The Quantum and Fundamental Probabilities

….or can we walk through walls?

The truly strange and probabilistic nature that rules the quantum universe has been a challenging idea even for physicists to conceptualize and eventually accept as part of observable reality. It is not hard then to imagine, how a hopelessly mangled popular version of the “power” of the quantum has captured the imaginations of so many alternative medicine gurus and new age world views, not to mention a multitude of the general population.

This stems from the fact that one of the most confusing concepts in quantum physics happens to be one of its most basic properties- its inherently probabilistic nature. What makes this so weird and different is the very difficult to grasp idea that this quantum probability seems to be a fundamental quality. That is, as far as can be discerned, there are no further details or obvious deeper internal mechanisms that might be the cause of this fussiness. It seems that the very nature of quantum phenomena is to be “fuzzy”. However, as a whole, this inherent fuzziness coalesces into predictable behavior and eventually gets buried under the enormity of our level of reality.

In 1899 during the dawn of studies in radioactivity, Ernest Rutherford and others came upon an observation that eventually gave rise to the quantum theories of today. These scientists noted that the decay of radioactive atoms followed a consistent pattern- a decreasing exponential decay that occured through time.

However, only the combined average of decaying atoms gave this predictable pattern. They noted that, atom to atom, the decay event occurred randomly at any time- they were unpredictable. Only the combined average of decay events permitted these scientists a glimpse to the probabilistic behavior of the quantum world.

These observations became the spark of weirdness that opened the doors for Max Born, in 1926, to declare “the fundamental laws of the subatomic world are laws of probability, not laws of certainty.” As Kenneth Ford puts it “Quantum mechanics does not, and cannot, predict when a particular electron in a particular atom will make a quantum jump or to what state it will jump. What Quantum mechanics predicts is the probability that the electron will jump. That probability can be calculated quite precisely.”

What does this have to do with our present discussion? The implication here is that, at the classical level of physics, the behavior of things is much more definable and exact. Outcomes, in principle, can be cleanly calculated by having knowledge to a point of initial conditions (of course to be clear “little” things like chaos theory- butterfly effects- make this proposition quite unrealistic). At the quantum level though, the way of things are hazy and inexact. Again, probability at the quantum level seems to be fundamental- not a matter of just not knowing enough about the system. Only the chance of something happening can be calculated not what will happen. Paradoxically, quantum mechanics is definable and exact from the point of view that probabilities can be calculated precisely. .

Because of the unpredictable “fuzzy” qualities of quantum behavior physicists have discovered bizarre effects such as transmutation and tunneling that occur at these tiniest of levels but are drowned and buried under the infinitely more massive interactive weight of the classical level of reality. These quantum qualities can be actually utilized to create new avenues of research and technology. Physicists can capitalize on this quantum behavior and utilize its strange properties to design for example Geiger counters that detect individual atom sized explosions, and scanning tunneling microscopes that “see” atoms.

Yet, as mentioned, these fundamental quantum properties hide from our ordinary macroscopic everyday world and herein lay the core of misunderstanding with “popular” as opposed to actual quantum theory. For example, it is absolutely breath taking how the phenomenon of quantum tunneling- where a particle can suddenly “appear” on the other side of an “impenetrable” barrier- has been taking so completely out of context.

That fact that tunneling occurs at the quantum level is well known, but that it is an exceedingly small probability-even at this level- is either not understood or completely ignored. We can take advantage of this quantum property at these tiny fringes of reality because of the probabilistic qualities observed at this quantum level and the shear number of quantum particles involved. On the other hand, these are not manifest properties of our big world.

Ford notes “Within a nucleus, an alpha particle may be “knocking on the door” 10²⁰ times per second to get out, yet may make it through only after millions of years. In our human-sized world, the probabilities are even smaller. A warden need have no fear that a prisoner leaning against the prison wall will suddenly be free on the other side of the wall.”

Further he writes that “If most of what happens in the small-scale world is governed by laws of probability, why isn’t the same true in the large-scale world? The large-scale world is, after all, built of the numerous pieces of the small-scale world and must be subject to the same laws. (As I remarked earlier, we often encounter probability in the large-scale world, but it always arises from lack of full information-it is a probability of ignorance, not a fundamental probability.) There are two reasons fundamental probability usually hides from our view in the everyday world. One reason is that when enough individual probabilistic events are amassed, the result can be smooth, predictable change...The other reason is that fundamental probabilities, when extrapolated to the large-scale world, often turn out to be nearly zero or nearly one. The chance that quantum-mechanical tunneling will propel you through a brick wall is effectively zero (but not exactly zero). The chance that a thrown baseball will follow a smooth path, not zig or zag unpredictably, is effectively one-that is, 100 percent (but not exactly one).”

This is the Achilles Heel of mind over matter enthusiasts and practitioners in such varied human disciplines as transcendental meditation, vitalistic alternative medicines (i.e.; Homeopathy, Reiki, Acupuncture, Therapeutic Touch.), and disciples of quantum consciousness paradigms. On the other hand it is easy to see how so many can overlook the “fine print” of what the observations tell us and be seduced by attractive and hypnotic concepts.

In fact, it is possible to imagine that so many of these imaginary paradigms are but crude facsimiles or manifest fairy tales of the technological advances that may actually come to be some day if we continue to expand on a true understanding of the unfolding universe before us.

Ref: Ford, K. The quantum world.Harvard Univ Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2004

The Vitamin and Mineral Supplement Industry

On dirty secrets and an ongoing debacle

As the accumulating evidence against the indiscriminate use of vitamins, minerals, herbals, and other concoctions continues to gather, a widening chasm between vitamin supplement supporters and advocates for more cautious evidence based approaches has widened to alarming proportions.

The expanding disconnects between what is actually known about vitamin, mineral, and herbal supplementation (to mention but a few) and the publics’ eager willingness to buy them- surpassing a whopping $21 billion in 2005- illustrate their broad unfettered popularity. Indeed there is a widespread sentiment and ingrained confidence that vitamins and supplements in general are safe, essential, and effective tools for a healthier lifestyle.

The nutritional supplement industry and their advocates, not to be out done by the often aggressive public outreach of pharmaceuticals, have managed to create what is amounting to be an illusory need- that indiscriminate vitamin and mineral supplementation to the whole population is necessary and vital.

Since the days of Adelle Davis in the early seventies there has been an explosive and fairly uncontested stream of positively biased propaganda proselytizing the need for nutritional insurance through an ever more complex maze of supplements. So much so that it is now firmly cemented, not as the urban legend it should be, but as fact burned into the fabric of an ignorant public’s general consciousness.

A recent Harris poll found “69 percent of Americans believe the government requires herbal manufacturers to report side effects of there products, 58 percent believe the FDA must approve herbal products, and 55 percent believe that manufacturers can not make claims for their safety or efficacy without firm scientific evidence.” However, unlike other industries that have some type of regulatory structure and forms of accountability, the world of supplement companies has a comparatively free ride. In fact, since succeeding in pushing the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the FDA has been virtually powerless to effectively regulate supplements. The industry has not looked back since.

A 1999 and 2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys conducted on 4,862 adults found that 35 percent regularly used a multi-vitamin. Another 1991 survey, the national Maternal-infant Health Survey involving 8,285 pre-schoolers, found that 54.4 percent of them were given a daily vitamin or mineral supplement. Even today, in spite of a more tarnished scientific image, the public seems to unwaveringly support the idea of a perceived need for nutritional dietary supplements.

A recent 2004 survey found that 78 percent of US adults still somewhat or very confidently believed in the safety, quality, and effectiveness of supplements in general. These numbers seem to be supported by the amount of available supplements everywhere as food markets, specialty stores, and the Internet literally burst with a plethora of different dietary supplements that claim to effectively “promote”, “stimulate”, or “prevent” what your heart desires.

Yet, in the last twenty two years, the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) received a total of 1,534,232 reports of adverse reactions to dietary supplements 235,879 of which required hospitalization. This is staggering enough-especially for a basically unregulated product- but according to Alexander Walker MD, chairmen for the department of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, in a 2000 study prepared for the FDA “A best estimate is that less than one percent of serious adverse events caused by dietary supplements is reported to the FDA.” Interestingly, since the passage of the 1994 DSHEA poisoning incidents related to vitamins and minerals increased by 62 percent whereas all types of poisonings grew just 24 percent.

These facts seem to get lost in the file drawers of the public consciousness as the billion dollar vitamin behemoth plies their wares with very little oversight and practically no accountability. The Federal trade Commission put together a set of guidelines regarding dietary supplements in 1998, however because of the 1994 DSHEA enforcement is very limited.

A 2000 Food Safety Report regarding the safety of functional foods and dietary supplements noted these problems and concluded that “FDA’s efforts and federal laws provide limited assurances of the safety of functional foods and dietary supplements. While the extent to which unsafe products reach consumers is unknown, we believe weakness in three areas of the regulatory system increases the likelihood of such occurrences. First, potentially unsafe products may reach consumers for a variety of reasons, including lack of a clearly defined safety standard for new dietary ingredients in dietary supplements. Second, some products do not have safety-related information on their labels, which could endanger some consumers. This occurs because the FDA has not issued regulations or guidance on the information required…. Finally, FDA cannot effectively assess whether a functional food or dietary supplement is adversely affecting consumers’ health because…it does not investigate most reports it receives of health problems potentially caused by these products.”

Efforts are underway to get a better grip on this monumental problem such as the FDAs’ Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) work on developing a system for tracking and analyzing adverse events involving foods, cosmetics, and dietary supplements. Additionally, in 2006 the Government Reform Committee became more involved in considering issues regarding regulating the dietary industry more effectively. The NIH also released a statement "Multivitamin/Mineral Supplements and Chronic Disease Prevention" in 2006 discussing the inability of being able to make any recomendations regarding multivitamins and mineral supplementation due to a lack of evidence and the need further study.

Though these efforts go some of the way towards ensuring an improved product, real inroads towards ensuring efficacy and safety continue to be hampered by the now infamous 1994 DSHEA.

In the meantime, the public continues to avidly consume an ever increasing pallet of dietary supplements blissfully ignorant of these immense problems swallowing hook, line, and sinker the questionable advice and recommendations of an industry “gone wild”.

Ref:

Hurley, D. Natural Causes. The Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group, New York. 2006

77th Sketpics' Circle

The over medicalized edition

Nicely done!

Chasing ghosts in the machine

Beyond the data

Going beyond the data takes one to the world of imagination and fiction. It is a place where kettles circle the sun, bunnies tell time, and assertions of a quantum consciousness all co-exist with equal pretensions to legitimacy.

For all the impressive intellectual energy invested in so many human world views, we need to remember they are mostly our own creations- they have not been proven to exist beyond our words. They are basically made up human constructs created in infinite combinations and forms designed to entertain, excite, or even organize.

Therefore the usefulness of these constructs may have a utility or value depending on a given culture, time period, or socio-cultural need. For example, medicine before the nineteenth century was a mess of competing schools of thought, each claiming real therapeutic action with no way to differentiate whether they were all right or if some worked better than others.

Only the advent of the scientific enlightenment- a successful system for evaluating reality- allowed for a method that dispassionately filtered out ineffectual or illusory therapies. The general effect was that many made up medical modalities were discarded to the fringe while others proved their mettle under the scrutiny of this system.

So it is this discussion turns to a familiar and recently re-emphasized claim by Deepak Chopra regarding his pet philosophical baby- quantum consciousness. Now, anybody is allowed to make anything up and there is nothing wrong with fantasy. Incredible tales have been woven at the fire side to pass the time. Indeed, there is much good to be said about this ancient human trait.

However, when these tales make claims regarding health care they are open to the same scrutiny and dispassionate analysis given to any other medical concept. If Deepak Chopra insists that a person can manifestly control "their" universe and that the mind- as an entity in of itself- has the power to mold the material universe, then it is up to him to demonstrate it with the data.

Poetry is a beautiful and important means of expression and may even have a place in offering therapeutic benefit in some cases. However, Chopra uses flowery words and meaningless statements to claim certain facts about the nature of the material world that have little basis on what is actually there. The problem though, is that from these very basic erroneous foundations he and many others imply- often quite blatantly and with confidant assurance- the existance of untenable medical philosophies and concurrently formulate model therapies based on them.

To date, all that is known regarding quantum physics reveals no evidence of macroscopic extra corporeal manifestations or of some ethereal essence through which the human mind can act. The observations noted at the level of the extremely small, the quantum, are extrapolated by these confused claims directly to the macroscopic world. Difficult to conceptualize phenomena that occur at the quantum level such as non-locality, superposition, and entanglement manifest their fascinating properties at the infinitely tiny plank dimension.

Many great physicists from Newton, Einstein, Bohr, and Wheeler to name but a few have made huge inroads towards understanding the continuum between these dimensions. De broglie, for example, discovered the sublime relationship between wave and particle like properties of matter and opened the door to understanding how these quantum actions, though not evident in our world, indeed provide the underpinning for this world.

The Standard Model is a breathtakingly accurate means for predicting the properties of the quantum world. It does not shed light on the type of quantum behavior Chopra claims our minds can initiate. It is true that at the level where observation ends and speculation begins, even physicists have taken stabs at conjecture.

Perhaps some of these ponderings might have some basis in truth, but for now, they are outside observation and are speculation; some more educated than others. Even these conjectures though fall into the realm of metaphysics and here we come head to head again with our previously mentioned flying kettles, time obsessed bunnies, and anything else that can not be evidenced in our observable world.

The demands and expectations of today’s medicine require more than world views reminiscent of nineteenth century “a priori” based theories. Medicine needs to follow the evidence and gracefully decline the mirage offered by illusory claims.

Support reason in politics

An oxymoron?


Many hope not...support a grassroots call for a presidential candidate science debate








Happy new year!!

Shades of bullshit

The saga continues

The terms used to describe the plethora of non-science based medical modalities has changed and transformed over time. Descriptors using the word “holistic” have given way to “alternative, complementary, and integrative” perhaps in an attempt to find ways to penetrate more effectively into mainstream consciousness.

Interestingly, Dr Novella and others have interesting posts about this phenomenon finding analogies in evolution-like processes where fringe pseudo-sciences continually mutate their appearance in an attempt to become “accepted” into the scientific fold much like creationism dressed itself in the mantel of intelligent design. This is reminiscent of the mimicry used by the chameleon and, unfortunately, has met with a measure of success.

The bottom line is, no matter how much complementary and alternative medicine or veterinary medicine (CAM or CAVM) would like to pretend they are something they are not; the concept of “holism” remains a steadfast pillar of this world view. Supporters of the The CAM model constantly remind us that they examine the “whole” patient with the obvious implication that science based medicine does not.

The fact is the claim that CAM is based on a true holistic foundation is nothing but a paper tiger. Though, an often discussed theme here, the importance of this fatal flaw deserves frequent mention. Much of CAM deals with rather nebulous concepts that involve often indefinable energy flows, channels, bizarre concepts and belief based philosophies. Approaches to therapeutic plans are often broad and unspecified. For example, straight chiropractic deals with yet to be identified subluxations, and much of acupuncture depends on undetectable meridians. Any holism here relates more to each practitioner’s particular orthodox and inflexible philosophy rather than a coherent medical model.

On the other hand, science based medicine works within a true holistic framework as a matter of routine. Done well, it takes into account a patient’s condition in the context of whole systems utilizing tried, tested, and effective methods. At the same time, the crucial pillars of science based medicine involve change, flexibility, and self-doubt which guard it, for the most part, against becoming excessively rigid.

Granted, there are huge problems, especially in human medicine with respect to the organization of health care. Though this is a topic well worth discussion, it has nothing to do with what science based medicine is. Unfortunately, this is an area where CAM attempts to wedge its way into the mainstream by confounding “traditional” science based medicine with larger political and socio economic problems- really a non sequitor.

Ramey and Rollins in their book “Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine Considered” state “CAVM practitioners may assert that it is necessary to consider an almost limitless number of factors in deciding which approach or combination of approaches is best suited for the diagnosis and treatment of the patient. However, all of the available evidence suggests that this is not the case. That is, a huge body of research has demonstrated that human judgment can not compete with a more objective process that involves evaluating a small number of relevant variables….There is, in fact, no indication that CAVM practices offer any diagnostic or therapeutic advantage over science-based approaches and every reason to believe that no such advantages exist or will be forthcoming, given the long history of their use and concomitant lack of supporting evidence.”

In essence, because of this, CAM and CAVM now more often seem be taking the tact of attempting to blend in as “complementary” or “integrative” to science based medicine; subtly infiltrating areas of science based medicine including academic institutions and hospitals in a bid for legitimacy.

Sadly, as they succeed, the doors towards medical anarchy open a little wider.

Feline Vaccines and relative risk

Towards separating the chaff from the wheat

This 2007 retrospective cohort study “Adverse events after vaccine administration in cats: 2,560 cases (2002-2005)”comes from the University of Purdue School of Veterinary Medicine in association with Banfield veterinary hospitals. It evaluated the incidence of vaccine associated adverse events (VAAEs) diagnosed within 30 days of vaccination in cats and attempted to determine risk factors for their occurrence. This is one of the largest studies of its kind to date reviewing 496,189 cats vaccinated at 329 hospitals. The study followed these cases for up to two years post incident and revealed pertinent information for practitioners.

The general conclusion of this study reinforces the increasing data base that confirms VAAE rates are actually very low. Additionally, it found no association between vaccinations and an increased incidence of tumor associated vaccine reactions- a relation that has been long overblown by anti-vaccination advocates.

To be clear, vaccinations work and thus have the potential for adverse reactions including the possiblity in cats of being associated with vaccine associated tumors (although even if you assume a link, the national incidence appears low at approximately 1 to 2 sarcomas/ 10,000 cats).

What is not made clear or somehow seems to be buried away in the publics statistical ignorance is that a growing number of studies are revealing that vaccine related adverse reactions are indeed rare and when they do occur, they are overwhelmingly mild reflecting observations seen across many animals including humans. Yes there are rare potentially devastating effects that need to be carefully considered when developing what should not be forgotten is the ultimate strategy- that of of protecting innumerable animals from very common and far more devastating diseases.

The Purdue/Banfield study came up with some interesting data that may influence general practitioners towards modifying vaccination protocols slightly in light of these findings. They conclude that “Although overall VAAE rates were low, young (below one year) adult neutered cats that received multiple vaccines per office visit were at the greatest risk of a VAAE within 30 days after vaccination. Veterinarians should incorporate these findings into risk communications and limit the number of vaccinations administered concurrently to cats.”

Basically, it seems that when problems are noted, they tended to occur more frequently in younger neutered cats given multiple vaccines. The authors also note “…the factor associated with the greatest increase in VAEE risk was the number of concurrently administered vaccines or the total vaccine volume administered during the office visit.” This is consistent with another more limited study done in dogs where a vaccine/volume association was found in animals less than 10kg. The canine study by the way also indicated a very low adverse incident rate.

This information can be used to fine tune vaccination protocols and further reduce already low risks. For example, a simple strategy for the veterinarian here would be to split vaccine doses in young cats and assess each individual animal based on the risks/benefits. Vaccine producers can take this information into account when designing vaccinations, especially in light of the probable development of future vaccines against serious feline disease.

Incidentally, the reactions noted consisted of two types. One was characterized by a nonspecific systemic reaction with clinical signs of anorexia, lethargy, fever, or general soreness. The other consisted of a local (injection-site) reaction. As mentioned, this particular study found no association with vaccine related tumors through the study range of one to two years post vaccination. Other longer term studies will help continue to reduce the gaps in our knowledge regarding potential vaccine related effects. Anti vaccine advocates will surely continue to take a “God in the gaps” approach and insist vaccinations cause any number of maladies while ignoring the obvious huge benefits they bring.

The authors state that “Vaccinations are the most cost- effective method of preventing infectious diseases, but VAAEs can sometimes raise more concern among veterinarians and cat owners than do the diseases the vaccines are intended to prevent.” This study adds to the increasing understanding of where our priorities should be and helps quiet the loud fear mongering anti-vaccine advocates by countering their claims with facts.

The goal here, as in all medicine, is to understand all that we can about a particular intervention and balance the risk versus benefits to provide the most reasonable and effective protection. This animal study serves to illustrate how practitioners evaluate real evidence to critically examine and re-examine their ability to improve, modify, or fine tune whatever intervention is being examined- feline vaccinations this case.