"Dear Joanne the Tour Guide, from Dean" (No.19)

I'm Back Baby!

Been a while since I did this, been on holiday. Back now, and to celebrate, here's another Science letter. But it's not from 'the Anthropomorphic Personification of Science', as they usually are. This one is actually from me, Dean. And I am actually sending it to the person(s) concerned, as I think it's important.

To preface this, I've just returned from a holiday to Malaysia. Some of my time was spent in Georgetown, Penang (lovely place by the way, you should go if you haven't already). One of the things my wife and I visited while there was the mansion of Cheong Fatt Tze. A splendid building, an architectural achievement and lasting monument to the great man that was Cheong Fatt Tze.

I found myself taking issue with our tour guide though. Nothing personal, she seemed perfectly nice, but for someone giving a tour of a historic building she came out with some bizarre stuff which seemed to have nothing to do with what her primary function was. I didn't say anything at the time, for reasons which will become obvious, but I think the following needs to be said.

"Dear Joanne the tour guide.

Hello. Hope you're well. My wife and I visited the Cheong Fatt Tze mansion on May the 4th, which is sometimes referred to as Star Wars Day by people who are under the impression that Jedis always speak with a pronounced lisp.

I doubt you remember us, what with you having only fleeting encounters hundreds of people every week, all of whom are very keen to spend an hour wandering around someone else's house. But just in case, this was the 11am tour and I was the only Caucasian present under the age of 50. Facially I was the one who resembled a cross between Dilbert and a tennis ball, and whenever you mentioned that Penang is a former British Colony I said 'Sorry about that'.

I remember that your name is either Joanne (or Joanna) because you made a joke about how you share the same name as a famous Chinese person. I, an ignorant Westerner, had no idea who you were referring to, all I knew was that the thrust of the joke was that you weren't her. But, for all I knew, you could have been (as a performer, I also sometimes just hang around in public places myself hoping to get recognised, which is one of the reasons I was on this tour). So I'm sorry I didn't laugh at your joke. I also didn't laugh the second time you made the joke when more people joined the group, even though I was more familiar with the famous Joanne person by this point, but that familiarity was only from the first time you said the joke, so not sure that really counts.

The tour itself was fine, maybe a bit long in the heat, but that's hardly your fault. If I choose to go to a country where stepping outdoors provides a sensation similar to that of being beaten up by a very hot ghost, that's my problem. However, some of the things you said really irked me, and here's why.

Firstly, as it's a 19th century Chinese-style mansion, I understand that there will be a lot of mysticism and symbolism, but I have to ask, are you sure so many things mean 'money' in Chinese culture? Every Chinese person I've known or encountered has had a formidable work ethic, so I was surprised to hear they apparently rely on so much mystical stuff to bring them financial fortune. Some of the things you told us that were incorporated in the design of the mansion as they represented 'money' included flowing water, air currents, living on a slope and, bizarrely, Pineapples.

I'm not going to question the logic behind these beliefs, because I worry that there probably isn't any. You may argue that the man who incorporated all these things into his home was exceedingly wealthy so it must be true, but then he had to be loaded in order to build a mansion to such specific designs in the first place. But, I'm not one to dismiss things without even considering them, and that's why I bought a pineapple on the way home and left it in the bathroom with the tap running and the air con on. Unfortunately, I forgot about my little experiment when we went out for the evening, so I ended up flooding the bathroom and we lost our security deposit. So I guess it does affect the flow of money in a way, although I'm sure this would also have happened without the pineapple.

Another thing, the central room is supposed to be Feng-Shui perfect, you say. My wife had actually been to the mansion before, and like you said would happen, she says felt a certain tingling sensation at the spot where the 'energies converge'. She didn't know that was what that spot was meant to be beforehand either. I trust my wife on this as she is very clever and has no need to lie to me, and was quite intrigued about visiting this same spot.

I was a bit surprised, then, to find that this supposed hot spot was filled with large plants. If it works, why do that? Unless the plants somehow benefit from these magic rays? I guess the plants could be susceptible to the same energies as people, but who cares? How do you expect to get postitive testimonials from a Yucca? But my admittedly limited understanding of how Feng-shui works leads me to believe that it is vitally important not to obstruct the flow of energies, or 'chi' as you put it (although whenever I hear that word I mentally substitute the word 'cheese' in its place, which makes life far more amusing, e.g. "the flow of cheese is vital for good health", or "calm down, you're throwing off my cheese", hours of fun).

Just a casual question, but wouldn't half a dozen massive stone plant pots obstruct the 'chi'? I originally would have assumed that it has radiation-like properties and therefore limited interaction with solid objects, but then apparently it can be disrupted by things like clashing colours and a harsh tone of voice, I can't help but think it's a bit fragile? And while I appreciate what you were trying to do to reassure us, telling us that dozens of leading Feng-Shui experts all agreed that there was high energy levels in that one spot doesn't really convince me. Whenever I think of a 'Feng Shui expert', I can't help but recall the person who said they didn't like Twilight films because 'real vampires don't sparkle'. I never realised you could have such definitive knowledge of the defining aspect of non-existent things. Shows what I know, I suppose.

Far be it form me to suggest that people whose livelihood depends on Feng-shui would all agree it has tangible effects, but I can't be convinced by their views. However, if a hundred postmen or glass-blowers had agreed there was a tangible energy in that spot, then we'd be on to something.

But these are just some minor concerns. My main issue with your tour is as follows.

Remember the bit when you were talking about the importance of balance, and suddenly asked 'Can you cure cancer?' (I assume you meant 'you' as in 'anyone', as if you meant 'you' as in myself or other members of the group, that's a bit of an alarming question to suddenly drop into an explanation of the pottery recycling techniques used in 19th century China). The question itself was startling enough, and it was a bit disconcerting how you got annoyed when nobody gave clear answer (for reference, unless people in the group are highly qualified oncologists, the answer is 'no'), but I think your follow up really crossed a line. Just for clarity, you said;

"Yes, you can cure cancer. I can cure cancer, with 4 months of properly balanced diet. If I were to control your diet for 4 months, your cancer will be gone".

Seriously, what response did you expect to get from this? Hopefully, it was 'extremely awkward silence', because that's what you got.

Given the size of the tour group and the prevalence of cancer, it's pretty much certain that several people will know close friends/family or will themselves have had to deal with cancer. How exactly do you think they'd react to your extraordinary claim? A bemused slap on the forehead and a chuckle at their own foolishness? "Who'd have thought? Grandma went through 5 years of debilitating chemo, when all she needed to do was eat a specific amount of chickpeas for 4 months! She'd be laughing about this if she was still alive"

I'm sure you believe what you say, but I think there are two possibilities that underlie your claim, and these need to be assessed.

Possibility 1: You genuinely believe what you are claiming, but have no actual basis for it beyond your faith in the power of Feng-Shui and balance. You won't be the first person to think like this, and you're far from the worst, but still, it's a bit insulting isn't it? Effectively telling the people who have had to deal with cancer that they were wrong to put their trust in professionals from the world of medicine? Why trust the experts when an increased alfalfa intake will sort you out? Idiots!

In seriousness, even if you were correct, that's still annoying. If someone is standing on the side of the road next to a car with a knackered engine, they probably aren't going to appreciate someone pulling up and telling them this wouldn't have happened if they used pixie juice instead of oil, or something like that. But what you said was worse because instead of a busted engine it's the body of a dead loved one.

Possibility 2: You're claims have a sound basis in evidence, meaning you've actually successfully treated a statistically significant number of people and cured them of cancer using nothing but a sustained period where you control the portions/content of their meals. Although this would give more credibility to your claims, this possibility is actually worse than the first one. It suggests that, despite the fact that you've made a discovery that has eluded the worlds medical community for decades and would undoubtedly relieve the suffering of millions, you've chosen to remain working as a tour guide? I would have thought that possessing the cure for cancer would mean you were ethically obligated to share it with as many people as possible, and I don't think announcing it apropos of nothing to a bunch of sweat-soaked tourists is really sufficient. You may disagree though, and there's not much I can do about that.

Just to summarise all my rambling, I would advise you to not keep making this outlandish and offensive claim. I assume you mention it every time you do a tour? Has anyone questioned you about it yet? I did think about saying something at the time, but given the diverse nature of the tour group I figured the sight of a pasty white British man with an incomprehensible accent berating a small Malaysian woman would just reinforce too many negative stereotypes. So I didn't.

Of course, if this was the first and/or only time you've claimed to be able to cure cancer, what was it about our group that suggested 'malignant tumours' to you?

Please don't think this is a personal attack, but the tour experience was somewhat soured for me by your worrying claims. I agree that Cheong Fatt Tze was an incredible figure and an inspiration to everyone. However, I imagine he was probably so successful partly because he didn't listen to wild claims by people who had no idea what they were talking about. Just a thought.

All the best

Dr. Dean Burnett

e-mail: humourology (at) live.co.uk

twitter: @garwboy

Easy Measly Lemon Squeezy

Measles on the rise, as we all predicted

I say 'we all', by which I meant anyone even the slightest bit informed about how medicine and vaccinations works. And I don't mean trained doctors and scientists, I mean anyone who's ever had a vaccination explained to them when they were old enough to form memories, which in this country should be anyone over the age of 3. But that's one of the most fascinating things about modern society, in that there's no limit to the idiotic things people will believe just because it corresponds to their gut instinct or prejudice (this is less of a blog, more a therapeutic rant for me, by the way).

The measles rise is undeniably due to the MMR scare a decade ago which still hasn't gone away really. The original claim, made on the basis of very little evidence by a doctor who was on the payroll of an anti-vaccination lobbying group, was that there was potentially a link between the MMR jab and the incidence of autism in children.

Already, there was something about this which bugged me (I was 16 at the time, so not exactly as well informed as I am now, and I'm not thoroughly informed now so this, as always, may be wrong). Autism is a very poorly understood disease, nobody really knows (or they didn't know then) what causes it, what the epidemiology is and what to do about it. So, if I was a doctor who wanted to make some spurious but hard-to-disprove link between the MMR jab and some scary illness, Autism is exactly what I'd choose. It's also worth noting that, although I'm not a virologist or expert in infectious diseases, I'm not really familiar with a mechanism by which a weakened version of a very common virus (or three) can cause hitherto unknown cognitive development impairments.

Logically, if it's the vaccine which causes autism, and a vaccine is just a weakened form of a virus with the purpose of giving your immune system a safe period to develop antibodies to prevent future infections, then surely the stronger form of the virus will be even more effective at causing autism? I had mumps as a child (it was unpleasant) and as far as I know, I don't have autism. I think I got measles too, same applies. I doubt I had Rubella, I was always led to believe that's a girl's disease. Not being sexist, just thinking back to my primary school years where such sweeping claims were common.

As Ben Goldacre points out in his regular column, on the back of a recent debacle over some mad journo squawking about the 'dangers' of MMR, the media's irresponsible behaviour with scaremongering and 'presenting a balanced argument' has potentially condemned many hundreds of children to death (he didn't say that, this is my perspective). This story has been blogged about to death, but what are the root causes of these wild opinions people have?

Journalists, as has been pointed out so many times, don't understand science as well as they should when you consider their tendency to comment on stories about it (LHC, anyone?). They need to give a 'balanced' argument, which, as Goldacre points out, takes in the the two extreme viewpoints, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. This, in many cases, is bollocks. There are still some people who believe that the Earth is flat, most people believe it's round, but we haven't had a debate on TV, where the outcome is that Earth is something of a rugby ball or dome. That's because all the evidence is on the side of the spherical Earth, and that's the same of the MMR 'debate'; there's no evidence to support it, so why in God's name are people jumping to the wild conclusion.

There seems to be two main undercurrents that I can detect; distrust of the big, evil pharmaceutical companies, and the classic cliche 'Think of the Children!!!' (parents not wanting to do anything that endangers children in other words). To start with the latter, measles, mumps and rubella are more dangerous and damaging than autism. Granted, autism is less well understood, but then does that make it the worst disease? We have more treatments for cancer than for colds, but which one would you rather have? Unless parents are saying they're unwilling to care for an autistic child because it will be too much work, in which case your concerns are null and void as, and the reactionary idiots must surely agree, being a parent is not conditional. I don't mind so much if people still aren't willing to risk the MMR 'for their children's safety', if they are consistent with this view. So that means no taking them in cars (road accidents), aeroplanes (crashes and very high doses of radiation possibly leading to cancer), mobile phones (tenuous link to tumours), alcohol (they can't have it, not the children, clumsy parenting is dangerous), broccoli (high in carcinogens), pencils (could jam it in their eyes), Lego (swallow it and choke) and anything else which has even the slightest chance of causing illness or damage.

The other problem is distrust at the big pharma companies. Granted, they're not looking out for people's interests, they're after money. And they do have a habit of inventing illnesses they can then treat with new meds. But I think there's a world of difference between being treated for a fictional disease and not being treated for a real one. If the big companies are just pushing MMR jabs on people as a money making exercise, why does it work? People seem to think it's just a money-making ruse, but why? Car companies are big and profit hungry, but nobody accuses them of surreptitiously making axles out of plywood or using whoopee cushions as air bags. it would be a lot cheaper for them and they'd make a lot of profit, so why don't they? I got a C for my business G.C.S.E., so I may be wrong, but I bet one of the golden rules of any business is DON'T KILL CUSTOMERS! And MMR is so much more expensive than giving children three separate courses of vaccination, isn't it?

If the MMR was given to a child who then developed measles, we'd never hear the last of it. Similarly, if a child was given MMR and then developed some obvious horrific side-effects, there would be no end of mob rallying. So any parent who refuses to have their child vaccinated 'for their safety' is an idiot. I don't have children myself, but I hope to one day, and damn right they'll be vaccinated, with MMR. For similar reasons, if my child's clothes caught fire I'd pour water on them, I wouldn't let them burn because there's a slim chance they could drown.

Rant over, back to work.

Generalised Update

I seem to actually have a few readers of this thing, so feel obligated to put an update here, explaining why the regular flow of irreverent opinions based on partially understood analysis of scientific reports seems to have suddenly halted.
Basically, it the thesis. Always comes back to the thesis. It needs doing, I haven't done it, so am doing it, which means it will be done. All possible tenses covered there I feel. Will be cracking on with it as intensely as possible for the next few weeks, so will be scaling back the blogging.
Some things of interest have occurred, my wife is now on a backpacking holiday in Vietnam, she left on Saturday, will be back in a few weeks. When she called about to get on the plane, I harassed her and made fun of her until she said 'Screw you, I'm going to 'Nam'. As she promised she would. She also promised that when she tells people about her holiday she has to start every story with 'you weren't there man, you weren't there', and attempt a glazed faraway expression.
That's what I would do, but she probably has more sense. Oh well.

MAMMOTH SKULL
A rare mammoth skull has been found in the South of France. Well, that seems a bit misleading, all mammoths are more than rare, achieving extinct status some time ago now. But obviously I'm being an idiot, it's the remains of these mammoths that are rare. And there are some theories that mammoths still exist somewhere, in Arctic tundras or uncharted regions of Siberia. Admittedly, I can't link to pages about these theories, as I don't think they're based on actual science, more a willingness to believe that the big furry creatures weren't all wiped out by our mindless ancestors. Wouldn't be the first time that happened, though.
The articles explains it all, its the pictures I like. Because archeology is such a painstaking, slow process it inevitably looks quite dull. Although TV seems determined to prove otherwise (Time team, etc.). But the pics of this historic find don't really match up to the excitement of the story. Its basically some guys measuring a big rock. Obviously the sediments surrounding the skull can't be just hacked off, and the properties of fossilised bone probably renders them quite rock-like. Still, it can't be argued that this story consists of what looks like men poking at a rock. And that looks dull.

Cancer: Slightly less deadly?

They've established a potential weapon in the war against cancers. They know have the structure, and therefore a potential target for drugs, of the enzyme that allows the exponential, unregulated growth of cancer cells, which is what makes it deadly. I think they've underestimated the impact of this. Telomerase effectively shuts off the aging mechanism of cells, thus cancer cells don't die off like normal, healthy cells (ironic, I know, that the healthier cells age and die). All good if you can stop that happening, but if you can stop it, could the process also be started? Could you switch off the ageing in normal cells, without the explosive fatal reaction cancer cells undergo? Perhaps. But should you? People will want it if there's even the slightest chance of it working, side-effects be damned. bare in mind how many people inject powerful toxins into their face just to remove a few wrinkles. Interesting times ahead.


There, that's a few things. Also, as part of the first Cardiff Science festival, I'm putting together possibly the first Science-based stand-up night. This is an experiment of mine, and like all experiments worth doing, the outcome is unknown. Which is my way of saying it might be rubbish. But it'll be interesting. Will keep you informed with details as and when they're available.

Dolphins, Robots and all manner of other stuff.

Seems to be a lot going on right now, so I'll attempt some sort of 'news round up' science style, with 'witty' headlines like the papers do. See if you can spot the theme of the subjects (answers at the ends)

"Walking on the wild (dolphin) side!"

It turns out that Dolphins have been spotted 'Tail Walking', that thing they do in water parks after extensive training. Wild dolphins aren't meant to do this, it doesn't really serve a purpose. What's more interesting is how they're all learning it. Experts site this as an example of cultural development and behaviour, which is nice. On the other hand, could this be another example of global warming? Tail walking looks like someone trying to lower themselves into a hot bath, maybe the water's just too warm. Or maybe the dolphins are just getting ready to leave the planet. Maybe they're aware of some impending apocalypse? But that would be silly....

"Martian Robot keeps on rolling"

The British scientists have unveiled the next generation of Martian robots. That is, robots that are going to Mars, not robots that have come from there, although that would be more impressive. These robots are incredibly versatile, robust, and can cover any terrain and incline. As someone who grew up in the 80's, when radio controlled vehicles struggled to work on carpet, lasted about 3 minutes before needing recharging and lost signal if they went more than 10 metres away, I find this all very impressive. I have just a few questions. Namely-

• considering the amount of time and money spent on these robots, are they going to make sure the spacecraft works this time? Or are they just going to strap it to an over sized firework again and hope for the best?
• Is this robot going to be controlled by standard computational means, or by a few blobs of rat neurones? (See previous blogs) I just wonder which works out cheaper.
• Looking at the video of the robot in the article, it appears to be plugged into something via a cable. Seeing as it'll be sent to Mars eventually, isn't this going to be an issue? Imagine how much they'll have to spend on extension wires.
  

"Sick as a Pedigree Dog"

Apparently, the intense in-breeding of pedigree dogs has given them a wide variety of health problems. Duh? This is basically eugenics on a domestic scale. Inbreeding = Genetic defects, its a very well known fact and it's weird for people to think it doesn't affect any other species. Of course it does, why wouldn't it? Mongrels are what you want, all messy and brilliant and robust. It seems to be a persistent effect that some of the most attractive people in the media are mixed race, people subconsciously notice a more varied gene mix perhaps? But the dog thing is stupid. I blame Paris Hilton and her lot, designer dogs sort of enrage me. Apparently, some of these handbag bound animals can't be left outside on their own as large birds might take them. That's not a dog! Even rats won't allow themselves to just be snatched by birds.

"Jade Goody has Cancer (which isn't funny, of course)"

Jade Goody has cervical cancer, which is terrible. I'd be a horrible person if I joked about that. . . . . no, I won't. Although.... no, no, too soon. It's a terrible thing for anyone to have, and I would never say she deserves it. I would probably say there are many people who deserve it less, if I thought I'd get away with it, but that's by the by. She has had such bad luck in life already, I mean she's only made millions by being a professional idiot, after she worked so hard to improve herself and all that. I'm sure she must have done at some point, who would be content with just being an ignorant laughing stock who's very position as a 'role model' lowered the national IQ severely (I assume)? But then she does have two kids, she lives for them apparently, and shows this by leaving them with carers while she travels the globe trying to salvage her reputation.
Hopefully, she'll beat this illness and end up justifying her success. If anything gives hope to other sufferers then that's good in my book. And after that blatant cop-out, I wonder if it's possible to establish a link between reality TV shows and cancer? They did with cigarettes, maybe we can do it with this? Then they'll have to ban them and make some decent sodding telly for a change.

AND THE THEME IS... Dolphins, Robots, Dogs, Jade Goody = All are often wrongly attributed with possessing human-like intelligence.

Let the backlash begin (assuming anyone reads this, which I doubt)