Skepticism, evidence, science, mythbusting, consumer protection
News headlines from Europe about skeptical activism, mythbusting, science related policy decisions, consumer protection, frauds, health scams, alternative medicine, bad scientific practices, pseudoscience etc.
The current UK Labour government faces significant concerns about the rising percentage of the population diagnosed with disabilities, leading to an increased number of individuals registered as unable to work. This surge places a substantial strain on benefit costs, hampering government efforts to reduce borrowing and stimulate economic growth. In response, the government plans to introduce more stringent criteria for disability diagnosis and to increase support for rehabilitation programs to help more people return to work . Meanwhile, these concerns have been echoed for many years now by some medical professionals worried about over-diagnosis and the growing tendency to medicalise everyday life problems, especially in the field of psychiatry. This discourse is reflected in the publication this year of least three books in the UK, addressing these concerns:
• No More Normal: Mental Health in an Age of Over-Diagnosis by Alistair Santhouse.
• Searching for Normal: A New Approach to Understanding Distress and Neurodiversity. by Sami Timimi.
• The Age of Diagnosis: Sickness, Health and Why Medicine Has Gone Too Far by Suzanne O’Sullivan.
A national patient survey conducted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) on the experiences of 1,500 fertility-treatment patients in the UK has found that three quarters of patients are being offered unnecessary add-on treatments that ‘are not proven to increase the change of having a baby’. In fact, this has been happening for several years now and in 2016 was the subject of both a Panorama undercover investigation on BBC 1 television and a paper published in the online journal BMJ Open.
A 2.5 day conference bringing together an international group of experts representing different constituencies to discuss what should be done about the growing problem of research fraud.
‘Fostering Accountability for the Integrity of Research Studies’ (FAIRS) Oxford, 7-9th April, 2025. For programme and other details see: https://www.sjcfairsmeeting.com/ (switch off VPN if it fails to load). The website has the programme and a link to the booking form; registration including meals is £180, or for online attendance, £20. There are some in-person places reserved for students etc at a cheaper rate.
From UK’s Sense About Science: ‘This year’s Evidence Week in Parliament brought together more MPs, Peers, researchers and voters than ever before to discuss how evidence is used and scrutinised at Westminster. Evidence Week empowers parliamentarians to ask the right questions of policy evidence – what works, what doesn’t and what vital information is missing. It is important that legislators recognise how much the public value evidence, and what better way to do this than to have members of the public open Evidence Week? …. Evidence Week welcomed more researchers than ever before into Parliament to deliver quick-fire policy briefings on a variety of topics including AI, health, climate change and pollution. Over two days, researchers from top UK institutions shared their latest findings with the offices of over 80 MPs and 14 Peers, creating over 300 new conversations and connections – engaging 45% more parliamentarians than the previous year! Hundreds of supporters submit questions for Committee Chairs, and hundreds more people watched our Reverse Committee hearing broadcast from Parliament, where committee chairs respond to members of the public on topics ranging from paternity leave and restorative justice to child poverty and transport spending. View the meeting.’
This year, the vibrant city of Lyon, France, will host the long-awaited 20th European Skeptics Congress, organised by the dedicated local committee of AFIS from 31 May to 2 June. We expect around 200 curious minds from across Europe to engage in stimulating round tables, insightful conferences, and thought-provoking debates.
For more information see the full press release here!
In 2020, a clinical trial of homeopathic adjunctive treatment for patients with advanced lung cancer was published in the prestigious medical journal The Oncologist. It seemed to reveal sensational results: Patients treated with homeopathy lived about 70% longer than placebo-treated patients, and also gained significantly in quality of life.
Now, an in-depth analysis by an independent German-Austrian working group has revealed numerous indications that the data could have been manipulated and falsified. Problems include:
The conclusion of the review of the study reads:
Several of the results can only be explained by data manipulation or falsification. The publication is not a fair representation of the study.
The full press release in English from Information Network Homeopathy can be downloaded here.
Dear skeptics in Europe and in the World,
it is with sorrow that we bring the news of the sudden death of Lisa-Maria Kellermayr.
Dr. Kellermayr, an Austrian medical doctor and science communicator, committed suicide after relentless bullying from anti-vaccine activists and conspiracy theorists.
Her death has brought up a new wave of conspiracies, stating that her passing was linked to her discovering the “truth about vaccines.”
We are appalled and disgusted by the twisted way her death is being abused by those whose ilk drove her to it.
We know that many of you reading this have been the target of bullying, threats of bodily harm, sexual abuse, harm to your loved ones, and death threats. Please, we implore you to be vocal when this happens to you. Do not let this become your norm or your life – even if it often happens, repeat to yourself that this is not normal, this is not all right. Rely on your family, friends, and colleagues. Share this abuse online, so the abusers do not have the luxury of shadows. Report the abuse – to the social media provider, to the police, to whomever you can.
Please, if you feel overwhelmed, speak to those close to you. If that is not an option, here is a list of national crisis lines you can call.
Board of ECSO
If you want to remind yourself of all the thought-provoking talks and lectures delivered at the 18th ESC, or, if you weren’t there and want to know what was said, here’s your chance!
The talks are now on YouTube for your viewing enjoyment and education.
Over the weekend, a new board has been elected to lead the Hungarian Skeptic Society (HSS) in the next 5 years. Gábor Hraskó, who was also chair of ECSO between 2013 and 2017, has headed the organisation since 2009, but he decided not to run again this time. András Gábor Pintér has been elected as his successor as the chair of the association.
András has been very active in the international skeptic movement, both as the initiator, producer and co-host of the award-winning European Skeptics Podcast and a board member of the European Council of Skeptical Organisations (ECSO) since 2017.
Other newly elected board members of the HSS are police officer Laura Csécsi, IT-specialist Dániel Péterfi and plant biologist/biotechnology expert János Györgyey.
Via: The Skeptic
By: Dr. Alice Howarth
Recently, across Europe we have seen a rise in alternative health practitioners promoting thermographic imaging as an alternative to conventional cancer screening techniques such as X-rays and mammograms.
Dr Alice Howarth, a PhD cancer researcher from the University of Liverpool and the Vice President of the Merseyside Skeptics Society explains what thermography is, and whether the claims made for its effectiveness are backed up by evidence.
Thermographic imaging is the detection of “hot spots” using infrared thermographic technology. Infrared is emitted by all objects that are above absolute zero (-273°C) in temperature. Thermography cameras detect the intensity of that radiation in order to identify variations in heat. They are used to detect the bodies of humans and animals at night by the military and wildlife researchers.
Thermography has been applied in the detection of cancer since the late 1950s when it was first proposed to detect breast cancer.
When a tumour grows in the body, it requires a supply of nutrients in order for the tumour to survive and grow. In order to bring oxygen and nutrients inside the tumour, the tumour generates its own blood vessels. This process creates heat; therefore, it has been suggested that “active” (growing) tumours can be detected as “hot spots” in the body using thermal imaging.
Thermography can detect heat. Tumours are sometimes warmer than the surrounding tissue. Therefore, sometimes thermography can detect a tumour. However, thermography cannot say that a “hot spot” is hot because it is cancer. Nor can it detect a tumour that is not hot. So in many cases thermography will “diagnose” a cancer that isn’t really cancer – this is called a false positive. Thermography can also frequently miss the detection of a cancer – this is called a false negative. It is for this reason that thermography is not recommended as an adequate test for cancer.
False positives and false negatives are so common with thermography, that many medical experts and bodies do not recommend them for use in isolation when detecting cancer. The UK’s National Health Service do not provide thermography for the detection of cancer.
In 2017 the FDA published an update stating that thermography was not a substitute for mammography. They stated that “thermography has not been shown to be effective as a standalone test for either breast cancer screening or diagnosis in detecting early stage breast cancer”.
In 2019 the FDA warned that “Thermography Should Not Be Used in Place of Mammography to Detect, Diagnose, or Screen for Breast Cancer”. The CDC does not recommend thermography for breast cancer screening.
Thermal imaging might be valuable for the detection of other health concerns and is even being used to detect fevers in patients with symptoms of COVID-19. However no reliable medical body uses thermography for the detection of cancer. Proponents of thermal imaging for the detection and diagnosis of cancer is only recommended by alternative practitioners.
Alternative practitioners might recommend thermography because it is non-invasive and it does not use any sort of radiation, nor is it as uncomfortable as mammograms can be. However, thermography cannot accurately detect or diagnose cancer and should not be used in place of mammography.
Some proponents of thermography claim that it is safer than mammography. They claim that because the breast tissue is “squashed” in order to take a mammogram, a tumour might be damaged and therefore be more likely to spread around the body. There is no evidence that tumours can be damaged in this way, or that any damage can lead to spreading of the tumour.
Mammography has been used safely since the 1930s with the compression technique added in the 1950s. The method uses low levels of x-ray radiation to detect tumours in the breast tissue.
There is no evidence of harm in patients with breast tumours and no evidence to support the claim that mammograms increase the risk of the cancer spreading.