Blogging from the otherside of the world.

Dear Reader,

I say reader because you’re the only one who reads this blog and you’re the one who missed reading my rants.  The added bonus of saying you’re the only one on the internet, is everyone who might read this, thinks they’re the only one.  It’s all about making your reader feel special.  Anyway I digress, please accept my apologies for not posting in nearly a year!  I am bad (sad smiley face)

So a quick summary

I packed in my Job in the UK and moved to Australia, where, after a brief stint in the private sector as a recruiter, I’m back in science baby!  To sum up the private recruitment sector: Its crap and concerned not with fidning people jobs, but finding the company money.  The people I worked with were nice and I liked them, but the companies we were recruiting for were clearly racist, clearly sexist, ageist and there wasn’t a damn thing I could do about it.  They would also reject candidates on the word of snakeoil salesman such as chiropractors and refused to tell the candidate that they failed a so called “medical” conducted by these people.  Personally if someone fails a medical for whatever reason I feel it is unethical to NOT tell them.  Still that’s 2 months that I wont speak of again except to say that the people I worked with were fun and made the job bearable, without them I would have broken down.  There are some people who are suited to the private sector; I am not one of them.

TO SCIENCE!

OK so in truth I had an email that came through to say they read my site and I had to think “What site?”  So that has made me blog here.  I shall be going back to the routes of what the blog was about but yes I will occasionally (maybe more often) go off on a slight side rant but in general I’m going to try and keep it apolitical unless politics gets in the way.

I am now working at a prestigious cancer hospital inMelbourne, live near the beach and can go into the wild whenever I like.  In summary, I made the move fromLondonas an RA in a Haematology Translational Research Lab and I have moved to aMelbournebased lab.

Enough bragging more science

 Since August I have been working on several projects in the HITRL lab at the Peter Mac and whilst I can’t really discuss the details I can discuss some of the interesting things we are looking at.

One very interesting element to my work has taken me down a very novel route which uses CAR-Tcells (Chimeric receptor antigen Tcells) in response to an antigen of our choosing. Some of you may be saying “Gah?; Wah? and Cars go broooooom!”  The idea is you look for a tumour antigen and generate a T cell receptor with fully working signalling that can detect and kill the tumour whilst leaving the healthy cells alone: Here is a diagram not drawn by me that explain the idea

 

This image shows antigen presentation and subsequent T cell killing. The CAR-Tcells work by having a receptor already programmed to the antigen of choice and they don;t need to be activated by dendritic cells

Basically the body does this normally to pathogens and wayward  cells but cancer occurs when this system goes wrong.

The idea of CAR-Tcells has been used in clinical trials and the lab I am working in has been taking the patient samples and “doing some immunology on them”.  We were also excited to see a paper in the New Englandjournal of Medicine basically showing that in one patient (Phewph! Slow down there with the n number!) all CLL cells were destroyed and the patient went into complete remission.  A remarkable feat and it has excited everyone in the field!

 

Another project I am working on is looking at the role of certain subsets of cells in the multiple myeloma setting in both patients and murine models. Sorry to bring up murine models, but at this stage it is a fact of life and I make no apologies to the minimal usage that is undertaken by cancer researchers.  Some people may still hate me but this blog and medical science isn’t for them.

This has presented some interesting results and I’m looking forward to delving further into the mysteries of the immune system and multiple myeloma.  Our current thinking is that Myeloma cells sequester the immune system for their own ends which is pretty cool when you think about it.  The cancer controls the system that in principle is designed to destroy it!

A third project, but no means the least of them, I am working on a drug that is currently being used in the clinic and I am looking at it’s affects on subsets of immune cells and their function, with the above idea of sequestering, in mind.  Does this drug help or hinder the immune system or does it simply nuke the cancer (and surrounding cells)?  If it aids the immune system, what is it doing that aids it?

 

Anyway reader, this is enough to get you thinking and hopefully to wet your appetite for more science related posts!

Science Triumphs!

I tentatively state that the science museum has restored my faith in its ability to critically evaluate scientific and non-scientific principles in both history and science.

I say this because Marianne, Simon Singh, Prof. David Colqhoun and I had a meeting on April 13^th with the Science Museum Director, Ian Blatchford, which went very well indeed.

So a bit of a recap as to what I am talking about:

1)      I went to the science museum and was appalled by their inadvertent promotion of dangerous and unproven medical practices and ideas in the Art and Science of medicine exhibit.

2)      I blogged as such on Marianne’s blog which received much attention, especially after P.Z. Myers picked up on it (Thanks PZ!)

3)      The Science Museum released a press statement on their website full of PR gumph not really addressing the question which appeared to enrage the rest of the nerd and non nerd public alike

4)      The guardian asked us (me and Marianne) to write a blog post hosted by their blogger Martin Robbins in reply to the Science Museum. At the same time David Colqhoun had also been musing on the same story and posted his thoughts as well, so we included his perspective in the Guardian post.

5)      Simon Singh picked up the original posts and admitted that this exhibit was one of the reasons for him resigning from the board.

6)      We engaged in a debate about the role of the Science Museum and/or science museums in general, which was fun for a while but I think all sides realised we started to go round in circles

7)     Simon Singh contacted the science museum and the Director agreed to a meeting about the exhibit

8)      Here we are now.

So it has been quite an eventful journey with a lot of interesting discussion points, ignoring the crazy ones that came out occasionally on the Comment is Free section of the Guardian blog and other spin-off barely-related ignoring-the-actual-point opinions.

It was agreed that SS, MB, DC and myself would meet up earlier so we could have a look at the exhibit again and refresh our memories to decide on what we thought the important points were. Our main concerns focussed on the Personal Stories section and its wording.  In particular, as a test case we agreed to use homeopathy because it really is an endemic problem which I hope will be talked about more very soon.  Keep an eye out for homeopathy-related reveals in the near future on both the internet and television… it is going to be fun!

So in the meeting, Ian (The Director) came in with an open mind and had done some research regarding our complaints.  This was an incredibly promising start.  He admitted that he has little to no scientific background but had read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre and had studied law. So language and the use of language was important for him, and was an Art Historian. This open-mindedness and research meant he understood our concerns, which was not that we think that homeopathy; TCM; African Medicine, Acupuncture and any other non-evidence-based medicines should be omitted entirely.  On the contrary, we agreed that these are important pieces of information and discussion points. However, we were concerned that they were not put in their proper context. That is, they at no point talk about the role of randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs), and how important it was historically in the development of modern medicine.  This was probably our most important point as the Personal Stories section, written at least in part by alt med practitioners, states Pateint, Problem, Treatment in each section.  There is no mention of RCTs or the controversial use of such unproven ‘medicines’.

I was encouraged that Ian had already taken pictures of the exhibit and sent these out to other scientists and medics for their opinions on how to change the language of the exhibits so as to not inadvertently promote pseudo-science over science.

The video stand that Marianne and David blogged about was quite shocking and we suggested that they either have to say that everything said on it was entirely baseless or just take it out, because quite frankly, it only serves to misinform.

I was also concerned by the African biomedical worker who ‘treated measles’ using his traditional African therapies.  This stand appeared to promote the idea of his therapy over that of conventional vaccination and cure.  Our argument here was that this is a perfect opportunity to bring up that Africa needs more vaccinations or if you don’t want to get political, how vaccination has been tested and shown to be effective, where this traditional African medicine has not.  You could even be a bit controversial and bring in the MMR scare and how the incidence of such diseases is increasing due the drop in vaccination rates due to parental fears.  I digress.

Our overall points were that whilst we disagree with the wording and the (in some cases) advertising and inadvertent endorsement of alternative medicine, we still feel it should be in the Science Museum, in its proper context, shown how it hasn’t stood up to the gold standard of RCTs. This would actually be very educational and interesting.

We have been promised that changes will be made (bonus!) – we might not agree with all of them, but they will at least allow us to see the changes prior to their implementation, and comment on them so that we do not end up in the same place in 4 years’ time.  This exhibit is permanent and unlike other exhibits such as flight, can be quite controversial (there is no placebo effect in flight, it either flies or it doesn’t!) .  So I understand that this is a political minefield when trying to appease everyone.  I wish to make one suggestion, however:

How about the Science Museum doesn’t try to please everyone and it sticks to the science?  By all means question and bring up discussion points in a mature and intelligent way.  These could be things like “Homeopaths believe that a series of dilutions makes their treatments work in a more powerful way with no side effect.  Our understanding of modern science holds a contrary view and so far no rigorously conducted RCT has proven that homeopathic remedies are more effective than placebo.  Would you go to a homeopath for a cold?  How about the Flu? Or even malaria?”

These discussion points raise interesting questions as to why people still go to homeopaths even after they know there is no evidence for them working.  It also raises questions around:

- poor quality healthcare in other parts of the world

- how to educate less privileged societies in terms of health issues

- should we interfere at all, whatever the intention?

(In my opinion, clearly we should – though I would of course argue that organizations like Homeopaths Without Borders should be discouraged from doing so, to say the least -, but it is an interesting debate nonetheless)

I would like to take the opportunity to thank Ian Blatchford for his time, and also Simon Singh, David Colquhoun and my partner in crime, Marianne Baker. The matter is not yet settled but some excellent work, open minds the willingness of the Science Museum to listen to constructive criticism will hopefully get this exhibit up to the standard that we expect from such a prestigious insititution.

 

Borrowed from SMBC-comics.com

My Weekend as a Fake Snake Oil Salesman!

Over the last few weeks things have gone from slow to busy.  Apparently when you make a decision to move countries the universe decides to throw all it has at you so that you are über busy and don’t have any time to pack etc.

One such “thrown projectile of weekend consuming activities” happened last weekend when “Crack it” productions asked for three scientists to help them with a not-for-air pilot they wanted to make.  This pilot would be shown to channel 4 with a view to producing a TV series based around consumer rights.  After talking to them, I was told that the show would take the form of a hidden camera set designed to look like a popup shop, in Reading.

Having no real training in the art of talking BS I said yes and Tamlyn and I went to Reading for 8am.  This meant getting an early train Saturday morning.  Trust me…I’m not good for the mornings.

Two days before hand we were given articles from the production team that told us what we were selling, splitting the three of us into out our respective sections of the shop.  Tamlyn on “dynamic back manipulation” and “allergy testing”, Me on MMS, “Rehydration Therapy” and “Black salve” and finally, the third Scientist come Medical student (let’s not hold that against her) Harriet was on selling the “home brand tinctures” for all sorts of ailments.

Tamlyn and Harriet

The best seller of the weekend appeared to be the allergy testing.  Now I will not tell you anything about the people that came into the shop because I feel that is unprofessional and no-one should be berated for asking questions or trying to find things out. However, the customers ranged from full blown skeptics to the outright batty!

I managed to convince one woman she should upping her intake of water to (which I already considered to be high) and lowering her salt intake and to pay me £5 to tell her this.   The idea was to recreate the sales pitch that was given to Jacqueline Henson in 2008. She drank a minimum of 4litres of water in under two hours as part of a new “fad diet”.  She died as a direct result of this diet.

The hydration Diet Stand

I sold MMS as a preventative for colds and also and cure all instead of antibiotics now admittedly this was to two girls whose English wasn’t great, but they bought a lot of stuff and something interesting happened when they did.  Out of the two friends one of them was really into it and bought a lot of creams and vials, whereas the other one was sceptical.  That was until her friend started buying more and more, then she decided to throw her caution to the wind and also buy.  No questions were asked about the safety of the products; surprisingly no one asked us if we had tested on animals.

More concerning was the readiness of people to just believe us rather than trust their own intuition.  One bottle had the word “Cyanide” in the ingredients.  Of those who bought these bottles, most didn’t question, one did and was told that “Cyanide in small doses can help the body, similar to Botox but for toxins in the body” and with credit to one woman, she noted the Cyanide and then left the shop.

All the "lotions and Potions" we were selling. Behind the mirror was a hidden Camera.

The end of the first day left me feeling dirty, self loathing and a liar.  It made me realise that whilst we sit here and berate people for using/selling these obvious quack filled products, there really are people out there who feel than conventional medicine has failed them.  I have often wondered if the arrogance of some medics, the arrogance of some scientists and the lack of understanding between the public and scientific knowledge ends up sending people so far into the alternative medicine crowd that as skeptics we will never win the battle of misinformation, but this is for another post.

Sunday, Tamlyn and I met at a slightly more civilised time at Clapham Junction Station and road the train back to Reading.  I will admit we both expressed our concerns about being there again especially if this would lead us to feeling as bad as we did Saturday night.  I was however pleasantly surprised by the events on Sunday.  Sunday we were told we didn’t need to sell anymore “Dynamic Back manipulations” or “allergy tests” and we could focus on the things that were downright crazy (like the Tinctures, MMS and Hydration Therapy).  This meant that fewer people in genuine pain came in and more people who were out to try new things.

One argument is that we scammed those who have an open mind, however I don’t believe thats what we were doing at all.  I feel that in some cases we really helped some people who were on the fence about whether they should be taking products such as MMS and if they really insist on going to a herbalist, what sort of questions they should be asking.  I thought this was very useful and the production team were also mindful to catch all those people who either figured it out, or weren’t convinced to get their opinions, so I was pleased and warmed by that!

Topped with the fact that Pizza was bought for us, Sunday was a good day!

I am yet to see the edited results of the pilot (and I hope that I will get invited to) But all in all I feel that the weekend was a success.

It raised some important issues to people in need, especially those who were looking at the Allergy tests.  It made them realise that you can’t do an allergy test in 10 min, and if someone tries to take a piece of your hair and run an allergy test, it is probably bogus.  The people selling these products and services have an agenda.  Sure it is nice to go and chat to them about your problems and feel like someone is listening to you, because your GP probably told you (in a nice way) to bugger off and stop moaning.  Ultimately the ball is in the consumer’s court, if you’re not happy with your GPs service, go back and demand satisfaction.  Although, if you do that, you should make sure you’re not a hypochondriac; seeking a second independent opinion is always useful.

The Fake MMS. The door to the right went back behind the set, we took customers there and the setup was revealed to them.

Consultation room with hidden Camera in the plant pot. Some people spotted it...It wasn't hidden very well.

The Real MMS! Behind a locked cabinet thankfully

Today I truly realised the power of blogging!

As seen in my previous blog post I was a little annoyed at the science museum.

What I was NOT aware of was that so were a lot of other scientists and Skeptics! Some high profile skeptics such as Simon Singh and Prof. David Colquhoun were equally annoyed and had also expressed their concerns to the Science museum. Simon quit from the board over this and another exhibition that promoted religion, and DC was given a PR filled letter of rubbish as a response.

My blog post was carefully guest posted on a friend’s as I knew she had a relative amount of traffic going through it. This and with the help of twitter, we managed to get noticed by one of the most prolific skeptic bloggers, P.Z.Myers, in America.  In turn his blog sent MORE people to ours and twitter went crazy with tweets denouncing the science museum who to their credit, replied to us, as a blog post and pretty quickly.

Unbeknownst to the Science Museum we had caught the attention of Martin Robbins of the lay scientist fame, a blog hosted by the Guardian. We were asked to do a follow up blog and so we thought it would be prudent and respectful to wait for the Science Museum’s official response. In our defence had the Science Museum come back with a satisfactory reply we would have used this opportunity to say “Thank-you science museum you have restored our faith in your ability to address criticism and like any science based institution you admit when you’re wrong, mostly” This did not happen, unfortunately.

Our response, in the guardian, can be read here

This brings me round quite nicely to also say that blogging has become a brilliant tool for science and critical thinking. I’m hesitant to call it skepticism (even though it is) because I feel the word Skeptic conjours up images of a denialist.

This whole issue has gone from one person being annoyed at the science museum’s lack of context and its misleading information with reference to alternative medicine, to a whole movement of scientists and other critical thinkers angry at the science museum. I am proud to be part of a group who demand high standards from their educational institutions. I have recently become aware of a few psychologists also angry about the psychobable exhibition also being displayed there.  What happened to you Science museum, you used to be cool?

We are firmly in the 21st century…The rise of the geeks in nigh and we demand quality, Quality with Caveats!

 

EDIT

Some research via Dr Alan Cann (University of Leicester) has been undertaken into the use of social media by researchers http://bit.ly/eDvGg5 Have a read! (I took part!)

I stole this, but its sentiments are true

An Un-Wellcome Divergence from the Evidence

My guest post from Purely a figment of your imagination:

On Saturday the 29th January I decided to go to the science museum with some friends.  I am in love with the science museum.  It has always sparked my interest and I think what they do to get children engaged with science is amazing.

My favourite part has always been the history of medicine exhibits on the 4th and 5th floors, generously donated/provided by the Wellcome trust. At least, they used to be my favourite until this particular trip.  Aside from the rather depressing feeling that the 4th floor is a little dated, the 5th floor has a lot to answer for.

Age-Old Conflict

There has always been the debate within science and medicine about the use of alternative medicines and their validity.  I accept that people use these “medicines” and I accept that none of my ranting and raving at them will prevent their taking them.

However, just because somebody believes in taking a sugar pill, sticking needles in to you, waving your hands chanting rubbish or blood letting, doesn’t actually make it true or a credible medicinal treatment.

This is where I was shocked at the SM’s lack of clarification for ALL of their exhibits on alternative medicine. Depressingly, the SM seems to have pandered to the whims of quacks by allowing them to create their own exhibit, and it looks like there was no quality control.

Many of you may be thinking right now,

Why does this even matter?

It matters because the SM is supposed to promote science and understanding, not fuel an ever increasingly tiresome debate between those that painstakingly research and collect data and those that appear to pick any old idea then try to convince people it works.

Exhibits A, B and C

The acupuncture exhibit states that acupuncture is being used on the NHS (fair enough, it is) and that there have been many studies on the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment (which there were) but that’s it.  What about the results of these studies?  Why not add in the extra line to state: whilst people believe that it works, it’s mainly bullshit (note: don’t write bullshit).

The homeopathy stand tells the case study of a girl who had allergies from the age of 3-5 (what are these allergies?) and they say that she was cured by homeopaths.  That’s right, they categorically state that homeopathy helped her.

The Chinese medicine section describes the work of a professor in Beijing (who incidentally wrote the exhibit himself) describing that he managed to treat his patients by giving them remedies to realign their qi.  Nothing about how this “qi” is non-existent.  The SM actively seems to promote the idea that alternative medicine is a credible alternative to real medicine.

Another exhibit tells people of other medical treatments in various countries and nowhere describes that these medical practices have no evidence to back up their claims.  The language used to describe each exhibit misleads the reader into thinking that the treatments work and backed by science.

Further around, out of the horrifyingly self-gratifying alternative medicine stands (written by the alternative medicine crowd), we come to the history of homeopathy.  It quite rightly recalls the history of medicine and homeopaths and how they divided.  This is ultimately historical and no-harm-done, in fact it is important to know, but the third paragraph down says:

homeopaths give substances which recreate the symptoms that the patient is suffering from

No, they don’t.

Homeopaths give substances (for want of a better word) that they believe will recreate the symptoms. They also throw in a couple of “ ” around the word medicine to describe conventional medicines.  Come now, Science Museum, a little callous don’t you think?  The controversial element isn’t evidence-based treatment, it’s woo.

Apparently it’s all OK though, because time and time again they back up the claims either with patient stories, as can be seen on their video screens around the floor, and the fact that millions of people worldwide use these alternative medicines. So that’s OK, millions of uniformed people can’t possibly be wrong.  I mean, they’ve been doing it that way for thousands of years, so best to let them carry on trepanning, sticking needles needlessly (see what I did there?) into others and killing endangered species to be ground up and used as medicines.

I do not blame the Wellcome Trust for sponsoring this exhibit and after doing a little research into their policies they even state:

27. It is crucial that evidence-based research should inform policy to help address the barriers to  progression and engagement.  There is a need for more high quality and robust educational  research, and this must be combined with improved mechanisms to translate findings into  practice

So, aside from their reputation, I know that the Wellcome Trust are evidence-based but ultimately these exhibits are unhelpful, misleading and just plainwrong. As scientists and clear-minded doctors, we try to promote the idea of evidence as a means to developing effective treatments.

The science museum should be there to show the history of such a philosophy.  It should not be misleading the general public and informing them of medical “alternatives” that are potentially harmful.

It should include the CAM element of medicine because, like it or not, it is part of medical history and it is a museum, but it should make people aware that these sources of “medicine” do not have reliable, peer-reviewed collective evidence to back up their substantial claims.

Institutions like the Science Museum unfortunately do not have the luxury of sitting on the fence with issues such as these, especially when they hold a huge responsibility of informing the public.

Remember, anecdotes are not data.

My apologies for the quality of some of the photos, but they are just about visible.

Just a quick blog to let people know I’m still alive.

A lot has happened in my life over the past month:
My boss presented at ASH (American Society for heamatology) 52nd Annual meeting, of which my name was on the abstract making me one step closer to becoming a published scientist.
I went to Austrlia for a month in which I have made the decision to move out permanently in the near future. Many reasons for this but they include more money, less stress and my family are out there. Yes I was flooded in, but I’m ok and so are all my family and property etc. The scenes were pretty horrific in places but with typical Aussie resolve they will get through it, and I wish them all the best!
I would also like to say that I was asked to take part in some research about blogging and social media within science by one of my old lecturers Dr Alan Cann (of microbiology bytes fame), who himself is a blogger and one of my inspirations within science writing. If I could give one piece of advice to anyone it would be to take the microbiology/virology/Immunology course at Leicester university because you will become part of a course with staff that take their job to the nth degree. Alan was using social media way before it was cool! He understood the importance it would play back before facebook had gone global (Dark dark times) and whilst many of us didn’t understand then, I reflect now upon the many attempts to teach us through social media, and I thank him for it.
Once published I shall link to the research as it is an interesting read and very informative.

I also include some photos I took in Australia for your enjoyment.

Alex

Roo with Joey taken by me

Green tree frog in the garden

Gecko climbing up my window, found one on my window sill too.

The GCP certificate

GCP or Good clinical practice is an essential, and legal, document required to under take a clinical trial. I went on this course yesterday and I am now GCP accredited, apparently.

I am not going to lie, I am NOT a doctor, and those of you who read this blog will know that. Most of the course is boring. I kid you not; at one point gouging my eyes out with a spoon seemed a more attractive idea than going back into the lecture theatre. It did however contain some very useful information, and had Tea. It showed me (albeit more reinforcing) my belief in rigid clinical trials.

Click the pic, im referencing this way. Its easier

Clinical trials should be well planned and thought out with effects and adverse effects recorded meticulously, excellently reported and always conducted to a high standard. I’m not going to pretend that this system works fully but it is pretty good. Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science blog will show you some of the pitfalls in this area especially when it comes to certain drugs and MHRA licensing.

Overall though the system does work and so much money is poured into the research and development of a drug that whoever is producing it, doesn’t want to be refused a license due to a crappy experiment (or set of experiments). That being said, some trials do get through the rigorous approval system and are either misreported by the media, not reported because of negative results or just plain crappy. The second part of the blog:

Analysis:

Some of you might be aware of the use of Flow Jo. Flow Jo is a program which allows you to interpret the snot splats (Dot plots) that you’ve obtained after running your sample through a flow cytometer. In general I used to like Flow Jo. That was until I actually tried to do anything useful with it. Be warned future Scientists, you will find that half of what you want to do you can’t because you either have to wait for software to be installed, or the software has been written by some socially inept nerd who hasn’t figured out that the program needs to be user friendly. This may be a harsh assessment that I have written off the cuff due to the last week of using it, but still, my point currently stands.

The need for meticulous notes:

I have been doing experiments for a year now on my particular question and I am pulling them all together to tell the story of my hypothesis and write a paper. It is only now I am realising my folly. Looking back over your lab book and trying to figure out why you did something the way you did it is a nightmare, and journals don’t want to see “Because my boss told me so” even if that is the reason you did it that way in the first place! I have now made a promise that I will always write meticulous notes whilst undertaking an experiment so I know every detail. Even the smallest amount like the time I took something out of the incubator. These notes may seem anal, but boy am I realising that they are needed!

The dark room:

If you work with cells, at some point you’re going to need to do confocal microscopy. Good luck with that! Whilst the confocal microscope gives you pretty pictures it does mean sitting in a dark room for hours taking the pictures. Oh and hours in another dark room analysing the results. Nict zu fun. Ultimately though, scientists just like any other human being are wowed by pretty pictures “oooooo perdy! Uhyuh!”.

Not my own data. I couldn't find mine at the time of writing this.

So it really is worth doing. After reading some papers it seems to be more about presentation in some cases than actual content, and in this day and age of tight funding and competitive publishing, presentation with content will get you a long way!