Tag Archives: Australian Skeptics

Heavens to Gimbals – James Randi video restored

Posted in General, Media, Science, Skeptic by

Forty five years ago, Australian businessman Dick Smith arranged for James Randi to visit Australia and conduct controlled, scientific experiments on water divining. This particular event played a role in promoting interest in scientific skepticism in Australia and the formation of the Australian Skeptics, who have an article on this very topic here.

The 1980 experiments were produced by Dick Smith Adventure Pty Ltd. It proved compelling in what it revealed about water divining (aka dowsing) as a promoted skill, the reasons dowsing has been by some, uncritically accepted as factual, and the thinking process behind those that believe it is a genuine phenomenon. In addition, Randi brought with him a wealth of experience and explanation regarding the cognitive bias specific to water divining and non-critical thinking in general. These became apparent as the documentary unfolded.

Digital restoration from a 45 year old VHS tape took a significant amount of time including the application of unique software. Thanks go to Richard Saunders and Glenn Brady. You can learn more about this and Randi’s visit via The Skeptic Zone, Episode #870.

Do enjoy, James Randi in Australia – 45th Anniversary Edition.

Conspiracy Theory Attribution: An attempt to defend the Wilyman thesis

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Australian Vaccination-risks Network, Health, HPV Vaccine, Immunisation, Judy Wilyman, Media, Science, Skeptic by

In 2015 a long standing Australian anti-vaccination activist and lobbyist, Judith Wilyman, was awarded a PhD by the University of Wollongong. Titled A Critical Analysis of The Australian Government’s Rationale for its Vaccination Policy, the work attracted exceptional criticism. I’d like to consider the veracity of certain arguments raised in defence of Wilyman’s work, noting they have arisen from one source and are themselves extensive. [Jump to Conspiracy Theory Attribution].

Antithesis

From across the globe and from multiple sources, criticism flowed readily for Wilyman’s publication. For this author, there was one thing other than the content that also rankled. The fact that it was a collection of biased references arranged to attack the integrity of one of Australia’s most effective public health initiatives. Quite striking, for a work that emerged from an academic institution, is the absence of any original research conducted by the author. As the author uses the term “thesis” we had best examine this. The Oxford dictionary offers two distinctions, with the following describing “a doctoral thesis”:

a long essay or dissertation involving personal research, written by a candidate for a university degree

This may of course seem petty unless you’ve taken time to examine this work. Nonetheless for the sake of clarity I too shall yield and refer to this diversion from genuine analysis of Australian vaccination policy, as a thesis. It is clear however, that there is no research, methodology, study, data collection or justified hypothesis. There is only a literature review and a biased one at that. Australian emergency physician Kristin Boyle describes the work as, “the inevitable product of someone with an ideology based agenda”. Genuine literature reviews that seek to examine varying or different arguments, are valuable items of research. They collate and examine related works, and in judging the strengths or weaknesses of each, offer a contention, or indeed a novel conclusion. This didn’t happen in the Wilyman literature review. Still, Judith Wilyman falsely poses herself as “an expert witness” in a family court case, a “specialist in government vaccination policies” (federal politics), and has significantly elevated her importance to the fields of vaccinology and public health.

The reality is Wilyman barely scraped in. One of her two examiners suggested the thesis was unworthy of PhD status and better suited to a Master’s degree. They observed concerns about a lack of engagement with existing literature and “the lack of an appropriate theoretical framework”. Wilyman they argued, had conducted no original research nor contributed to the knowledge of the subject. This conflict was resolved by the rare event of appointing a third examiner. Australian Skeptics Inc. report (archived):

That third examiner, also unnamed, judged that, while the thesis as assessed showed Wilyman conducted original research, it did not make a significant contribution to knowledge of the subject, had no indication of a broad understanding of the discipline within which the work was conducted, and that it was not suitable for publication. 

They recommended that the thesis be resubmitted, and gave “extensive and detailed comments on areas that need to be improved”, sharing the same concerns as the earlier critical examiner.

This revised version was consulted by only one examiner; the third individual who had requested the significant changes. The original “earlier critical examiner” was not asked for an opinion. The examiner who had accepted the original, doubly-rejected thesis, was considered a certainty for the improved version. Thus, a year later than she planned, Wilyman had her PhD.

In the excellent article, PhD thesis opposing immunisation: Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences (Vaccine 37; p. 1542), Wiley et al postulate as to how this oversight possibly came to be:

The quality of the writing and presentation of the thesis is such that many of its arguments could seem plausible to an examiner without specific content knowledge, despite sound academic credentials. Our combined expertise (vaccinology, epidemiology, the history and practise of immunisation policy development globally and in Australia, social science) and as PhD examiners, both gives us detailed knowledge of the sources cited by the thesis, and allows us to identify key deficiencies […] A critical analysis should consider the merits and faults of an issue and be conducted in a way that is not designed to find only evidence for the writer’s pre-determined conclusions. […] This thesis does not include methods for assessing the literature, does not discuss aspects of identified studies which may contradict one another, or attempt to establish the quality of relevant studies. Rather, the references used are highly selective, only citing a small number of the available epidemiological studies and clinical trial reports, all of which are interpreted to support conclusions which appear pre-determined.

The Supervisor

A News GP summary of the above paper in Vaccine is available here. Let’s examine the first sentence in the above quote. Firstly, does it help us understand how such a deliberate failure to include material supporting Australia’s vaccination policy was not addressed by Wilyman’s supervisor? Secondly, is it likely such a biased collection of arguments was missed because examiners, and particularly the supervisor, lacked “specific content knowledge”? Sure, Wilyman studied within the School of Humanities and Social Inquiry. Her supervisor, Professor Brian Martin completed his PhD in Theoretical Physics and later became a Professor of Social Sciences, at the University of Wollongong. But not being qualified in vaccinology, related fields or policy development does not render senior academics incapable of accessing evidence or seeking consultation. More so, Wilyman’s published acknowledgement of her supervisor is unambiguous;

I would also like to thank Professor Brian Martin, my primary supervisor at the University of Wollongong, for his unwavering support and encouragement. His weekly phone calls kept me focused and there were many robust discussions that helped me to overcome the significant opposition to this project. I thank him for his patience and dedication to my research.

It’s important to acknowledge that the role of Professor Brian Martin (left) in Wilyman’s thesis was not just one of “unwavering support” for her many unsupported claims, but one in which his own later accounts afford academic freedom more importance than academic integrity. I shall endeavour to be as fair as possible in referencing claims Brian Martin has made in defence of the Wilyman thesis. I will seriously consider the notion of Conspiracy Theory Attribution (CTA) and the suggested failure of critics to analyse the thesis and citations presented.

Continue reading →

Bent Spoon nominees proudly preposterous piffle presents possible positively ponderous prevarication for pondering judges

Posted in General, Skeptic by

Who will win this years Bent Spoon award dear reader? Why, the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle, I hear you say. Yes indeed. But what a sterling collection of viable candidates there are. Judges face a challenging pile to sort through.

To find out who takes the gong we must wait until the winner is announced at Skepticon XL, which is being held courtesy of Australian Skeptics in Sydney over 23-24 November. To find out more about the Bent Spoon Award you can catch up here. To read up on this years nominations you can visit this page of proud piffle pushers. The predatory pseudoscientific pandemonium includes last year’s winner Ross Coulthart for his straight faced claim that Donald Trump fears for his life, should he reveal what he knows about UFOs/UAP. Coulthart also squeezed in an interview with Uri Geller during which he said:

I strongly believe there is a phenomenon of unidentified anomalous phenomena that is probably non-human, that is engaging with this planet.

Oh my, Ross. A phenomenon of phenomena? Really? There’s also one Cael O’Donnell clutching to the title of Australia’s Number One Medium and using the thoroughly debunked Spirit Box to tune in to so-called messages from the dead. Social media has been seemingly kind to Cael. I suspect Bent Spoon judges might not. For inflicting AstroTash on nightly news viewers, Channel 7 and news director Anthony De Ceglie are also nominated. Pharmacare Laboratories which popped up here recently thanks to claims relating to “clinically proven” Sambucol, are nominated for Adult Vita Gummies vitamin supplements. Marketed as “backed by science, memory and mind, seriously good, and triple immune support”, Vita Gummies for kids have already won a Choice Shonky, whilst the TGA are keeping a close eye on them via compliance reviews.

When you suddenly hear of a “medical wonder” you’re right to suspect it’s anything but. This is exactly the case with photobiomodulation. Sciencey yes, genuine no. Chiropractor Genevieve Dharamaraj claims a red torch light, when pressed against the heads of autistic children is “basically building new pathways in the brain and we can do that with cutting edge technology like photobiomodulation”. Outrageous stuff, and not missed by Media Watch. Another supporting chiropractor Kyle Daigle, sells the lights for US$8,000. Genuine experts label it pseudoscience. All the red flags were missed by channels 7, 9 and radio station 4BC, earning them all a nomination.

Our next nominee is erstwhile “controversial” Catalyst reporter Maryanne Demasi. Thanks to COVID, she has found her calling as an anti vaxxer and conspiracy theorist. Demasi narrates The Truth About COVID-19 Shots, which recounts the baseless claim that COVID-19 vaccines are contaminated with DNA, in addition to the usual grab bag of conspiracies. The film recounts the mythical beliefs of ex-barrister Julian Gillespie who sculpted the COVID vaccine court cases in Australia. Demasi focuses in depth on the Fidge v Pfizer case and the anti-vax fallout I’ve blogged about here. Because of that and other pertinent developments I shall revisit the Demasi caper in short order.

In a similar vein we find, unsurprisingly, that Port Hedland Council have also been nominated. The council voted 5-2 in favour of a motion to call for the immediate suspension of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The bogus claim that these vaccines are contaminated with DNA was again a feature here. It was brought forward by Adrian McRae who has a history of anti-COVID vaccine activity. Proving he’s no cooker, WA premier Roger Cook, memorably told the council to “stick to knitting”, suggesting they had “gone off the rails”.

Also from Western Australia, comes the focus on that state’s Cancer Council and the manner in which they offer the complementary therapies reiki and reflexology. This has earned Cancer Council WA a nomination. Due to the seriousness of this issue, it deserves some examination here. Whilst Cancer Council Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia, Northern Territory, ACT, QLD and NSW discuss and provide information on cancer and complementary medicines, they do not have the promotional tone or confusing claims found on the WA site. Let’s break that down a bit.

Landing on the national Cancer Council page or a state’s Cancer Council page and typing “complementary” into the search field yields a variety of results. Some states such as Tasmania, QLD and the NT direct you firstly to the national site’s Understanding Complementary Therapies PDF. It’s a comprehensive resource and goes into appreciating the perils associated with “alternative” therapies and offers hints on how patients should navigate all promised therapies. It is prefaced by:

During your cancer journey you may hear about, or become interested in, complementary therapies. There are many therapies on offer and information about these can be confusing. The information below will help you to make informed and safe choices.

Other states such as Victoria, NSW and SA provide an extensive information page and always direct the reader to the same PDF located on their own server, such as this example in Victoria. Victoria state:

Complementary therapies are said to focus on the whole person, not just the cancer. They include practices like massage and yoga, as well as medicines that you swallow or apply to the skin. Complementary therapies are used with conventional medicines and may help people cope better with the physical and emotional impact of cancer, as well as side effects caused by conventional cancer treatments. There is no evidence complementary therapies can treat or cure cancer itself. 

For example, the impact of healthy diet and exercise during conventional cancer treatment is appreciated today. We see that SA include in their information on complementary therapy; “Some have been scientifically tested and shown to work. Research into complementary therapies and medicines is growing”. Visiting the WA website we read when it comes to reiki, which is the ineffectual practice of moving hands near a patient; “People use reiki to improve physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing.” And also:

Evidence: There is no reliable evidence that reiki has any benefits. Anecdotal reports suggest that reiki is calming and relaxing, often helping to relieve pain and anxiety, reduce stiffness and improve posture.

Which tells us for some, reiki has a placebo effect or may induce calmness due simply to belief in energy therapies. Anecdotes can never be regarded to “suggest” anything, which can be better understood with research. In discussing reiki, Understanding Complementary Therapies states on page 9, “There is no scientific evidence of an energy field or that energy therapies have any benefits“. There is also no evidence reflexology has a genuine impact on improving health. Even Cancer Council WA state it is based on a belief. The placebo effect it likely produces is evident in this summary on the same page.

Evidence: Clinical trials have shown that reflexology reduces pain and anxiety and helps improve quality of life, particularly for those receiving palliative care.

Australian Skeptics’ executive officer, Tim Mendham has looked further into the claims by Cancer Council WA regarding use of these therapies and reports also, that reflexology and reiki are no longer covered by the NDIS. There are many potential problems when non-evidence based practices are introduced alongside genuine treatments. The distinction should always be abundantly clear and this is not the case for Cancer Council WA.

One such potential problem brings us to the next nomination. Elle MacPherson has made absurd claims her breast cancer “manifested” due to her emotional and spiritual state. She has further alluded to a holistic cure, despite having had seemingly successful surgery for the cancer. With the current impact of social media this is potentially quite dangerous. Her promotion of dishonest wellness guru Simone Laubscher, who also contends her own cancer was cured with an attitude change, is covered here on ABC’s 7.30 programme.

Finally, channel 7 manage yet another nomination alongside David Miles and his latest impossible rain-making, drought-defying technology, “Atmospherica”. Seven offered no criticism or expert opinion to Miles’ claims that he has a device that generates DNA-like code based instructions to atmospheric pressure systems, permitting him control of “the shape, velocity and trajectory of an approaching event.” Media Watch plonks this porky in its place revealing some great quotes: “PT Barnum style bunkum… technical description…is gibberish”.

So, if you wish to pooh pooh the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle, you know what to do.

Conspiracy Of One – Nate Eggins – will entertain Skepticon diners

Posted in General, Skeptic by

Entertainment for Skepticon’s Saturday night dinner, will be courtesy of Brisbane-based songwriter, musician and science communicator, Nate Eggins. In addition, Nate will also be one of the Skepticon MCs. With thought-provoking lyrics, Nate aims:

To encourage interest in science, promote critical thinking and with his quirky sense of humour, playfully nudge us to second-guess pseudoscience, modern advertising and conspiracy theories through fun catchy clever music.

Nate, a multi-instrumentalist, has used his talent and interest to create the solo project, Conspiracy of One. Described as A bit sciency, A bit funny,Conspiracy of One sold out two live performances at the Brisbane Planetarium, for the release of Nate’s debut album, Road To Reason.

Skeptics and fans of the Australian Skeptics podcast The Skeptic Zone are likely familiar with Nate’s 2021 hit, The Sound a Duck Makes. Indeed your “Quack!” vocal may well be on it. Road To Reason reflects Nate’s journey, “from the darkness of ignorance toward the light of scientific and critical thinking”.

Hit songs from the album include Can You Guess My Star Sign? which features Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, The Song THEY Don’t Want You To Hear and It’s Not You, It’s Corona. Great music and good humour with dinner, in the company of skeptics? Sounds like a great night.

You can learn more about Nate Eggins on his Facebook page, Instagram or check out some of his music on YouTube.

The Saturday night dinner is at the St. Andrews Conservatory in Nicholson St. Fitzroy. If you’d like a ticket, please visit Try Booking.

Clinical psychologist required for Skepticon audience

Posted in General, Health, Skeptic by

Gary Bakker is a clinical psychologist with over 40 years experience. His talk at the upcoming Australian Skeptics national convention is titled, Sex, gender and identity: The politics and the science.

Gary Bakker

It can be a controversial area of which Gary notes:

Gary notes:

It has been very hard to get past the politics of issues around sex, gender, and identity while trying to apply the science to our legal and social policy decision-making. For example, it took several submissions to journals before my two articles on the topic – ‘Sex, gender, and identity: It’s complicated’ and ‘Sex, gender, and identity: Science or politics?’ – were published, both eventually in Rationale, the journal of the Rationalist Society of Australia.

Even Skeptical Inquirer “didn’t want to go there” because any moderate contribution is attacked (cancelled) by both of the vocal extremes on the issue.

Visit Skepticon 2023 for more information or look for tickets here.