Tea and the post-hoc trap

March 27th, 2009 – A new food study brought to light by the BBC world news service has announced that drinking hot tea causes oesophageal cancer. The tube between mouth and stomach would be particularly targeted by oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (OSCC) or the most common form of the disease as suffered by 500,000 people worldwide. Carried out in Golestan province, Iran, the study lasted less than a year and focused on 300 Iranians diagnosed with OSCC, all of which drank an average of 1 litre of black tea per day.

Firstly, it would be a cheap shot on my part to question the scientificity of a study simply because it was conducted in a less than open theocracy like Iran, especially since there is so much more to question. Firstly, the researchers have seemingly fallen head-first in a post-hoc trap which is a statistical concept of error. It states that it is not because two events occurred one after the other that one necessarily caused the other. For example, the findings of this study could just as well stated that wearing sandals or eating bread causes OSCC because all the OSCC-affected test subjects were also exposed to those two factors. Secondly, their sample of 300 subjects was very small compared to the tens of millions inhabiting the region and the study was not conducted over the necessary time (5-10 years) that it should normally take to declare a universally consummated product as “cancerous”. Finally, knowing that tobacco and alcohol are proven to be the leading causes of OSCC and having red the study, I fail to see the chemical link between tea and cancer.

The “Hot” or the “Tea”

Indeed, browsing the detailed results of this study only seems to confirm that the temperature of the tea (70 degrees Celsius or more) has led some people to have more of a risk of developing OSCC than others. It could be as simple as the scalding tea wears down the barriers around your food pipe, leaving you more prone to infection and cancer (although this is in no way implied by the Iranian test masters). Whether through their own search for rapid fame and diffusion of results or whether by the BBC’s quest to make everything interesting at the risk of being blatantly misleading: “Steaming hot tea linked to cancer” is a very alarmist, misleading and potentially defamatory headline/baseless finding.

Pursuing this line of making sciency things sound more interesting and sciency, the BBC offers the advise of eminent British food specialists. These pearls of wisdom tell you to “wait a few minutes for your brew to cool from scalding to tolerable” or to “add milk, which cools it down”. Now, if only somebody would come along and tell me why my body gets all messed up when I drive into oncoming traffic on the highway…

Historic gullibility

To link this incredible story of a food fear (that is fabricated, will be in the miscellaneous section of your local news tonight and will soon be forgotten) with history, I invite you to research food specialists’ advice on egg consumption in the past 20 years. A hundred studies jolted the western world into mass-hysteria when they were shown to jack up cholesterol to heart attack levels. A hundred more would then indicate that it had amazing nutritional value and could possibly have magical curative properties (citation needed). Progressing past the twentieth century, I also bring you the Tomato in late XVIth century England.

Being grown in the New World for millennia, this pseudo-fruit only appeared on the European scene in the 1500s, brought back by the Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors. Slowly making its way up north, it eventually creeped onto the British Isles and was immediately faced by two opponents on the culinary battlefield: xenophobia and paranoia. The Native American cultivators of this new “apple of love” (as they called it) were obviously savage and primitive and therefore these new atrocities had to be no good. Furthermore, the British were well-off and sophisticated, it only made sense that this thing was a poisonous “wolf in sheep’s clothing” devised by their Spanish rivals.

Despite prejudice and jumping to conclusions, there was a modicum of botanic science involved. Physician John Gerard was the first to plant the odd fruit in England and had quickly analysed its genetic makeup (as much as possible for 1590), correctly assessing that the tomato was of the same family as the fatal Nightshade plant and the toxic tobacco plant. Also, he avidly remarked that the stems and leaves of the tomato plant were an irritant to human skin (or “terrible poison” as he put it). On the other hand, he concluded that the overly moist and cold fruit could not possibly be beneficial to one’s health and was definitely poisonous. He claimed this knowing full well that it was eaten in the North American colonies and in Spain; he seems to have shared the “good enough for barbarian foreigners but never for me” attitude of the time and place.

The result of British disdain for foreign foods and seemingly scholarly endorsement for the fears was a 200-year ban of the Tomato in England. Through famines and droughts, the British populace were prisoners of their own ignorance and credulity in faulty research. To be fair, they grew plenty of the “golden” or “love apples” but used almost all of them for random medical practices (over the eyes for glaucoma) or for table decorations (they are pretty and shiny).

For what is probably the hundredth time I incite the peoples of the world to beware what media pre-chews and feeds them, especially when “statistics” and “scientific studies” are implicated. The saying goes Caveat emptor or “let the buyer beware”; in this case not only of what you literally buy but also what you “buy” as proven fact.

(Pictured: The book for all your historical tomato-related queries - a cancerlicious Maroccan tea service)

End.

Mitrehead

March 17th, 2009 – Pope Benedict XVIth has not only refused to endorse condom use in AIDS riddled Sub-Saharan Africa but has also dubbed their use a mortal sin. If his Excellency has detailed test studies and investigation reports on the subject, he is certainly keeping them for himself while he boldly claims that the AIDS epidemic is ‘a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem’. To truly face and solve the AIDS crisis in the poverty stricken part of the world, his Popeness has offered many solutions. He suggests ‘spiritual and human awakening’, ‘sexual abstinence’ and finally ‘friendship for those who suffer’. We should definitely send a few billion dollars researching these solutions because they certainly sound like they don’t do as much as birth-control to me.

To say that abstinence should be the norm and that birth-control is unacceptable within the context of good, Christian living is an opinion. To order Sub-Saharan Africans to stop using condoms or face the eternal depths of hell, is an egregious crime. Keeping in mind that even the richest of these countries like South Africa has an infection rate of 18.1% of their population (aged 15-49, 2007 census by United Nations) and the poorest such as Swaziland has a 26.1% infection rate, having unprotected sex in Sub-Saharan Africa has a roughly 1 in 4 chance of being deadly through HIV/AIDS, never mind other STDs (Also keeping in mind that playing a round of Russian Roulette generally only has a 1 in 6 chance of death). Furthermore, rampant overpopulation in the region is not helped by the reported 11.6 million orphaned children due to HIV/AIDS related deaths. For the chief of the Catholic Church to state that condoms are evil and then to suggest they may even lead to increased rates of infection is a direct and undeniable contribution to the problem. Pope Benedict XVIth is therefore guilty of gross negligence, harmful propaganda and large-scale death due to carelessness.

Where is the outrage?

For some reason, this whole situation is not being decried by all (gouvernments, media, populations) and I propose a few reasons why. Firstly, rampant hypocrisy gives a positive image to the Vatican and sets aside the fact that it is partly responsible for the situation in Africa. For example, the new German Pope will soon be visiting Angola and Cameroon to urge the global population to help these poor countries out and to convince the leaders of both countries to halt their corruption. Secondly, This Pope continues a long Christian tradition of ethnocentrism which places utopian, Western values above all else and minimises the impact of policies because they don’t do much in the USA and Western Europe anyways. Indeed, the Vatican wilfully ignores the reality that Sub-Saharan Africans, Just as Asians or Americans WILL have sex except there will be very real consequences unseen elsewhere. In the meantime, North Americans do not bother themselves with Vatican anti-condom policies because 96% of American women already use some form of birth-control. Finally, this new declaration by Pope Benedict XVIth will be judged as banal by most for the simple reason that it is not original. There has been a long Catholic history of trivially demonising contraception.

Since late Antiquity, Catholicism has designated all personal pleasures a sin. In consequence, sex for any other purpose than procreation is a sin and as soon as the Vatican scientists perfect the cloning process, sex will finally be completely immoral and banned. Further on, with the invention of the birth-control pill, the mass-production of condoms and the sexual revolution of the late-sixties, a Papal stance had to be taken. In 1968, Pope Paul VIth declared all artificial contraceptives to be mortally sinful and reiterated that all forms of contraception are ‘always seriously evil’. Further on in 1997, Pope John-Paul II pursued a policy of denying real-life on goings and announced to a congress of African nations that the Condom ‘harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.’ He also claimed to the end of his papacy that condoms would only contribute to the AIDS pandemic and prided himself on the Vatican HIV/AIDS treatment centers in the Third-World. Like his predecessors and successor, John-Paul II was not above the hypocrisy of contributing to mass-death by propaganda and carelessness yet saving face by helping those that are already infected.

Silver lining

In conclusion, I will salute the many Catholic officials that have opened their eyes to the inevitable spread of HIV/AIDS around the world without proper education on condom use (AND abstinence if one is so inclined) as well as safe-sex in general. For example, Felipe Arizmendi, a bishop of southern Mexico was almost booted out of the church in 2005 for claiming ‘If someone is incapable of controlling their instincts…they should do whatever is necessary in order not to infect others.’ In fact, many marginal members of the Church ARE contributing to the solution but the leading instances of the Vatican are firmly committed to being part of the problem.

To be clear, this is not a debate. The Popes are willingly encouraging the spread of HIV/AIDS in countries which do not have the necessary information resources to provide them with any other options. People have been sent to international tribunals for much less in history.

Something to think about your Piousness.

(Pictured - His Holiness John-Paul II was rather fond of the little saucer hat - Various American Bishops wearing their ceremonial Mitre (hat) - Pope Benedict XVIth rather likes sporting his golden Mitre AND Popemobile.)

End.

Stem Cells and Burnt Manure

Monday, March 9th 2009 – President Obama strikes again and has ordered the legal ban lifted on stem cell research. This medical procedure sees laboratories harvest stem cells from embryos, umbilical cords and adult bone marrow that have just been formed and thus do not yet have an assigned task. The goal is to be able to dictate the future development of these cells into brain cells to treat Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s or new marrow to cure leukemia or nerve cells to reverse paralysis, or Lymphocytic, T and White blood cells to cure AIDS, etc. This new legislation ends an 8 year ban on any further breakthroughs in the field instituted in 2001 by none other than former-president George W. Bush.

Bush’s ban and subsequent vetoes to block a senate reversal of the ban were motivated religiously as he has often admitted to the public. Along with the Vatican and anti-abortion groups, Republicans have today renewed their disgust of stem-cell research by calling it a mistake and a ‘slippery slope’. Their argument is seemingly based on ethics and science because they do not wish us to ‘grow’ stem cells and thus encourage women to abort in order to contribute to medical cures that could or couldn’t be just around the corner. Furthermore, the ‘slippery slope’ refers to the inevitable and eventual cultivation of human beings through cloning that will be made possible by stem cells for the sake of procreation, harvesting organs and other Orwellian nightmares. I do not deny or mock these fears, they are certainly valid. The problem is that president Obama directly reassured these fears as soon as he lifted the ban: ‘…only research meeting strict ethical guidelines would be allowed, under no circumstances would stem cells be used for research into human cloning’. Perhaps groups that oppose the legislation simply read the headlines and jumped straight to the streets in protest. Also, the preoccupations of the opponents are frustrating to me because they claim scientificity, whereas they are clearly moral. And, if asked, the groups I mentioned will never shy away from affirming that these morals stem from their faith, their religious beliefs. President Obama can in no way be reproached for retracting politics and Church from scientific endeavour; this is how the American nation was painstakingly founded over two centuries ago.

To continue the logical thought of these opposition groups, we should allow and/or ban all medical research according to religious morals. Who says they have to be exclusively Christian morals?

In the late Ist century AD, a man named Pliny the Elder realised that knowledge could be simply forgotten unless someone writes it down. This is why he devoted his life to writing the Historia Naturalis or the Natural History of the World. From tomatoes to coal, to lavender and Kidneys, to chimeras and faraway giants, Pliny collected data (be it written, told, rumoured…) and put to paper everything known about everything at the time. In chapters 28 to 32, Pliny elaborates medicine, or more precisely, the pharmacological recipes known to Pliny that could cure all things. Based on his religious beliefs (certain substances are associated with certain Gods giving them certain properties) and his own brand of logic, Pliny gave us what was right, respected and morally acceptable as medical practice in the Greco-Roman world that began our era. For example, drops of pigeon blood mixed with a concoction of spleenwort, honey and red wine could be applied to a wool bandage and placed over the eyes to cure bloodshot eyes. Also, to get rid of pesky malaria (called Quartan fever at the time), one would bind a nail used in crucifixion to one’s head with a cotton bandage and sprinkle burnt manure over the nail. It sounds like magical nonsense to us but they felt as strongly about this as the Republicans, anti-abortion activists and Catholic clergy seem to feel against stem-cell research.

To conclude, medicine should never be impeded or promoted by religion. Otherwise, we again fall into the ‘whose religion is more legitimate game’ and although the Christian Churches would like to believe, they do not win this by default in a free world. I say Voodoo sacrificial rituals, Muslim abstinence from harmful alcohol and Scientologist consumption of fresh babies for eternal youth cannot be discounted in the legislation of scientific research if Catholicism indeed has a ‘moral’ say in it.

(Pictured: Pliny's Historia Naturalis - Stem cells with an added fluorescent marker.)

End.

Saddam 2: Judgement Day

February 27, 2009 – Last Friday, US President Barack Obama announced an end to the war in Iraq. He elaborated a gradual plan that will reduce to zero the amount of American soldiers in Iraq by December 2010. This ambitious and hasty plan has clear goals to transfer all public and national security matter in Iraq to their own police and military forces. Furthermore, the withdrawal plan hopes very hard that the country’s radical factions will not quickly seize power as soon as the massive threat of American retaliation evaporates. Finally, there may exist a tacit objective in this plan: the patching up of the money haemorrhage that is the war in Iraq and to repatriate these much needed trillions of dollars back into the American recession.

Whereas most of President Obama’s new legislation since his inauguration day has been met with fervent opposition by members of the government, this measure was gladly supported by all involved. Iraq’s Prime Minister al-Maliki is confident his troops can efficiently replace the United States forces and American General Gates agrees. Democrats love the idea but then again, they would still give their left testicle (or ovary?) to please Obama these days. Finally, the Republican members of parliament and senate are timidly rejoicing that the troops and the financial resources supporting them are finally coming home. This war in Iraq seemingly no longer benefits anyone (not for oil, democracy, US presence in the Middle-East) and therefore it will end without opposition.

This all sounds nice and well but there seems to be a heavy amount of idyllic hoping in a plan that will remove 142,000 American soldiers from a heavily war-torn and politically unstable country in a short amount of time. If only there was a way to predict a realistic outcome to this policy. If only the United States had already invaded Iraq once before and then withdrew hastily. Oh gosh, they seem to have done the exact same thing in 1990-1991. What can we learn from this clear cycle of history repeating?

Firstly, we must contextualise both wars and see if their development and conclusion are similar enough or too different to compare.

Regarding the premise of both wars, Saddam Hussein was an equally major factor. He Invaded neighbouring Kuwait in 1990 and was generally threatening the region in 2003; the United-States thus deemed it necessary to directly intervene with the full might of their modern military. We could debate all-day about the ‘true’ motivations for both wars or how ‘legitimate’ they were but it definitely boils down to the threat to the Middle-East and world stability (both political and economic) that Saddam Hussein represented.

As for participants, we have an important difference between the two conflicts. It is well known that the United-States entered Iraq unilaterally in 2003 because the United Nations refused to condone the invasion of a country and the ousting of its government. The UN has always followed a strict non-intervention policy when faced with civil wars or internal conflicts; the situation was no so in 1990. Having invaded Kuwait, Saddam broke the UN’s prime rule: if one member country invades another, the United Nations will host a military action to defend the victim. This rule was established in 1945 to prevent the kind of expansionist incursions perpetrated by the Nazis from ever occurring again. This explains why dozens of countries including some whom did not participate in 2003 (Canada, France) and many from the Muslim world (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) joined the United-States and the United-Kingdom to protect Kuwait and push back the Iraqi armies in 1991.

Now for ‘occupation’, there are other crucial differences: duration and degree. Following the highly successful expulsion of Saddam’s troops from Kuwait, the American troops followed them back into Iraq. The ground attacks were minimal yet the coalition bombarded all Iraqi installations (both governmental and civilian) for just under a year. They indeed controlled many regions of Iraq but did not in fact administer them politically as they do today. Following this year of successful pounding, the coalition troops stopped near Bagdad, turned around, and returned home. The United Nations would never have approved an American coup in another member country and President George H. W. Bush did not want to endanger the international image and relationships of the US. Although a controversial decision amongst the American people, Bush followed his allies to the negotiation table and permitted Saddam Hussein to remain in power. As for 2003, Saddam’s infrastructure was summarily destroyed, President W. Bush declared victory and Saddam was hung for crimes against his own people. This rapid sequence of events was followed by 6 years of ‘occupation’.

Finally as a result with the American withdrawal in 1991, the country of Iraq was completely destabilised even though the ruling power was allowed to remain in power. Saddam Hussein’s oppressive machine had been crippled and thus the ethnically and religiously diverse country rose up to install complete chaos. The southern Shiite Muslims and the Northern Kurds took the opportunity to voice their disagreement with Saddam’s unlimited power in Bagdad. The inevitable result involved massive terrorism by these factions and brutal repression by Saddam. With the coalition gone, the inhabitants of the Middle-East were able to return to dynastic and generational conflicts that concerned them much more than what boundaries are respected, who has what oil field and who supports the current government.

With this contextualisation and comparison, I fully expect a similar situation to occur at the end of 2010. The United States and United-Kingdom will instantly leave a vacuum measuring 150,000 soldiers, trillions of dollars and massive amounts of organisation and technology that the Iraqi government has no hope of possibly replacing. The dust will inevitably settle and the various factions will quickly forget the preoccupation of the Western visitors and will begin anew their fight for supremacy, be it religious, political or cultural.

I too will hope for the best as President Obama inspires us to do, but I will remain realistic in the face of historical evidence.

(Pictured: The aerial bombardment of 1991 demonstrated a monstrous technological gap between the US and Iraq - President Bush delivers his famous 'Mission Accomplished' speech on May 1st 2003, perhaps a tad too early.)

End.