How to Respond to Media Myths

This is a cross-post on The Sun - Tabloid Lies, Express Watch and Mail Watch.

When you read the Sun, Daily Mail and the Express over a long-enough period of time, you start to notice a few things.

One thing that crops up regularly are hysterical ranting posts over a few small topics, including the following:

• It's Political Correctness/'Elf-and-Safety gawn maaaddd!!!;
• Scandal as the NHS refuses treatment!!!!!/New miracle cure for [insert scary medical condition here] - this is a particular favourite of the Mail which appears to be on a quest to categorise everything into either causing or curing cancer;
• Eurocrats are trying to control our way of life!!!!;
• Immigrants taking over and guess who's paying?!!!!

We've noticed that a lot of these scare stories could be stopped by a little research, which we accept that pressed-for-time tabloid journalists, for whatever reason, are unable to do.

Therefore, in the spirit of co-operation, we've decided to help them out by listing great sources of information, thereby saving them valuable time:

• Health and Safety Executive - "Myth of the Month" - a useful site for any claims which are made about bizarre actions taken or prevented in the name of preventing accident;
• NHS Choices - Behind the Headlines - a very good site for any "miracle cure" stories;
• National Institute of Clinical Excellence - evidence-based guidelines on various health topics, which go a long way to help the NHS what medicines and treatments should and shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer;
• News from the European Commission in the UK - news on how the Eurocrats aren't necessarily trying to dictate how we live;

There are also a variety of websites which can be used for any "Bloody Foreigners! Coming over 'ere! Takin' our jobs! Takin' our wimmin!" stories*:

• The Refugee Council - The Truth About Asylum;
• National Assembly Against Racism - Mythbusting Guide (PDF); and also
• Mediawise's guide to the use of correct terminology. 

There are also more general fact-checking sites**:

• Fullfact.org; and 
• Channel 4's FactCheck Blog

Of course, any and all of these lists could also be used by anyone else who wants to know more about the articles which the Sun, Daily Mail and/or the Express publish.

If anyone has any other suggestions as what other sources our tabloid journalists could use, just leave them in the comments.

* Thanks to Tabloid Watch for these particular links
** Thanks to Bloggerheads for these suggestions

The Sun Delusion

You may or may not be aware of the weekly science Podcast "The Pod Delusion". It's best thought of as a UK version of "The Skeptics Guide to the Universe", which I've previously mentioned.

Their latest episode (#36) includes a report by Marsh which is entitled "Football Crazy?".

It relates to an article in the Sun about a claim that men - playing to a stereotype - do think of football more than sex.

I don't want to give it away - other than saying that there's less than meets the eye to the Sun's claim - and so you just listen to it (starting at 28:25) as well as the rest of the podcast. I would also recommend subscribing to the cast as part of your regular listening.

Drinking booze "aids body"

Today's Sun has an article which gives the impression that drinking alcohol makes you healthier.

It appears to be referring to an article in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition called "Relationship between alcohol intake, health and social status and cardiovascular risk factors in the urban Paris-Ile-De-France Cohort: is the cardioprotective action of alcohol a myth?"

From the Abstract of the paper it appears that it isn't quite as clear-cut as the Sun makes out. The Results part states

Alcohol intake was strongly associated with plasma high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol in both sexes ... moderate and low drinkers displayed better health status than did never drinkers. Importantly, few factors were causally related to alcohol intake.

The Conclusion goes on to state

[M]oderate alcohol consumption may represent a marker of higher social level, superior health status and lower [cardiovascular] risk.

As you can see, the paper does not make a causal link as the article suggests.

Unfortunately the main body of the article is behind a pay-wall and so I do not have access to it. If anyone has access to it, and is willing to provide a copy, I would be very grateful if you could leave a comment.

Big Fat Lies

Two weeks ago there was an article in the Sun which was basically a promotion for a book called "Big Fat Lies: Is Your Government Making You Fat".

Apparently some ex-city lawyer is taking on Big Govt, Big Shop and Big Food by showing how only she knows the Truth (TM) about what we should and shouldn't eat.

To be fair to the Sun, it quotes a Dietician (someone who is qualified and registered to speak on the issue) who states that the author is "cherry-picking" data as well as quoting the FSA's Chief Scientist who bluntly states "She has her own website selling a weight-loss programme based on her theory." and also labels it a "fad diet".

On the face of it, I'm leaning towards the book being a load of rubbish. However, I would like to be able to review the book to see who is correct, but do not have a copy. Is there anyone out there who does? If so, would you be willing to send me one? If not, does anyone have any reviews of it? I can't seem to find anything!

Repetitive Sex Injury

Last week there was an article in the Sun which states that too much sex can cause carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Sun referred to an article in a medical journal called Medical Hypotheses. Unfortunately, the journal journal isn't one which is peer-reviewed and so anything can be published in it, including articles by AIDS denalists.

The Sun doesn't link to the article in question – nor is it even named – but it appears to be the one entitled "The role of sexual intercourse in the etiology of carpal tunnel syndrome".

Unfortunately, I am unable to obtain the full article, but the journal in which it is published, says a lot about its credibility.

UPDATE: Via the comments, I have been emailed me a PDF copy of the article in question. After looking through the article, I don't see anything which causes me to change my views on the credibility of the article. In my view, if there was something there, it would have been published in a more-credible journal...

I saw the sign...

Today's Sun has an article about a "Spooky sign" that appeared over a church on Hallowe'en.

*sigh*

Anyone will instantly recognise it as trails left by aeroplanes.

By the way, is it a good sign that no-one was actually willing to be credited with this article and instead it was allegedly written by "Staff Reporter"? Is this the Sun's version of the Daily Mail's infamous "Daily Mail Reporter"?

Cat Girl

Today's Sun has an article about a Chinese girl* who they say has baffled doctors by becoming covered with body hair.

I think that the likely explanation is that she's suffering from Hirsutism, although it is a symptom of something else, including the following:

• Polycystic ovary syndrome
• Cushing's disease
• Tumors in the ovaries or adrenal gland (cancer)
• Certain medications
• Congenital adrenal hyperplasia
• Insulin resistance
• Stromal Hyperthecosis - in postmenopausal women [of course this won't apply, given her age]
• Obesity: As there is peripheral conversion of estrogen to androgen in these patients, this is the same mechanism of PCOS

In any event, there's a good chance of her condition being explained.

* I don't think that the picture that is used of one of her...

Touched by the hand of Allah

Monday's Sun had an article which claims that some kiddie in southern Russia has had verses of the Qur`an appear on his skin.

At first glance you could mistake it for an Islamic version of Stigmata, but the people over on the Bad Science Forum suggest that it could be dermographia: scratching writing on the skin which leads to rashes.

They also suggest that the marks would disappear if the child was taken into care and the doctors should look into who's taking care of the child during the times that the lesions appear, so possibly implying Münchausen syndrome by proxy.

Jesus lives! (in IKEA furniture)

I was going to go through this article in the Sun about "'face of Jesus'" - yes, even the Sun is disbelieving for once, so hopefully they've read my previous posts on pareidolia - but Orac from Respectful Insolence has done the job for me.

She's Hearing Voices

Earlier this week the Sun had an article in which some woman claims to hear voices in a piece of video footage she's taken.

The video can be played about half-way down the article. I won't mention what she says she thinks it is because I don't want to give suggestions.

My view is that it's just static - and so would be simply another example of pareidolia: seeing/hearing things in random patterns - but I'd be interested in what other people think it is and what they hear...

Mother Nature in Tears

Today's Sun has an article which claims that there is a "face" in a melting iceberg.

While a nice story, once again it is simply an example of pareidolia - seeing images in random patterns.

The article also has the unfortunate side-effect of implying that any science related to global warming/climate change - irrespective of the fact that is a well-established theory - is controlled by hippies:

"Every summer there is less ice. I was struck by this image of a face - a saddened, motherly face, crying about our inability to reduce global warming."

Sigh...

Conclusive proof of Nessie!

I was going to write summat about this article in the Sun which claims that the Loch Ness Monster has been spotted on Google Earth.

However, the good people over at the Google Sightseeing website have done the job for me:

Oh for goodness sake. The Sun reported that this: http://gss.st/bx was the Loch Ness monster. THAT IS A BOAT. #eejits

There's nothing further to add.

However, I do like the drawing of the dinosaur they use as an illustration.

Wi-fi Stress makes you ill, follow-up

A few weeks ago I put up an article about some guy who claimed to suffer from Electromagnetic Hypersensitity.

I wasn't convinced to say the least...

It now turns out that I was right to be sceptical: a systematic review has just been published in the journal Bioelectromagnetics. In summary, it doesn't exist.

(via @Krelnik)

Tunisian duodecaplets

Today's Sun has an article which claims that a Tunisian woman is pregnant with 12 kids.

Leaving aside the complete lack of detail in the story: it quotes "local reports", no names are provided and is nothing more than a mishmash of heresay and rumours, there are reasons to doubt it on a scientific basis, which are alluded to in the article.

It would be an extraordinary event: the odds on it occurring are in the region of 1:80^11, i.e. it would happen once every 80*80*80*80*80*80*80*80*80*80*80 times, so once in every 858,993,459,200,000,000,000 live births.

Assuming that she actually is pregnant with 12 foetuses, it's very unlikely that she will give birth to such a high number. The record number for a multiple birth is 9 babies, which according to Wikipedia, has been achieved on three separate occasions.

In any event, as with all multiple births, there are numerous risks, of which the obvious ones are low birth-weight and premature delivery, the risks of which will increase the more babies there are.

UPDATE (19/08/09): According to the Torygraph, it's fake. The "mother" has refused medical tests and gone into hiding.

UPDATE (20/08/09): The Sun now admits it's a fraud.

Paedophil(i)e Dectector

Today's Sun has one of its regular articles seemingly published to whip up public hysteria over paedophiles. This particular article covers a government trial which will test freed rapists and paedophiles to see if they have reformed using a lie detector/polygraph.

The Sun states that they are infallible:

It is virtually impossible to trick a lie-detector because it picks up signals of fear, which emanate from the hypothalamus gland in the neck.

No, they're not!

What is the evidence regarding their accuracy? Well, the American Psychological Association (APA) states that they are no good at actually detecting whether or not someone is lying. Amongst other things there are no studies into any placebo-like effects, i.e. it is not possible to know whether the results are accurate or whether they are simply due to someone believing them to be accurate. There is also the slight problem in that it is entirely possible that a person could be telling the truth but is nervous while doing the test, which would lead to results that suggest that they are lying. Conversely, someone whom is lying may be capable of controlling their emotions, which would lead to results that would suggest that they are telling the truth.

What about the "Top US lie-detector expert" that the Sun refers to? As far as I can make out, he is a business man with an honorary qualification from the Hawaii Organization of Polygraph Examiners (who appear to have no internet presence at all...), the Texas Association Of Polygraph Examiners but he doesn't appear to be on their list of members, but the company is (but this hasn't been updated since October 2007) and the American Polygraph Association, whose membership list is currently being upgraded. He's labelled as a BS - the US name for a BSc - but it doesn't say what it is in.

So what can we say in summary? The best bet is to quote the APA

For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph.

Given the difficulties in also establishing the "expert"'s qualifications, I can only concur.

Of course, if anyone is able to find any more about the "expert", leave a comment.

Wi-fi Stress makes you ill

With the country seemingly doomed due to pig flu, the Sun turns its gaze to another pressing and urgent medical condition which is on the verge of wiping us all out: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

It has an article about some DJ who claims that his life has been ruined due to wi-fi singals. He claims that whenever he goes somewhere that has wi-fi he gets headaches and feels dizzy. He also says that there is "anecdotal evidence", i.e. a friend of a friend, of it affecting people. However, I could say that a friend-of-a-friend suffers from being exposed to massive radiation whenever he uses a cash machine from the display screen, but nobody would give this any credence. It's simply a story, not data.

The problem is, from what he says it appears that he knows in advance whether or not a place has wi-fi. As anyone who has conducted medical trials knows this leads to serious problems with blinding: he expects certain things to happen and those things do in fact happen, but it could be due to something completely different to what he claims or due to a subconscious belief that wi-fi makes him ill, which would then cause his symptoms (a psychosomatic illness).

I suggest that people look at the Wikipedia article on the subject. It demolishes the claims using actual peer-reviewed evidence and systematic reviews (effectively taking numerous small studies and using various statistical techniques to combine them into one big study) to show that there is no evidence that the condition actual exists. This is probably why it's listed on Wikipedia's "List of topics characterised as pseudoscience". I would also recommend the episode of the Skeptoid podcast about this area as a good debunking of the claims.

On the plus side the Sun does state there is "no hard evidence that wi-fi is dangerous to your health", but it then goes on to give scare stories about teachers wanting wi-fi banned in schools and the German government telling people not to use it. The Sun also has a small comment from one of their doctors, which although not supportive, doesn't state that it is rubbish.

It is entirely possible that the guy's lifestyle - he's described as a top DJ who plays in major clubs in Ibiza - has caused a stress reaction and so leading to his symptoms which he attributes to wi-fi signals.

I don't know how old the guy is, but from his picture I'd say that he's at least in his 40s. I'd recommend that he takes a more relaxed approach, for example, by spending more time in his Cornwall cottage. He needs to realise he's getting old and his body won't be able to handle as much as it used to. If he does, then it's likely that his symptoms will resolve without the need to go to such extremes as to fence himself off from modern forms of communication.

[Disclosure: article researched from my laptop using wi-fi]

UPDATE (28-07-09): Just found this (via Mashable who reported it today) in the Telegraph which goes into further details as to why it's false, using the frequency of the radiowaves that are emitted.

UPDATE (29-07-09): The Sun's article has also reached Ars Technica. Their coverage isn't favourable to say the least...

Of course, a comment on Fark.com shows it in simple language that surely even the Sun could understand:


I'll let you know if I see any other coverage.

"We surveyed 100 people..."

... although I doubt it was even that many.

We've all seen those stupid surveys, pretending to be a scientific survey when in fact that survey for a womans magazine about who is the worlds's sexiest bloke has only been conducted with only the ladies in the PR companies office and such like.

They usually try to keep up the pre-tense of either being a proper survey or at least throw in somewhere, somehow, that it's all just a piece of fun.

Well, Charlotte Martin, either wants to work in advertising or used to and forgot she is supposed to now be a journalist.

WHOSE body parts would you choose to create the perfect female body?

Nigella's ample chest, Kate's perfect pins and Beyonce's lovely bottom?

A new survey by organic weight loss experts Proactol has revealed which celeb body parts are deemed "most perfect" by UK men and women.

And the survey has some fairly suprising (sic) results.

I won't bore you with the details of the article as it just lists celebrity body parts and although the name of the company issuing the press release is mentioned as normal, there isn't usually a direct link to the company, is there...

For more information on Proactol and the perfect celebrity survey visit Proactol.co.uk

A nice bit of advertorial there, churning out a press release, which Charlotte still got wrong. At the Proactol homepage there is no mention of the survey at all.

Ghoul-gle Streetview

In today's Sun someone claims to have spotted a ghost in the window of a house using Google Streeetview.

From having a very brief glance at the photo it's clearly condensation but it's a good example of pareidolia - seeing images in random patterns.

The Easter Island Wonder Drug

I was going to take apart this article about an alleged "wonder drug" that increases your lifespan by "decades".

However, MacGuffin over at Tabloid Watch, has done a similar thing with the Daily Express's coverage.

As far as I can tell, the only difference in the two papers' coverage is the name of who wrote the article and so I recommend that you go there instead.

Lottery win is bad for you. Here's Saturday's numbers

Monday's Sun had an article stating that winning the lottery is good for your mental health, but bad for your physical health.

As far as I can see, it relates to this working paper (dated March '09) (PDF) (via the New York Times's Economix blog) [I'm currently unable to find a more recent version].

After reading the paper, it does appear that the Sun is mainly correct in how it reports the study, even though it doesn't mention that winning the Lottery has no significant effect on a person's general health status (para 5.1, p. 15).

I do however, have two main issues:

• It names people whose lives have become "tragic" due to winning it. Leaving aside potential invasions of privacy that may cause, this implies that the paper also mentions them, even though it doesn't: the data is based on people's self-reported health from before their win and after it and a comparison is done (p. 6-11);
• It states that they suffer from long-term health problems, implying that winning the Lottery causes them, even though the paper states that winning it has no effect on these (para 5.3, p. 17)

Of course, there's also the fact that if the lottery really is damaging to public health, should the Sun really be providing the latest lottery numbers in the next paragraph?