Special Articles - Committee for Skeptical Inquiry http://www.csicop.org/ en Copyright 2015 2015-03-04T16:42:30+00:00 No Health Risks from GMOs Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:17:00 EDT info@csicop.org () http://www.csicop.org/si/show/no_health_risks_from_gmos http://www.csicop.org/si/show/no_health_risks_from_gmos Food safety is an important and emotionally charged issue. We all want our food to be safe. For most of us, however, the safety of our food is largely out of our hands. Other people grow, pick, clean, inspect, transport, and sell us our food. If you eat at a restaurant, others also prepare the food. It’s understandable that there would be a certain amount of anxiety about what we are eating. Evaluating the safety, healthfulness, and nutritional value of everything we eat is hard work.

While reading food product labels is helpful, sometimes it is easier to substitute buzzwords, reassuring notions that promise wholesomeness such as “all natural,” “organic,” or “gluten-free.” At the same time, the desire for simplicity can motivate some to demonize certain foods or food ingredients. There are those who want to demonize genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and are even pushing for labeling so that the so-called “frankenfoods” can be easily stigmatized.

There is some legitimate controversy over the optimal regulation of GMOs, the environmental effects and best practices involving specific GMO crops, and GMOs’ potential for the future. Like many public controversies, the debate can be better informed by scientific evidence; however, there is no legitimate scientific controversy over the safety of GMOs.

There is a solid scientific consensus that currently approved GMO crops are safe for human consumption. Despite this consensus, a recent Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/6424/nutrition-food.aspx) asked the following question: “From what you know or have heard, do you believe that foods that have been produced using biotechnology pose a serious health hazard to consumers, or not?” Of the respondents, 48 percent said yes, and 36 percent said no.

An ABC News poll (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1) reported that 52 percent of those surveyed believe GMO foods are unsafe, 93 percent favor mandatory labeling, and 57 percent said they would use such labeling to avoid GMO food (although California recently rejected a ballot to require such labeling). It is not uncommon for there to be a disconnect between public opinion and scientific evidence. It is particularly easy to stoke fears—and very difficult to quell those fears with abstract scientific evidence, which presents a serious challenge to scientists, science communicators, and those involved in public policy.

GMO Fears

woman holding anti-GMO protest signA mother holds a sign saying “Ban GMOs now!” at an anti-GMO/Monsanto rally in Pack Square in Asheville, North Carolina, USA, on May 25, 2013.

Public fear of GMOs is largely based on false premises and misinformation as well as on the highly popular but invalid naturalistic fallacy: the notion that things that are “natural” (a concept that is often poorly defined) are automatically more wholesome and safe than anything synthetic or artificial. GMOs are often thought of as mutants, unnatural, even abnormal. Defenders of GMOs are quick to point out that almost all food consumed by humans has been significantly changed over hundreds or thousands of years through breeding and cultivation. What we eat today bears little resemblance to its naturally evolved ancestors.

GM technology involves various techniques, and we should not conflate them or treat all GMOs as one single entity. Each GMO should be evaluated on its own merits. Some GMOs are created by turning off a normally expressed gene, so there isn’t even the introduction of a new gene. Others, called “cisgenic,” involve introducing genes from closely related species, ones that could be achieved through hybridization and breeding. Still others, called “transgenic,” involve genes from distant species, even crossing to other kingdoms of life (such as taking a gene from a bacterium and inserting it into a plant).

Transgenic genetic modification in particular can create the feeling of contamination. This is largely based on a lack of appreciation for evolution, however. First, all living organisms are the products of mutations. We are all mutants. Genes are changing things, no matter what method is used to bring those changes about. Farmers waiting for generations for plants to fortuitously display a favorable mutation—and then cultivating those plants in order to create a new variety—is just a slower method of causing genetic change.

GMO critics argue that taking genes from distant species is inherently risky because of gene regulation and unforeseen consequences. There is no evidence to support this contention, however. Sometimes genes from distant species find their way into genomes through horizontal transfer. This happens in nature with regularity. Further, people generally underestimate the similarity in genetic information across the tree of life.

The “fish-tomato” is the perfect example of this misunderstanding of evolution. Rumors were spread by anti- GMO critics of a GMO tomato that contained a fish gene. This was meant to shock the public. The Union of Concerned Scientists (a group, in my opinion, with clear ideological leanings) expressed concern (Mother Earth News Editors 2000). “But Jane Rissler of the Union of Concerned Scientists says otherwise: ‘The fact is, it has been done . . . DNAP [DNA Plant Technology of Oakland, California] was the company—that put the fish gene in a tomato.’ Rissler acknowledges that the experiment was halted before any products were brought to market, but, she insists, ‘that is because of the uproar. Believe me, they would be doing it if people were not objecting to it.’”

The real question here is not whether there is a GMO tomato with a fish gene, but who cares? It’s not as if eating fish genes is inherently risky—people eat actual fish. Furthermore, by some estimates people share about 70 percent of their genes with fish (Kettle­borough 2013). You have fish genes, and every plant you have ever eaten has fish genes; get over it.

Some fears are based upon consumption of “mutant” genes themselves. This is unfounded, partly because, as I stated above, all genes are mutants. Also, we regularly consume genetic material in our food. Our bodies handle it quite well without risk. Further, there is at least an order of magnitude more bacterial cells in your body expressing over 300 times as many genes as human genes (Kelvin 2012). You are awash in genetic material from other organisms, and you would not notice an extra “fish” gene in your tomato.

The point of the fish-mato, however, is to provoke a disgusted emotional response, not to elucidate a genuine risk. Perhaps the most legitimate concern about introducing new organisms into the human food chain is the potential for allergies. Some people have food allergies, and new proteins could potentially trigger previously unknown allergies. GMOs, however, do not represent a particular allergenic risk. Testing and monitoring are sufficient to evaluate potential allergies, and so far this potential risk has not manifested.

Evidence for Safety

So, what does the scientific evidence say with regard to the safety of current GMOs? A 2012 statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) concluded: “. . . Contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a recent review of a dozen well-designed long-term animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent” (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf).

The National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council agrees (NRC 2004): “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” The World Health Organization also agrees (WHO 2005): “GM foods currently traded on the international market have passed risk assessments in several countries and are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.” As referred to by the AAAS, reviews of animal feed studies have concluded (EFSA 2008): “Results obtained from testing GM food and feed in rodents indicate that large (at least 100-fold) ‘safety’ margins exist between animal exposure levels without observed adverse effects and estimated human daily intake. Results of feeding studies with feed derived from GM plants with improved agronomic properties, carried out in a wide range of livestock species, are discussed. The studies did not show any biologically relevant differences in the parameters tested between control and test animals.”

Even the European Union, which is politically not favorable to GMOs, had to acknowledge in its review of the research (European Commission 2010): “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

Not only is there extensive independent research and evidence for the safety of GMOs generally and specific GMOs, but this evidence is greater than for any other food crop.

The Precautionary Principle

For anti-GMO activists, apparently, no amount of evidence is sufficient. The precautionary principle, that we should err on the side of caution, especially with new technologies, is perfectly reasonable but can be taken too far. There is no such thing as zero risk or absolute proof of the absence of any risk or negative effect. This is true of everything we do, everything we consume, every medical intervention, and every technology.

However, it is easy to seem reasonable by invoking the precautionary principle, to simply ask for reassurance of safety and more testing. This plays well with the public; everyone wants to be safe. The real question is, however, where are our thresholds for safety? How much evidence do we need? Those who are ideologically anti-vaccine play this game well, always calling for more research, insisting on zero risk, and asking specifically for the kind of research they know will never be done (such as for ethical reasons). Anti-GMO activists are playing the same game. Despite the overwhelming evidence for the safety of GMOs, more than for any other food, it’s never enough. They want decades-long prospective studies looking at every possible negative outcome—but just for GMOs, not other foods. Like the anti-vaccinationists, they set the bar as high as necessary so that, if followed, GM would effectively be killed. They don’t want safe GMOs; they want no GMOs.


Genetic modification is easy to portray as a new and scary technology, but fearmongering is largely based on misinformation, a misunderstanding of evolution and our place in the natural world, and vague fears of contamination. In reality, GMO safety testing is extensive and has not uncovered any safety concerns for current GMOs. There are other issues with GMOs that are worth discussing, but fears of adverse health effects are not legitimate.


EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials. 2008. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials. Food and Chemical Toxicology March; 46 Suppl 1:S2–70. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2008.02.008. Epub February 13, 2008.

European Commission. 2010. A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research. Online at http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf.

Mother Earth News Editors. 2000. The Monsanto GMO story: Adding a fish gene into tomatoes. Mother Earth News April/May. Online at http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/adding-a-fish-gene-into-tomatoes-zmaz00amzgoe.aspx#axzz2zdVVXwu9.

National Research Council. 2004. Safety of genetically engineered foods: Approaches to assessing unintended health effects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Kelvin Li, Monika Bihan, Shibu Yooseph, et al. 2012. Analyses of the microbial diversity across the human microbiome. PLOS One June 13, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032118.

Kettleborough, R.N., E.M. Busch-Nentwich, S.A. Harvey, et al. 2013. A systematic genome-wide analysis of zebrafish protein-coding gene function. Nature 496(7446): 494–97.

World Health Organization Food Safety De­part­ment. 2005. Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: An evidence-based study.

Health Risk from Fukushima Radiation Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:17:00 EDT info@csicop.org () http://www.csicop.org/si/show/health_risk_from_fukushima_radiation http://www.csicop.org/si/show/health_risk_from_fukushima_radiation Fear is a powerful emotion with clear protective functions. However, fear is not always adaptive. An emotion that evolved to protect our ancestors (chiefly from threats such as large predators) now is pressed into service in a complex technological civilization. The number of things we are told to be frightened of on a daily basis—by the news media, social and ecological activists, and others—is overwhelming.














Kimura, Shunsuke, and Toshio Kawada. 2013. Fukushima: Radioactive water flowing into Pacific Ocean despite Japanese government claim. Global Research (October 11). Available at http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-radioactive-water-flowing-into-pacific-ocean-despite-japanese-government-claim/5353898.

Daniel J. Madigan, Zofia Baumann, Nicholas S. Fisher. 2012. Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (April 25). Available at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/22/1204859109.abstract.

Marshall, Michael. Fukushima leaks will keep fisheries closed. 2013. The New Scientist (August 6). Available at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23998-fukushima-leaks-will-keep-fisheries-closed.html#.UwJKd2K-18E.

Saito, Mari. 2014. New highly radioactive leak at Japan’s Fukushima plant. Reuters (February 19). Available at http://news.yahoo.com/highly-radioactive-leak-japan-39-fukushima-plant-045324842--finance.html.


World Health Organization. 2013. Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks. (February 28). Available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/.

Herbs Are Drugs Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:45:00 EDT info@csicop.org () http://www.csicop.org/si/show/herbs_are_drugs http://www.csicop.org/si/show/herbs_are_drugs Herbal supplements are big business. In the United States alone, 2011 sales of all herbal products were estimated to be $5.3 billion (Blu­menthal et al. 2012). Meanwhile the industry has managed to maintain a “mom and pop” image to the public, the righteous underdog constantly under attack by Big Pharma. In reality, the herbal product industry is just another drug industry, one selling products that are poorly regulated and likely don’t work for their claimed indications.



Here are some useful tips for the potential herbal product user:

  • Respect the fact that herbs are drugs, which means:
    • They can cause toxicity and side effects
    • They can interact with other drugs you are taking
















Blumenthal, M., A. Lindstrom, C. Ooyen, et al. 2012. Herb supplement sales increase 4.5% in 2011. HerbalGram 95: 60–64. Online at http://cms.herbalgram.org/herbalgram/issue95/hg95-mktrpt.html.
































Pseudoscience in Our Universities Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:48:00 EDT info@csicop.org () http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pseudoscience_in_our_universities http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pseudoscience_in_our_universities The group Friends of Science in Medicine has recently formed in Australia, and they now have over 400 professional members. They felt the need to come together over a disturbing trend—the infiltration of rank pseudoscience into once respected universities.

It is a sign of our times that we have to defend having standards of good science in the practice of medicine and the teaching of a science-based curriculum in universities. High standards of science in medicine are necessary in order to ensure, as best as we can, that treatments and interventions are safe, effective, and ethical. It is extremely complicated and tricky to determine safety and efficacy. Humans suffer from numerous mechanisms of self-deception, cognitive flaws and biases, poor grasp of statistics, and perceptual failings that are likely to lead us astray. In fact our biases tend to systematically lead us to false conclusions that we wish to be true, rather than to the truth.

These flaws, biases, and cognitive errors make it difficult to come to reliable conclusions in any area of exploration, but perhaps particularly so in the applied science of medicine. This field is further plagued by placebo effects, which represent the above effects in addition to a complex emotional and physical response to the nonspecific aspects of getting attention from an attentive practitioner.

Science is the only system that we have developed that systematically controls for all of these biases and flaws to see through to reliable information. Science endeavors to be transparent, thorough, and rigorous. The application of scientific principles has demonstrably transformed medicine (and human knowledge in general) for the better. As a society we should not lightly abandon the principles of science or try to change them to meet the needs of the current fads.

Universities in particular are supposed to be the exemplars of scholarship and intellectual legitimacy. People believe universities are intellectual leaders, not followers, and they are correct (or at least, they should be). Teach­ing a topic in a university is absolutely an endorsement of the legitimacy of that topic. We can distinguish between teaching about something and teaching the thing itself. It is okay to teach about so-called complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as a sociological phenomenon or even as an example of pseudoscience. Practi­tioners also need to learn about any method their patients may be using or about which they are curious. Credu­lously teaching CAM, however, is an endorsement, the granting of the imprimatur of the university.

It is tempting to cater to prevailing fads, to acquiesce to the vocal advocates and give them what they want, especially when there isn’t much protest. That is exactly what intellectual integrity is about, however—doing the right thing because it is right, not because it is popular or expedient.

I will acknowledge perhaps the only legitimate argument on the other side: that of academic freedom and diversity of opinion. I agree with the principle that a university should also be a place for the free exchange of ideas and should not easily impose censorship. Proponents of nonsense, however, have taken this principle too far. Academic freedom needs to be tempered with quality control. Professors should not be allowed to teach absolutely anything they want without limit. The university has a duty to ensure that the minimal standards of academic legitimacy are met.

This duty includes ensuring that science is taught in science classes. This debate has come up with reference to teaching creationism as science as a matter of academic freedom. Such freedom does not extend to the point of teaching demonstrable pseudoscience as if it were a legitimate science. The exact same thing can be said about teaching homeopathy, for example, as if it were legitimate science-based medicine.

The argument above should not be difficult to make and should resonate with academics. It has worked well in the United Kingdom, spearheaded mostly by David Colquhoun, who has used freedom of information requests to obtain the CAM curricula at universities teaching CAM, and then simply sent them to the dean and/or board of trustees of the university. This one act has led to the removal of CAM courses from universities in the United King­dom. Simply shining a light on what was happening was enough.

In the United States we are having a harder time, although we have had some successes also. The American Medical Student Association (AMSA) has been infiltrated by CAM proponents who have managed to get requirements for CAM to be taught in American medical schools. Of course, we can still teach about CAM (which I actually advocate) rather than promote pseudoscience—something that is not a subtle distinction but is often difficult for some to make.

Australia is perhaps having the most difficult time with this issue, leading to the formation of the Friends of Science in Medicine. Their request is simple: no pseudoscience in universities. They have helped bring the debate to the forefront. CAM’s greatest ally in infiltrating universities is stealth. I have seen this infiltration occur deliberately under the radar with the stated goal of avoiding too much attention, which might draw criticism. This violates the principle of transparency, and it illustrates why focusing attention on this trend is so useful.

Of course, CAM proponents are not going to just lie down and go away. There have been many responses to the criticism of teaching CAM in medical schools, none of which is valid. In Australia, the most frequently quoted defender of teaching on nonsense in universities is Iain Graham, professor at Southern Cross University’s School of Health. He is quoted in several articles, but this quote responding to criticism from John Dwyer, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales, is representative:

Professor Dwyer’s sweeping discussion about the issue are to do with quackery really, and the rooting out of poor practise. But if we look historically at the evolution of health care and the health professions, there are many similarities with where things started.

He mentioned homeopathy for ex­ample, well homeopathy is as old as Greek Hypocrates in terms of practising medicine. (Australian Broad­casting Company 2011)

Here we have a blatant misstatement of fact combined with a logical fallacy. Graham probably (if I am being generous) did not mean to state that homeopathy can be traced back to ancient Greece, just that some CAM therapies can. Homeopathy was in­vented by Samuel Hahnemann about 200 years ago (Novella 2009).

But I wonder what CAM modalities he had in mind. Chiropractic? About 100 years ago. Therapeutic touch? A few decades ago. Acupunc­ture is a complex question, but what passes for acupuncture today is less than 100 years old. Perhaps he was thinking about bloodletting or trepanation.

However, it is true that some basic concepts, like the notion of “life energy,” can trace their roots to ancient Greece and other ancient cultures. However, such notions are pre-scientific nonsense. Scientists abandoned the notion of life energy over a century ago because there was no evidence that such a force exists (and there still isn’t). After figuring out all the basic processes of life, there was essentially nothing left for the alleged life force to do.

For some reason, however, Graham believes that antiquity in science is a virtue—the “argument from antiquity” logical fallacy. The unstated assumption is that if an idea has survived for hundreds or thousands of years it must be legitimate. This is demonstrably false. Galenic medicine (bloodletting, purging, etc., based on the notion of the four humors) survived for thousands of years, and yet it was based on complete and utter primitive nonsense. In fact its tendrils still exist. There is still bloodletting, cupping (which is just another form of bloodletting), and similar practices going on in the world. It was replaced in the West because of the advent of science in medicine—a trend that Graham apparently wants to reverse.

Graham’s second swing and a miss: “Eighty per cent of Australians seek alternative therapies,” Graham is quoted as saying by Australian newspaper the Northern Star. “Obviously orthodox medicine is not working for everyone” (www.northernstar.com.au/story/2011/12/12/alternative-therapy-course-not-magic/). I highly doubt that the 80 percent figure is correct. Most such figures are highly inflated by including all sorts of practices in the CAM category, such as exercising and eating organic food—and sometimes prayer is included. U.S. surveys show the percentage of CAM use is around 33 percent (NIH 2008), but this is mostly things like massage and chiropractic manipulations. Home­o­­pathy use is around 3–4 percent, and acu­punc­ture 6–7 percent. In fact, only manipulation and massage were in the double digits.

This is all marketing deception. Create a false category (CAM), pad it out with commonly used methods, and then claim that the extreme fringes are therefore getting more popular. I don’t know how Graham got to 80 percent (I doubt such methods are that much more popular in Australia than in the United States) but it is close to one survey from 2007 that found that 69 percent of Australians used one of the seventeen most popular forms of CAM in the last year (Xue et al. 2007). However, that study included in its list martial arts, yoga, massage, meditation, and taking multivitamins. I am not sure what taking multi­vitamins says about the popularity of homeopathy, but apparently Graham thinks it is significant.

In any case, I will grant that CAM as a marketing concept has been somewhat successful—and even that it has gained popularity recently (although not as much as advocates would have you think). That is entirely irrelevant, however, to the question of whether or not any particular CAM modality is science-based and appropriate for a university curriculum (which is the question at hand).

Universities are supposed to be thought leaders with intellectual standards that rise above the mere notion of popularity. They are supposed to uphold academic standards of scholarship, especially in scientific disciplines with high standards in science. It is therefore very odd and disturbing to defend a university policy based upon popularity. Should we allow surveys of public opinion to determine whether or not we teach creationism or astrology in our universities?

It is good to see some organized backlash against the infiltration of pseudoscience and nonsense into the very institutions that should be teaching against such things. It is good to see more and more articles written about this topic—we want attention for the issue. We want a discussion of the merits of our position verses the pro-CAM position. Let’s have a very public debate about the facts, about what is science, and how we as a society should determine what medical interventions are worth our public support.

We will confidently stand by our position. CAM proponents, like crea­tionists, have nothing but weak and fallacious—and long discredited—arguments on their side.


Australian Broadcasting Company. 2011. Uni criticised for teaching alternative therapies (De­cem­ber 9). Available online at www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/12/09/3387574.htm.

NIH. 2008. 2007 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Adult Alternative Medicine Public Use File (althealt) IDN Variables Wednesday, June 4, 2008. Available online at ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/health_statistics/NCHS/dataset_documentation/NHIS/2007/althealt_freq.pdf.

Novella, S. 2009. Homeopathy awareness week (blog entry). NeuroLogica (June 15). Avail­able online at http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/homeopathy-awareness-week/.

Xue, C.C., A.L. Zhang, V. Lin, et al. 2007. Com­plementary and alternative medicine use in Australia: A national population-based survey. Journal of Alternative and Comple­mentary Medicine 13(6) (July/August): 643–50.

In Multiple Sclerosis Treatments, Hope Trumps Reason Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:04:00 EDT info@csicop.org () http://www.csicop.org/si/show/in_multiple_sclerosis_treatments_hope_trumps_reason http://www.csicop.org/si/show/in_multiple_sclerosis_treatments_hope_trumps_reason New ideas are presented in science and medicine all the time. This is healthy and necessary—we have to keep churning the pot so that new ideas can emerge and our thinking does not become calcified. But science is both a creative and destructive process, and most new ideas are weeded out by the relentless filtering process of research and peer review.

However, to patients suffering from an incurable disease a new idea represents one thing: hope. Science, by contrast, cares only about what works and is dispassionate, which is easily portrayed as heartlessness. Hopeful nonsense thus has a public relations advantage over pitiless science every time.

We are seeing this effect now with a new idea in the science of multiple sclerosis (MS). A lone Italian vascular surgeon, Paolo Zamboni, proposed that MS is not caused by an autoimmune process (the immune system attacking the nervous system) but rather by blockages in the veins that drain blood from the brain. He published his initial study that found a “dramatic” association between MS and these venous blockages (Zamboni et al. 2009). He called the condition chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI).

The paper set off a bitter controversy. Zamboni is suggesting that decades of MS research have been on the wrong track and that he has found the true cause—and potential cure—of MS with a simple diagnostic procedure. The press loved it—a lone maverick challenging the status quo with a bold new idea. Many patients with progressive and difficult-to-treat MS also loved it, for it provided hope of an effective treatment. (As an aside, there are several effective treatments for MS but not all types of MS or all patients respond.) When the neurological community treated Zamboni’s claims with (perfectly reasonable) skepticism, some patients began to weave conspiracy theories to explain the resistance. They wanted the new treatment, and they didn’t want stuffy neurologists getting in the way because their turf was being threatened by a surgeon (at least that is the narrative they told each other.) But science is pitiless and doesn’t care for narrative, turf, or good headlines.

Despite the low plausibility and the fact that Zamboni’s claims ran counter to the carefully accumulated MS research to date, many centers set about to replicate his findings. Replication is a key process in science. If a phenomenon is real, then it will be real in any lab. Zamboni’s findings were dramatic, so they should be easy to replicate.

Two years later we have several good replications. One study did produce similar findings to Zamboni, although the association was not as strong (Al-Omari and Rousan 2010). The next three, however, were all dead negative (Sundström et al. 2010; Doepp et al. 2010; Krogias et al. 2010). Skepticism mounted. Another study this year comparing MS patients to normal controls concluded, “This triple-blinded extra- and transcranial duplex sonographic assessment of cervical and cerebral veins does not provide supportive evidence for the presence of CCSVI in MS patients. The findings cast serious doubt on the concept of CCSVI in MS” (Mayer et al. 2011).

The largest replication to date (Zivadinov et al. 2011) found a small association between venous blockage and MS and concluded, “Our findings are consistent with an increased prevalence of CCSVI in MS but with modest sensitivity/specificity. Our findings point against CCSVI having a primary causative role in the development of MS.”

These findings are interesting. They do not entirely rule out a correlation between CCSVI and MS. However, the results are very ambiguous. There is a statistical correlation between MS and CCSVI, but there is also a correlation with other neurological diseases—with very different histories and probable causes from those of MS. CCSVI was also found in a quarter of healthy controls. So CCSVI is not specific to MS, and almost half of MS patients do not meet criteria for CCSVI.

To summarize all of the existing research on CCSVI and MS: The results are mixed with variable methodology used but are generally negative. No one has found the dramatic results first published by Zamboni. After a couple years of research, his implausible idea is not looking very good. At best we can say that there may be a small and inconsistent correlation between venous blockages and MS. If the correlation is true, it is also possible that these blockages are a result of MS, perhaps caused by inflammation, and are not necessarily a cause of MS.

Despite these largely negative findings, there are still many MS patients clamoring for treatment. The treatment of CCSVI is called the liberation procedure (essentially opening up the blocked veins, a procedure not without risk). Clinics are opening up offering the treatment to desperate patients—putting treatment ahead of the evidence or even using a treatment in the face of negative evidence, which is always a bad idea.

There are also calls, especially in Canada, for clinical trials of the liberation procedure. Such trials are not justified by the science that has been done so far, but because clinics are already offering the liberation procedure, this may force the hands of MS researchers. Before subjecting people to experimental medical interventions, ethics demands that we do sufficient basic science research to demonstrate that there is at least a reasonable chance of benefit. We have not crossed that line with CCSVI and the liberation procedure. Advocates of the procedure, however, are likely to succeed in making an end run around the usual safeguards of ethical medical research.

Those promoting CCSVI and the liberation procedure are likely to be portrayed by some in the media and by hopeful patients as brave mavericks. That is the hopeful, romantic, and sensational view. I suspect, however, that in the end the science will tell a different story.


Al-Omari, M.H., and L.A. Rousan. 2010. Internal jugular vein morphology and hemodynamics in patients with multiple sclerosis. International Journal of Angiology 29(2): 115–20.

Doepp, F., F. Paul, J.M. Valdueza, et al. 2010. No cerebrocervical venous congestion in patients with multiple sclerosis. Annals of Neurology 68 (2): 173–83.

Krogias, C., A. Schröder, H. Wiendl, et al. 2010. Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis. Critical analysis and first observation in an unselected cohort of MS patients. Der Nervenarzt 81(6): 740–46, DOI: 10.1007/s00115-010-2972-1.

Mayer, C.A., W. Pfeilschifter, M.W. Lorenz, et al. 2011. The perfect crime? CCSVI not leaving a trace in MS. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 82(4): 436–40.

Sundström, P., A. Wåhlin, K. Ambarki, et al. 2010. Venous and cerebrospinal fluid flow in multiple sclerosis—a case-control study. Annals of Neurology 68(2): 255–9.

Zamboni, P., R. Galeotti, E. Menegatti, et al. 2009. Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in patients with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 80(4): 392–9.

Zivadinov, R., K. Marr, G. Cutter, et al. 2011. Prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in MS. Neurology 77(July): 138–44.


















Selling Stem Cell Hype Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:32:00 EDT info@csicop.org () http://www.csicop.org/si/show/selling_stem_cell_hype http://www.csicop.org/si/show/selling_stem_cell_hype The parents of a two-year-old girl who has been blind since birth raised nearly $50,000 to take her to a clinic in China, where she received stem cells from donated umbilical cords. After the treatment, the parents were convinced that her sight had improved, but objective examination by an ophthalmologist revealed that she still had no vision. It’s a sad story that is one of many similar stories—the result of premature hype surrounding a relatively new technology.

















Knox, Richard. 2010. Offshore stem cell clinics sell hope, not science. NPR.org (July 26). Available online at www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128696529

What Is Acupuncture? Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:54:00 EDT info@csicop.org () http://www.csicop.org/si/show/what_is_acupuncture http://www.csicop.org/si/show/what_is_acupuncture Scientific jargon can be impenetrable, but it’s often necessary—ideas must be precisely and unambiguously defined in order to be useful. It’s difficult to test a vague notion or subject an amorphous concept to examination. So we must first define what acupuncture actually is before we can ask whether acupuncture works. This is not as easy as it might seem.

Acupuncture is often referred to as an ancient Chinese practice, but in actuality it’s neither very ancient nor exclusively Chinese. The modern practice of acupuncture is only decades—not centuries or millennia, as is often claimed—old (Ramey 2010). It has antecedents in ancient times, but the practice of needling in Asia was not much different from the practice of bloodletting in the West (Novella 2010).

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) has this to say about the definition of acupuncture:


It appears the definition of acupuncture is not tied to any alleged mechanism of action. Some definitions mention Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and either directly state or imply that acupuncture works by influencing the flow and balance of chi, or life energy. Such notions are little more than prescientific superstition, so modern proponents are often vague on mechanism or refer to highly speculative and unproven physiological mechanisms. Regardless of any potential mechanism, there are two features that seem to define acupuncture: the existence of specific acupuncture points at various locations on the body and the stimulation of these points by “a variety of techniques,” most commonly inserting thin needles through the skin.

So-called electroacupuncture is very problematic in terms of scientific specificity, because electrical stimulation through the skin has known physiological effects independent of the existence of acupuncture points. Scientific experiments are designed to control for as many variables as possible; only by isolating variables can we say which variable is having which effect. Electroacupuncture mixes variables, making it impossible to separate out the ones specific to acupuncture from the effects of electrical stimulation itself.

Needle insertion also has nonspecific physiological effects independent of any notion of acupuncture, but these are likely minimal, transient, and local. So for the purpose of experimentation, it is reasonable to define acupuncture as the insertion of thin needles into acupuncture points.

Clinical studies into the effectiveness of acupuncture have evolved over recent years, and there have actually been quite a few well-designed studies that adequately isolate these two variables (acupuncture points and needle insertion). For example, many studies compare verum acupuncture (true acupuncture in which needles are inserted into the alleged proper acupuncture points for the condition being treated) to sham acupuncture (in which needles are inserted into the “wrong” locations). These studies overwhelmingly show that needle location does not matter—verum acupuncture is no more effective than sham acupuncture (Moffet 2009; Ernst 2009).

Some trials also control for the variable of needle insertion, using placebo or simulated acupuncture in which opaque sheaths are used and a dull needle is pressed against the skin when the plunger is depressed, but there is no skin penetration. Alternatively, toothpicks have been used to simulate the sensation of acupuncture without going through the skin. Again, when this variable is isolated, it turns out that simulated acupuncture works as well as verum acupuncture. This is true of the largest and best trials of acupuncture for the most common uses, such as reducing back pain (Haake et al. 2007) and treating nausea (Enblom et al. 2011).

Therefore, if we define acupuncture as using needle insertion to stimulate acupuncture points, and the best scientific evidence shows that acupuncture points do not exist (it doesn’t matter where you stick the needles) and needle insertion has no effect (it doesn’t matter whether or not you stick the needles), then does acupuncture work? I think the only reasonable answer is no; there is no reality to acupuncture or the concepts upon which it is based.

If anything can be said to have a measurable effect in acupuncture trials it is the therapeutic ritual that surrounds acupuncture (but not the acupuncture itself). Even these effects are modest and nonspecific—they result from a subjective sense of well-being gained from the kind attention and relaxation that attends the acupuncture ritual.

We have known for decades that a good bedside manner, with some relaxation and encouragement, makes people feel better. This may create the illusion that whatever specific intervention accompanies these nonspecific effects is itself having some effect. That is the very point of scientific experiments: to isolate these variables. And when that is properly done, it becomes increasingly clear that acupuncture (the sticking of needles into alleged acupuncture points) does not work.


Enblom A., M. Lekander, M. Hammar, et al. 2011. Getting the grip on nonspecific treatment effects: Emesis in patients randomized to acupuncture or sham compared to patients receiving standard care. PLoS ONE 6(3): e14766. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014766.

Ernst, E. 2009. Acupuncture: What does the most reliable evidence tell us? Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 37(4) (April): 709–14.

Haake, M., H.H. Müller, C. Schade-Brittinger, et al. 2007. German acupuncture trials (GERAC) for chronic low back pain: Randomized, multicenter, blinded, parallel-group trial with 3 groups. Archives of Internal Medicine. 167(17): 1892–98.

Moffet, H.H. 2009. Sham acupuncture may be as efficacious as true acupuncture: A systematic review of clinical trials. Journal of Alternative Complementary Medicine. 15(3) (March):213–16.

National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). 2011. Acupuncture: An Introduction. Available online at http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/introduction.htm.

Novella, S. 2010. Modern bloodletting (blog post). Neurologica (July 6). Available online at http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2099.

Ramey, D. 2010. Acupuncture and history: The “ancient” therapy that’s been around for several decades (blog post). Science-Based Medicine (October 18). Available online at www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=7660.

The Memory of Water Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:52:00 EDT info@csicop.org () http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_memory_of_water http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_memory_of_water Homeopathy is nonsense and superstition diluted beyond all reason and given as a remedy to the grossly misinformed or scientifically illiterate. And yet there persists that very odd creature, the modern homeopath. While the practice is indistinguishable from ritual and witchcraft (with all due apologies to witches), the modern homeopath would like to cloak himself in the respectability of science. That is the path to acceptance, official recognition, and reimbursement. So homeopaths have added a new head to their hydra of pseudoscience—the memory of water.

A Brief History of Homeopathy

Homeopathy was invented (it is not accurate to say it was discovered, which would imply it has some basis in reality) by Samuel Hahnemann in the late eighteenth century. Hahnemann developed his principles of homeopathy from anecdote and superstition without any chain of scientific research, evidence, or reasoning. It is therefore no surprise that more than two hundred years later, scientific progress has failed to validate any of Hahnemann’s ideas (House of Commons 2010).

Scientific knowledge builds on itself, and when someone discovers a fundamental property of nature, it leads to further discoveries and a deepened understanding. Homeopathy led to nothing. Hahnemann’s “law of similars” is the notion that “like cures like”—that a small dose of a substance will cure whatever symptoms it would cause in a high dose. This, however, is not based upon anything in biology or chemistry. It is often falsely compared to the body’s response to vaccines, but this is not an apt analogy.

Hahnemann’s “law of infinitessimals,” the notion that a substance becomes more potent when diluted, violates the law of mass action and everything we know about chemistry. Also, many homeopathic remedies are diluted past the point where even a single molecule of the original substance is likely to be left behind. Hahnemann believed that the water retained the magical “essence” of the substance, which makes homeopathy a vitalistic belief system.

Hahnemann’s ideas are sufficiently silly that even at the time, early in the history of science, they were ridiculed and dismissed. Homeopathy remains utterly nonsensical, but it is now much more sophisticated nonsense.

A recent fascination with unscientific health modalities has caused a resurgence of interest in homeopathy, leading to many clinical trials of the effectiveness of homeopathic products for specific ailments. After hundreds of clinical studies of homeopathy, systematic reviews reveal that homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from placebos (another way of saying that they do not work) (Ernst 2010).

This is not even a scientific controversy—the evidence that homeopathy cannot work and does not work is overwhelming. Only ideology, wishful thinking, and scientific illiteracy keep it alive.

Water Memory

Modern defenders have desperately tried to justify homeopathy with scientific-sounding explanations, but they have failed miserably. One such attempt is the notion that water is capable of having memory—that it can physically remember the chemical properties of substances that have been diluted in it.

The notion of water memory was first raised by French homeopath Jacques Benveniste in 1988. He was not studying the water structure itself, just trying to demonstrate that water can retain the memory of antibodies or other substances diluted in it. His research, however, has been completely discredited due to the many flaws in Benveniste’s methods, his lab’s cherry-picking of data, his improper statistics, and his recounting data points that did not fit their desired results (Scrimgeour 2007).

Materials scientist Rustum Roy, who was enamored with spiritual healing, built upon Benveniste’s discredited research, claiming that water molecules are like bricks—they can be used to build structures that contain greater complexity and information than the bricks themselves. Specifically, water molecules can encode in their structure the chemical properties of what was diluted in them.

However, the evidence does not support this claim. What has been demonstrated is that water molecules form transient bonds with other water molecules, creating a larger ultrastructure—but these water structures are extremely short-lived. They are not permanent. In fact, research shows that water molecules very efficiently distribute energy from these bonds, making them extremely ephemeral. One such research paper concludes: “Our results highlight the efficiency of energy redistribution within the hydrogen-bonded network, and that liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure within 50 fs” (Cowan 2005). That’s fifty femtoseconds, or fifty quadrillionths (10-15) of a second. Contrary to Roy’s claims, water does not hold memory. In fact it is characterized by being extremely efficient at not holding memory. Scientists can argue about whether or not water can display ultrastructure lingering for longer than femtoseconds under certain conditions—but they are arguing over incredibly small fractions of a second.

Recently Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier has given a boost to the “water memory” hopes of homeopaths by publishing a series of experiments in which he claims that DNA highly diluted in water is able to generate radio signals (Montagnier 2009). There are numerous problems with these studies, however. Prime among them is that Montagnier’s study design is laughably sloppy (see Myers 2011). Montagnier used a crude signal detection device hooked up to a computer and generated worthless noise-ridden results. His studies proved nothing (and, not surprisingly, have not been replicated), but that has not stopped homeopaths from seizing upon his work to claim vindication.

So we are still left with no plausibility and no evidence that water can form ultrastructures for a biologically meaningful amount of time. It is amazing that Roy, Montagnier, and others so enthusiastically extrapolated from the claim that water can hold structures slightly longer than previously believed (itself probably bogus) to the notion that this can explain the biological effectiveness of homeopathy. Let’s take a close look at the nontrivial steps they glossed over.

If this kind of water “memory” is an explanation for homeopathy, then these structures would have to survive not only in a sample of water but through the physical mixing of that water with other water. In fact, they would have to transfer their structure, like a template, to surrounding water molecules. This would need to be reliably repeatable over many dilutions. Then these structures would have to survive transfer to a sugar pill (often homeopathic remedies are prepared by a drop of the water being placed onto a sugar pill).

These water structures would then have to be transferred to the sugar molecules because before long the water will evaporate. This pill will then sit on a shelf for days, months, or years before it is finally consumed by a gullible patient. The sugar pill will be broken down in the homeopathy proponent’s stomach, and the sugar molecules will then be digested, absorbed into the blood stream, and distributed through the blood to the tissues of the body.

Presumably, whatever molecules are retaining this alleged ultrastructure are sticking together throughout all of these processes and finding their way to the target organ in which they are able to have their chemical/biological effect.

Absurd does not even begin to cover the leaps of logic that are being committed here. In short, invoking water memory as an explanation for homeopathic effects just adds more layers of magical thinking to the notion of homeopathy; it wouldn’t offer a plausible explanation even if the theory of water memory was true, which it isn’t.

Some chemical bonds are strong enough to survive this process intact and make it through the body to the target tissue where they can bind to receptors or undergo their chemical reactions. Even most chemicals, however, cannot make it through this biological gauntlet with their chemical activity intact—which is why the bioavailability of many potential drugs is too low for them to be useful as oral agents. The chemicals are simply broken down by the digestive process. In other words, the ephemeral bonds of this alleged water memory—if this fiction of water memory even existed—would have a bioavailability of zero.


The notion that water has memory is nothing more than a restating of Hahnemann’s superstitious notion that substances can transfer their “vital essence” to other substances. Water memory is another fiction of homeopathy; it is not based upon any science and is implausible in the extreme.


Cowan M.L., B.D. Bruner, N. Huse, et al. 2005. Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O. Nature 434 (March 10):199–202. doi:10.1038/nature03383.

Ernst, E. 2010. Homeopathy: What does the “best” evidence tell us? The Medical Journal of Australia 192(8) (April 19): 458–60.

House of Commons, Science, and Technology Committee. Evidence check 2: Homeopathy. Available online at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf.

Myers, P.Z. 2011. It almost makes me disbelieve that HIV causes AIDS. Pharyngula (January 24). Available online at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/it_almost_makes_me_disbelieve.php.

Montagnier L., J. Aissa, S. Ferris, et al. 2009. Electromagnetic signals are produced by aqueous nanostructures derived from bacterial DNA sequences. Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences 1(2): 81–90.

Scrimgeour, H.J. 2007. Water memory tests all wet: A reassessment of the Benveniste experiments by a DVM. Association for Science and Reason (August 8). Available online at www.scienceandreason.ca/pseudoscience/alternativemedicine/water-memory-tests-all-wet/.