Spotting false information - examples of an easily spotted false claim

Spotting false information is not easy to do when you've never been taught how to assess information and its reliability. This is something ingrained into the typical investigator but even the most advances investigator sometimes fails to comprehend how to differentiate between reliable source information and anecdote. This is just one reason I continued this blog series. So many intelligent people fall for misinformation simply because they are not able to spot the subtle cues.

In the last blog entry (before the rant), we left off with this comment: ... we will discuss how to spot the obvious liar as well as the subtle one who can demonstrate proof of education. The second is by far the harder to spot, but there are techniques you can use to catch them with their "knowledge pants" down... if you know how to look for information.

The easiest to spot liar is the one who posts blatantly false information. This is the one who says that the government is working with aliens and the Illuminati to sterilize the populace through inoculations or vaccines while intentionally fattening them to feed the aliens. If there is one thing that knowledge taught us it is that medicine has changed how we live for the better. In fact, the average life is now extended decades beyond what it once was. Medicine is also a complicated subject in that the body isn't simple: it is insanely complex, and that is without considering the brain.

So one important thing to know when entering into the conversation is what constitutes evidence and what exactly needs to be proven. Lets use some real world examples.

The poster called "bschott" claims this:

"I own 3 generations of a machine (2 powered by AC, one that is DC rechargeable ) that kill cancer inside the human body. They are based on magnetics, not particles. They also help the body heal cuts faster, bone breaks, pain from inflammation and in one instance helped correct a genetic deformation on a fetus.

No, there is no officially documented testing. Just actual people who have benefited from using the machines and their documented medical results." [sic]

you can find this quote with more information here:  First magnet girder for prototype cancer therapy accelerator arrives for testing

Now, lets start with the actual claim, which is that the magnetic machine healed people (including stage 4 cancer mentioned later in the thread). Now, on the surface, this is something that anyone with cancer would want to believe because they've reached a point where their options are limited and knowing the risks of medicine (be it radiation or Chemotherapy and its side effects) then they're willing to grasp at any straw they can to help them... this is something that pisses me off as it is also fraud and playing on the emotional weaknesses and fears of a person.

So, the claim is that it is a healing machine. What evidence does the poster bschott actually bring to the table to support his claims? Lets read some (all quotes taken from the same linked thread above):

"there is no officially documented testing. Just actual people who have benefited from using the machines"

"My evidence is several living people who wouldn't be without the tech..."

"Which brings us to empirical evidence. The only way I could provide that in this arena would be to request that all who have been cured by this tech sign up here and post that they were, provide the name of their physician along with his/her diagnosis"
[this is known as a "distraction". "I can provide evidence but it would flood the site with overwhelming [insert grandiose claims here], so I wont" ... basically this is like saying "neener neener... if you don't believe me you're a stupid-head and i am taking my magic machine and going home because i don't want to have to actually prove anything" - Capt]

So what does the poster do when it is pointed out that the above types of evidence are called "anecdotal"? This is important. "An anecdote is a brief, revealing account of an individual person or an incident" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote 

We know, by its very definition, that an anecdotal presentation is always subjective to the individual presenting the anecdote (which means it will vary depending on the persons opinions, beliefs and knowledge). This means it is not very good evidence... but can it be used in science? Well... in medicine: yes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence  but this would require large samples of evidence and it is always best to supply scientific background information and evidence with it... I will demonstrate this in a minute. So we need to be aware of the different levels of evidence in science:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

So, the poster bschott presents anecdote. Why am I arguing against this presentation? Well, lets start with the source of the anecdote. You can plainly see that the "source" of all the positive anecdotal information is: the machine web-site!

What's wrong with that? Besides the fact that it can't be verified or validated by the observer (anyone visiting the site) it is also not known how legitimate all the different posts actually are. We can't validate it, nor can we verify that each "praise" testimonial from each individual is actually an individual not associated with the machine, site, company, or in any way not making money off of the "claims" they've presented. This is BIG STRIKE ONE!

Ok, so we can't actually prove that each "anecdote" or testimonial is original... lets move on to the next point and how to see through pseudoscience and medical miracle claims. I will continue with the same author (bschott) and his claims, for ease of learning.

bschott then claims:

"Hey Stump, Vietvet is going to die unless he gets his hands on a primercube. Stage 4 lung cancer is a bitch. Chemo and radiation are as fatal as the cancer in this case."

So he can't actually validate the claims of the machine, now (like any good cult or fundamentalist religious fanatic) he will appeal to fear and mortality. Read on:

"The thing jack offs like you don't get is that at the end of the day the system is set up so that Americans are barred access from tech like this because of who controls the two "trusted agencies" you named in the post above. If you think the FDA has anything other than the bottom line for motivation then you really are as stupid as you come across here."

This is something that I want to stress to everyone: if the FDA will not approve something like this even with the "anecdotal" testimonials, then there is a very valid reason for it. I am not saying the FDA is incapable of making mistakes (Viagra comes to mind) but there are strict guidelines that are used by them to differentiate the pseudoscience or religious "beliefs" over the scientific or clinical results of something that can be shown to work... and they even publish the requirements to the public so that, if you own a "super-cancer-fighting-uber-magneto machine" [sarcastic hyperbole] you can easily get FDA approval, assuming you can present a device that can meet the requirements of the medical establishment and FDA guidelines.

Now, considering the minor amounts of provable feedback for medicine in the FDA guidelines this is a major point:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf#page=82

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143534.htm

Essentially you need "100 patients in each group might have a power of 0.90 to detect a difference between placebo and trial groups receiving dosage of 10 mg/dL or more, but only 0.70 to detect a difference of 6 mg/dL" -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial

This is not even the requirements for a feasibility trial, which are far less and less restrictive, mind you! These are the basic requirements for a minor clinical trial!

Take that and mull it over for a moment... the "primercube" argument is that it is effective, but it can't meet the minimum requirements (seriously minimal, mind you) for a feasibility trial let alone a clinical trial... but the author of the argument [bschott] wants us to believe it is effective and cures all types of cancer.

Now, the fact that there are a lot of cancers out there is important because there isn't just "one" type of cancer... there are far too many to elaborate upon here. More to the point, the device uses electromagnetism. This is something you are exposed to 24/7/365: from your own wi-fi to the sun (photons) and radio.

If you live under high power transmission lines you get more exposure... so why don't people who are exposed to this typical radiation get super-cured?  Why can't you get cured from cancer by wi-fi? or owning a shortwave transmitter? Or wrapping an extension cord around you while plugging up the fridge with it?

This is a BIG STRIKE TWO.

Now that we know said medical device can't provide evidence, nor can it actually meet minimal requirements of the FDA, which are insanely minor, considering the objective of safety... lets look at one last part: the claims of the site itself. ( see: http://www.primercube.com/website-disclaimer )

So we have the bschott poster wanting to promote the super-life-saver based on what people believe happened during a stressful time in their life without being able to prove that:
1- the people are real
2- the people are more than a single person
3- said anecdotal testimonials are factual
4- said testimonials can't be proven to be factually accurate
5- said testimonials can't eliminate any other influences

Lets see what the actual site, owners, manufacturers and promoters are willing to state on the record about their own device. Right out of the gate (on the home page and disclaimer page) you find this:

"The information on this website is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment."

So the device and site are not intended for diagnosis or treatment. Hmm...
lets examine further:

"The statements on this website have not been evaluated by the FDA and the PrimerCube will not be available in the United States of America until all necessary approvals have been granted by the FDA. "

So they imply that they've applied for FDA approval (something we've not found record of yet) but state that it is not really legal in the US. This is interesting, right?

We know the minuscule requirements for clinical trials from above as well as the fact that nothing can actually be proven with evidence other than someone's subjective opinion about the situation (in fact, there is no evidence that the former patients previous medical interventions didn't just finally kick in... nor is there evidence that can be validated that the poster actually had any cancer at all, really - and the Privacy Act and HIPA will not allow you access to their medical records to validate that fact!)

Here is the big $1Billion kicker:

"Although the authors and publishers of WWW.PRIMERCUBE.COM have tried to ensure that the information contained on this website is accurate, the authors and publishers of WWW.PRIMERCUBE.COM make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information is the responsibility of the user. "

Yep... that's right. It is your own fault if it doesn't work as you believe it should work because of the super-uber promotion of the device on the site and by the "anecdotal testimonials"... the key words are "Assessing accuracy and reliability of information is the responsibility of the user"!

This is BIG STRIKE THREE.

it also drives home a very important point about the reliability of any and all information on the internet... and it deserves to be repeated: Assessing accuracy and reliability of information is the responsibility of the user.

This is why pseudoscience, fundamentalism in religion and cults flourish still today... because "Assessing accuracy and reliability of information is the responsibility of the user" and we've not been taught how to truly assess information or think critical. This is just one reason for the blog I've started.

What we have done today is mostly examine claims and use common sense with a little research to determine the factual content of the poster and the claims. This is the easier of the blatant false claims to check data on. When you get into things like Astrophysics, intense medical biology and chemistry or Quantum Mechanics, it gets harder to differentiate what is real versus what is a best guess.

Next week (or the week after, depending on when I get more time) I will provide some arguments to more subtle pseudoscience and demonstrate how you can check the facts with not only the source material, but the actual authors of various studies. This will help you differentiate between something like "electric universe" pseudoscience claims and the claims of modern astrophysicists.

Enjoy yourself and remember: Assessing accuracy and reliability of information is the responsibility of the user.
PEACE yall