: Time to retire this tired old format

Thought for the Day is a regular three-minute spot on the BBC's premier morning news radio show, Today, and has been for as long as I can remember. Despite its seeming permanence, it is misnamed - it should be called Religious Thought for the Day.

This morning's Thought, for example, was from Abdal Hakim Murad, Muslim Chaplain at the University of Cambridge. (The BBC seems keen to give a platform to various faiths, but not to anyone of no faith.) The Chaplain's Thought was an irrelevant musing on whether or not students should be allowed to take performance-enhancing drugs before examinations. This could be an interesting ethical question, but here it was inevitably mired in muddled thinking and unwarranted assumptions.

Listen for yourself on the BBC's listen again service:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/thought/t20080523.ram


Download RealPlayer here

...or get the mp3 version via podcast:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/rss.xml

(The script of this Thought is not yet available, but I'll post an update when it is, along with my comments.)

UPDATE, 2008-05-27:

The text of Friday's Thought for the Day is now available here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20080523.shtml

Here are a few excerpts:

Those who work in schools or universities know, as one of the privileges of their vocation, the moving splendour of the unfolding of human intelligence, surely the greatest sign of God.

Surely not. The unfolding of human intelligence (or its moving splendour) can signify various things, but there's no evidence that God is one of them.

In our world of matter, there is the miracle of consciousness.

This assumes that consciousness is something that cannot be produced by matter alone. It's a philosophical point that has not been shown to be true.

Are we, in our pharmaceutically unmodified state, as God intends us to be?

Whether modified or not, the assumption that our state is somehow the subject of the intention of a supernatural power, is unwarranted.

So if the brain exists to understand and cultivate God's earth, and to work out the existence and nature of God, what could be wrong with improving it by artificial means?

The operative word is the second one in the above quote - if. But there's no evidence that the brain exists to do anything of the sort. The speaker is imputing teleology where none exists. The brain is the way it is because it has evolved that way, and evolutionary pressures are not intentional.

...we can stimulate intelligence, but we cannot produce it; it will always remain a miracle, to be used reverently and responsibly.

I'm in favour of using intelligence responsibly, and even of stimulating it, but to suggest that we cannot produce intelligence and never will, is to malign countless researchers who are endeavouring to achieve this very thing. Maybe they should all give up now and spend their time more fruitfully - counting angels on a pinhead, maybe?

Incidentally, while searching for an alternative source for the text of this Thought, I came across Platitude of the Day, a site devoted to parodies of Thought for the Day. You can find the the entry relevant to Friday's broadcast here:
http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/index.php?entry=entry080523-081407

Am I Normal? - Spirituality (BBC2)

The third episode of BBC2's four-part "Am I Normal?" series was broadcast on 28 April, entitled "Spirituality."

From the Radio Times listing:

Britain is statistically a more secular nation than ever before, but while some have lost faith with traditional organised religion, many of us still foster some belief in spiritual or supernatural forces. But is there any way that empirical science can validate or debunk issues of pure faith? Here, psychologist Dr Tanya Byron explores the scientific analysis of religious phenomena such as faith healing and speaking in tongues.

The presenter interviews political commentator Matthew Parris (an atheist) and journalist Jeremy Vine (a Christian), amongst others. She visits a Carmelite convent to talk to the Mother Superior and to one of the youngest nuns, and also watches a DVD of faith-healing by Benny Hinn. There's discussion of the phenomenon of "hearing voices" and a bizarre encounter with a psychologist who claims to release spirits trapped in the wrong body.

Although it's now too late for this hour-long programme to be available on the BBC iPlayer, it can be streamed in six parts from YouTube:

Part 1/6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qidh2aC2yIo


Part 2/6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQIRZte5AQk
Part 3/6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OFVGHms9dE
Part 4/6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVUFfEu2YHg
Part 5/6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbvJxZfoE_Y
Part 6/6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxT3V7VdNXE

This was a fairly dispassionate view of various (though not all) forms of "spirituality", and I'm glad we're getting more of these kinds of programmes now. But are we actually getting more sceptical assessments now, or could it be that I'm simply more on the look-out for such programmes than I was previously?

Journey to the Other Side - Robbie Williams and Jon Ronson

In this BBC Radio 4 half-hour documentary, ex-Take That pop star Robbie Williams goes to a UFO conference in Nevada to talk to alien abductees.

RealPlayer stream available via 'listen again':*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/shows/rpms/radio4/robbiewilliams_jonronson.ram


Download RealPlayer here

From the BBC website:
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/robbieandjonjourney.shtml)

Robbie Williams is taking time out from being a pop star and wants to get out and have adventures in the world of the paranormal.

He has a genuine interest in UFOs and has been researching sightings, abductees and the possibility of extra terrestrial life.

During the course of the day, Robbie and Jon meet a doctor who claims to have 15 metallic objects which are not earthly, as well as a British woman, Ann Andrews, who believes that her youngest son Jason is an 'indigo child' - a child abducted by extra terrestrials while in the womb and sent back to Earth to save the planet.

The documentary was recorded on location over 3 days in LA and Nevada. The programme is a radical departure from the usual pop star interview and Jon Ronson brings his own incisive take on proceedings with Robbie at the UFO conference.

I can't decide whether this is a send-up or intended to be taken seriously. But the tenor of the show was effectively summed up early on, when Robbie Williams says, "Don't show me any debunking stuff, you know, because I want to believe."

*UPDATE:

The 'listen again' link above has expired. Get the mp3 from RapidShare here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/226461720/Journey_to_the_Other_Side.mp3

Could I stop being a Muslim?

Another from Radio 4's religion-fest a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/stopbeingmuslim.shtml

Could I stop being a Muslim?

Former Muslim radical Shiraz Maher spent his student days campaigning for an Islamic caliphate in which execution for renouncing Islam would be written into the constitution.

Now Shiraz is calling for moderation and greater Muslim integration into British life, a stance which has meant he himself is now labelled an apostate by some Muslim radicals, for which the penalty is death.

He asks whether such an extreme punishment is really justified by the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad.

Converts from Muslim backgrounds share their stories with Shiraz.

Ziya Meral gew up in Turkey and now lives in the UK. His parents disowned him when he converted from Islam to Christianity.

"They told people I died in an accident rather than having the shame of their son leaving Islam."

'Sophia' was living in East London when she converted to Christianity. She ran away from home, but her mother tracked her down and turned up to disrupt her baptism.

"My brother was really angry. He reacted and phoned me on my mobile and just said: 'I'm coming down to burn that church.'"

Read more in this BBC News article:

"When Muslims become Christians" - BBC News Magazine

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7355515.stm

The audio of the 36 minute radio programme can be streamed (RealPlayer) from the 'listen again' service:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/religions/islam/stopbeingmuslim.ram


Download RealPlayer here

The programme appears to be an honest attempt, by an insider, to discover the truth about Islam's penalty for apostasy.