Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 August 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 19

Why? (Dangerous medical advice on YouTube)

Why is dangerous and fraudulent medical advice allowed to be promoted on YouTube? This video encourages parents to shove dangerous chemicals up their autistic child's rectum to bleach away their autism! Autistic children are dying due to this promotion and YouTube is refusing to do anything about it! How is this legal? Mage Resu (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to YouTube Community Guidelines. If you feel that a video violates the rules, you can read about how to flag and report dangerous content. YouTube may choose to remove the video if its content is actually harmful, illegal, or even if it simply violates the standards that are expected by the YouTube moderators and community.

Just so we are clear: we (the volunteers who hang out at Wikipedia's science reference desk) can't directly control content or influence decisions made by YouTube; all we can do is point you toward YouTube's documented procedures for reporting "bad" content.

If the authors of these videos are actually making unfounded medical claims to market their product, that may be illegal in the United States. You can report a problem to the FDA, file a report of an unlawful sale of a medical product on the internet; or consult an attorney for further guidance. (If it is true that "children are dying," the link I provided includes an emergency telephone number that will connect you to a Federal investigator; and if it is not an accurate statement, you might want to proceed very carefully with your descriptions and phrasing when you file your report). To be clear, this is literally escalating to the level of "making a Federal case" out of the issue. The FDA can and will investigate such reports, and may pursue civil or criminal action against unlawful activity; but realistically, you shouldn't expect immediate resolution.

Nimur (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Just for anyone wondering, this is about miracle mineral supplement. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This is just the sort of bias I was talking about in my question. There are so many testimonials of MMS. It's proven effective. [[Vic]] 05:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

See snake oil. They use everything in the book, it's like "whack a mole", if they go to far and actually claim it's a medicine, then the authorities can act, and sometimes they do. But for the most part these weasels are VERY good at wording all their promotional material in such a way as to claim they aren't "REALLY" making any specific medical claims, *wink, wink*. I have been VERY deeply steeped in this specific subject, I've even shared communication with Jim Humble himself. HE him self never sells the stuff, he lives in the dominican republic far from the reach of any "western jurisdiction", he makes his money giving very expensive seminars and from "donations" to his "church". The greatest realization you can take away from this, is there are people, who are perfectly "normal" by all measures, not stupid or gullible, most even well meaning who are completely duped by this (and similar things like it), like quite possibly mr nowiki above me. They really believe this stuff works, they are swayed by the personal testimony, they've SEEN it with "their own eyes" and that evidence is better than anyone in a white coat could tell them. They don't care if it's a placebo, or a regression towards the mean, or treatment bias, or any number of other fallacious reason why it might APPEAR that something like MMS worked in the case they witnessed, those reasons require a very sound understanding of science and critical thinking which most "normal people" do not posses. Vespine (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

MMS is not snake oil! It works for me and it cured my son of vaccine damage! Many autistic sociopaths believe that it is a sin for me to want to cure my son! They think that being Mercury damaged is cool and is an alternate way of being! Let me ask you this, is having no friends, flapping your hands like an idiot, and constantly trying to kill yourself an acceptable way of being? Those vaccine damaged retards belong in a group home, not on the Internet! [[Vic]] 06:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oppression of Suppression: Are you trolling or have you just been living under a rock? Thimerosal and autism is an explanation given post hoc for the MMR vaccine controversy, which is based on blatant fraud, lawyers paying for results to back up a lawsuit. Something causes autism but it's not a trace level of mercury - there's mercury all over in the environment, and believe me, there was a whole lot more of it the further back in history you look. There was nothing untoward forty or fifty years ago about kids playing with mercury, putting it on quarters, etc. every time a thermometer got broken, and they got broken all the time. Using the "miracle" cure to fix a problem that doesn't really exist to begin with is no proof at all. Wnt (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. Not signing and then removing the autosignature and replacing it with something that doesn't link back to you is not the proper way to make Wikipedia postings, since it makes you uncontactable and unpingable without extra effort on our part. [sigh... someone already blocked him indefinitely for "disruptive editing" after like ten edits. Our admins don't even give people a chance. That doesn't mean he was making sense though.] Wnt (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oppression of Suppression: Autistics are not sociopaths. No wonder they blocked you! Mage Resu (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Videos extolling dangerous and fraudulent medical merchandise are pretty mild as controversial YouTube content goes. Months ago, I flagged a video describing how to make a firearm suppressor (a "silencer" in everyday-talk) out of a Mag-Lite flashlight casing, which is against Federal law, but YouTube has left it up. The funniest part of Steven Spielberg's "1941" is when Dan Aykroyd, playing the sergeant in charge of an anti-aircraft gun emplacement which had to be in a family's yard overlooking the coast, goes through the entire operating manual of the anti-aircraft gun, saying "You shouldn't touch the ordnance at all. But more specifically, you should never pull this hand-operating lever to the rear... Do not push a clip of ammunition down into the feed rollers here... You never restore this lever to firing position. Do not make sure that this cover is completely closed... Never depress operator's foot triggers here, here and at the rear here".

That's what the maker of the suppressor video did - describe in loving detail the things it's against Federal law to do to a flashlight to make it an illegal silencer, and exactly how to do them so that what you would have is an illegally-made device. But apparently YouTube's good with that.

Letting people sell vitamins that may or may not be horrible or claim they cure dread diseases is also probably contributing to commission of a Federal felony, but YouTube apparently has legal advisors who tell them it's all right. I had an Email chat with one of wikipedia's own attorneys on a related issue I won't describe, and he told me unless a publisher knows reasonably well that a publication describing dangerous things would be used to commit a bad act, it's legal. I agree, freedom of speech is worth defending, even when it's abused by the silly and cynical. I don't have to like those abuses, but they are a consequence of freedom - that it can be abused.

YouTube does allow people to post refutations of other people's videos - even if the poster of a video disables comments, you're able to make a video which says "you know this guy's video? It's crap. This is why....". And there have been some brilliant refutations of scientific fallacies posted on YouTube. loupgarous (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vfrickey: This is actually on topic, since the question is "how is this legal?", though it belongs properly in Humanities. The answer is, obviously, that many of us do not condone censorship. Knowing how to build a suppressor is an exercise of both the first and second amendments to the U.S. constitution, and there is no reason why a private company, even if it has a nominal right to do so, should set itself at odds with the fundamental principles that its subscribers hold dear - or should, anyway. Now it may seem harder to justify this with a procedure that doesn't work, but the principle is actually the same whether you think something shouldn't be done or can't be done - it's still what you think. It's not up to some defender of scientific dogma to decide what is tolerable and intolerable belief, because however obvious you think that may be, in no time it will line up 100% with corruption and corporate interest. And given that even now believers in this crap claim that the truth is really on their side and being censored, what happens when you have that situation? Scientific truth requires falsifiability - if you can't read the explanation given, then you can't disprove anything, not even "miracle" "minerals". And it's not freedom of speech to say that people can say anything you agree with. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Awesome response! Wnt wins Wikipedia for today. --Trovatore (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• So, the answer is that it's not a crime to give ludicrous and dangerous advice, as a rule (depending on jurisdiction), but it does invoke potential civil liability. Any identifiable person who advocates bullshit like MMS could be open to a civil suit if harm comes from following their advice. They could also be liable to intervention from social services if they are obviously harming their child. I would be very inclined to report any identifiable bleach enema advocate to social services in their locale. And any commercial entity promoting it, will probably fall foul of numerous regulations around truth in advertising and the sale of goods and services. That said, I think the reality-based community really needs to work on two websites: eBay and Amazon. Both sell merchandise and books promoting this bullshit. Amazon still sells the fraudulent diet book that landed Kevin Trudeau in jail, and still sells Robert O. Young's books despite the fact that he, too, is in jail. This is a real problem that should be addressed. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

MMS, a solution of bleach and acid, sounds a bit like Dakin's solution, an antiseptic developed in 1914,and used to treat wounds during WW1.per Henry Drysdale Dakin. It was called the "Carrel–Dakin method of wound treatments". It consisted of "intermittently irrigating the wound with Dakin's solution. This solution is a highly diluted antiseptic, consisting of sodium hypochlorite (0.4% to 0.5%) and boric acid (4%)" They used Dakin's solution, at least in some modern formulation (not at all sure they would have used boric acid in it) on surgical dressings on me in the 1990s. I realize that sodium hypochlorite and sodium chlorite differ, but it is unclear what molecules are present when the chemicals are reacted with acids or whatever to prepare a clinical application. What is the concentration of MMS when it is actually swallowed, injected, or applied topically? The Sodium chlorite article says that it is mixed with acid to prepare a solution used on cow teats to treat mastitis. How does that solution differ from this MMS as applied to humans? Edison (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem - they're taking a chemical for external use because it kills anything and using it internally at concentrations hopefully low enough to not be obviously harmful. And using it to kill "autism", which doesn't really work because it's not a bacterium. Now yeah, this is biology, nothing is impossible, who knows if you can kick the immune system and have it turn on some neurons that should have died in development, right? Well, nothing's impossible but this is damn unlikely and there's no evidence for it and there's evidence it's a bad idea. Wnt (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Edison asks how this product differs from (other products). Key to answering this question:

• The product is marketed with health claims, which is subject to regulation.
• The product is sold with instructions for use, and "when used as directed, produces an industrial bleach that can cause serious harm to health."

Many hazardous chemicals are sold in the United States. Down the street from my house, my local corner station sells chemicals known to cause cancer (gasoline and nicotine, in the same store!) But that store follows the rules for selling those products. Different rules apply when you are selling cigarettes, when you are selling gasoline, and when you are making a health claim to promote a medical treatment. The gasoline store can sell me gasoline, and if I want to believe, I am allowed to drink the gasoline in an effort to cure my ailments. But if a day ever comes when that gasoline shop puts a sign up instructing me to drink the gasoline, or claiming that drinking the gasoline cures the measles, the very same sale and transaction would cease to be legal. This is how our laws are written in the United States.

The issue of selling junk medicine isn't only a matter of the magnitude of the hazard, but it's also about the abuse of trust and the insidious predation on a segment of society who is desperate for help. That is one reason why our society more harshly penalizes a charlatan who sells fake drugs, but permits tobacco to be sold openly in stores. Them's the rules.

Nimur (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Forget snake oil, what about ordinary cooking oil? Count Iblis (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Watching this video gives the following questions: Why are conventional therapies anti parasites avoided? Why so many children and poeple shown? Why are these children infected with parasites? Are this abused children? Did anybody know if any of this children was feed with expired or contaminated food? It is known some microbe parasites are producing neurotoxines. Rats or mice trated with this neurotoxines began moving like some hyperactive children, not with straight back, not using the full foot to stand on and even some disorientated. In the former industrial age, workers did not need a personality. Today in the information and communication age, the personality is essential. This may come up with the question, was child mistreatment formerly ignored, but recognized today due personality is essential for work? I would not belive in any viral or information with advertising character, built on a single true fact, but avoiding all conventional treatment. If someone needs to hide his ass for child mistreatment, he might follow several false, inofficial or non-scientific information. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 14:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC) --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 14:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Excretion of Prednisone and Prednisolone

First and foremost, not looking for any medical advice, just curious (also, I don't think any of this would be medically relevant to anyone anyways). I know both of these, when taking prescription prednisone, are found in urine and breast milk, but I was curious about sweat and saliva (and any other sources). I was also curious for any information on how much is found -- if a patient is taking Xmg of prednisone, what amount of the substance is pharmacologically active in sweat, saliva, urine etc. (and in what concentration)? Thanks for any input73.174.196.36 (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the infant will receive less than 0.1% of the prednisolone taken by the mother [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, since my mother has been told to take prednisolone for two years, and I saved her over $1,000 by finding a by-mail provider. I shall have to look into this tomorrow. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Drugs: Nuvigil and Provigil

Are these drugs (Nuvigil and Provigil) considered to be amphetamines? Stimulants? Or what? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A stimulant according to Armodafinil and a Google search.73.174.196.36 (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

According to our article Wakefulness-promoting Agent Nuvigil, Provigil and related drugs occupy their own pharmacological category, "eugeroics" or "wakefulness-promoting agents" within the general category of "stimulants". According to that article, as opposed to most other stimulants, wakefulness-promoting agents have a low or very low potential for abuse. loupgarous (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not an amphetamine as the chemical structure does not contain the amphetamine skeleton. EdChem (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias

OP has been blocked for disruption, soapboxing, etc. Move along. --Jayron32 11:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A few years ago, I attempted to correct a few biased statements on the Homeopathy article, only to be reverted repeatedly because my sources were "unreliable"! Why is Wikipedia so biased against alternative medicine? Is Big Pharma paying you to deny the effectiveness of homeopathy? With all the testimonies out there nobody without brain damage or a conflict of interest can deny the true power of homeopathy. I thought Wikipedia was editable by anyone, not just Pharma shills! Please explain. [[Vic]] 05:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC) This isn't the forum for disputing article content.--Savonneux (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I'm not disputing the content, I'm just asking why the bias is present! [[Vic]] 06:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC) It's just a variant of our here above "no medical advice". It's not a bias that homeopathy is a pseudo-science, it's a fact. The assertion that it "never works" or that "it's just by chance" is not entirely correct, but globally the cases where that critic would hold are so few and so minor that the opposite pile of the arguments and practices is overwhelmingly negative. Certainly without the biases which are inherent to Big Pharma itself the very tiny usefull bit of homeopathic medicine would be included in it. The good direction however is to encourage healthy growth of good medics populations, not to disperse them into factions. -Askedonty (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC) The OP seems to be here to "correct" our leaning towards factual information on homeopathy and bleach enemas. I have blocked this account until we have some indication that the angry mastodon behaviour will not continue. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC) The opponents of homeopathy who say it does nothing are actually misinformed. Many homeopathic "medicines" are the most blatant kind of fraud, things which nominally are made up by taking some odd or grotesque substance and diluting it one to billions of billions of billions in water. But not all of them - you actually see things like "3X atropine" on the market, which is to say, atropine diluted 1:1000 and then diluted further in some customary but unspecified way to make pills out of it. Both niche items and mass market items like Zicam have ended up being reported for significant problems caused the the actual active ingredient. That said, the least-dilute homeopathy products, having the clear potential to do harm, also may have potential to do good; and sometimes, their ingredients seem well chosen for a chance of success. But they aren't tested the way that real medicine is tested, so it's a crapshoot. A key thing I would like to see with the big producers of ultr-diluted homeopathy products is what the inside of their business really looks like. There are companies that sell thousands of different highly dilute homeopathy products, each available in dozens of different dilutions. Do they actually have immense warehouses where they keep their diluted stocks prior to dispensing, or does a qualified homeopathicist dutifully shake and shake his graduated cylinders a dozen or more times each time the mark places an order? My bet is that if you went inside one of those places you'd find a faucet, a label printer, and a computer to print them up and bill people's credit cards! Wnt (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

For the pathologists

(Disclaimer: DO NOT read this question if you are the least bit squeamish)

OK, here is the question: Suppose that a bunch of terrorists invade a village and machine-gun every man, woman and child living there -- and then a few hours later, our brave heroes attack the terrorists and take the village back, but in the process they end up napalming part of the village. My question is, in this scenario would it be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt whether the villagers died from the terrorists' bullets or from the napalm? (Inspired in part by the movie We Were Soldiers, and also by the third level of the Chinese campaign in Command & Conquer Generals.) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The pathologist will check the contents of the lungs. In your scenario they would find no napalm / fumes in the lungs. The blood from the wounds to the walls of the building would show a blood spray pattern different if they were standing, compared to lying down if they were shot after death. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The link you're looking for is Bloodstain pattern analysis. We probably shouldn't redirect "spray pattern" because I could think of lots of uses for that term that have nothing to do with forensics or blood. But Bloodstain pattern analysis is the correct article in this context. --Jayron32 12:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Relevant articles are Pathology and Cause of death. The latter article notes that the medical cause of death after acutely stressful events such as terrorism and military attacks is likely to be recorded as cardiac failure, brought on by Fight-or-flight response increasing heart rate through stress hormones.

Discovery of legal culpability for killings is the object of a forensic autopsy. Examination of bullet exit wounds may reveal how long bleeding, indicating a pumping heart, continued. From this and other information presented at an Inquest a Coronor will determine if possible the time of death, the exact cause of death, and what, if anything, preceded the death, such as a struggle. AllBestFaith (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like The Liberation of Earth to me. Dmcq (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like advanced pathology to me. If you machine-gun a crowd to kill them all, there will be multiple bullets in each victim, passing through skull and other bone in many cases to leave forensic evidence so long as the bone survives at all. And of course the bullets themselves, after impact, remain in the buildings or soil. Enough napalm obviously can reduce much of corpses' softer tissues to an unrecognizable state, but the bones can survive a decent cooking and the bullets in the ground will survive more. You'd need a thorough cremation to reduce bones to such ash that they couldn't be examined (that article explains the need for the device known as a Cremulator, in fact...), and I don't think you can do that accidentally no matter how much napalm you dump on a town. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Deja vu
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Wikipedia article on Homeopathy claims that it is considered a "pseudoscience", even though there are plenty of people out there testifying its effectiveness at treating many ailments! Why is this? Smallness88 (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Lack of actual evidence! No double blinded placebo controlled studies demonstrate efficacy! The placebo effect accounts for all the anecdotal reports! Mage Resu (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC) As MegaMan points out, the placebo effect can explain this. But note that the placebo effect can itself be tested and has been found to be much more powerful than previously thought. Count Iblis (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC) We do not "claim" it is considered a pseudoscience". We state it is considered a pseudoscience because that is what independent reliable sources say (as indicated by the sources cited in the article). While the sources certainly discuss the evidence for and against efficacy and such, that is not part of whether or not we state that it is considered a pseudoscience. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Compared to Homeopathy, Chiropractic is practically miraculous and it's mostly fraudulent too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC) They both could unite with the iridologists, colonic irrigationists, and Reiki healers and create an alternative hospital. I wonder how many would still go there when seriously ill. Hofhof (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC) What about all of these sources? Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Frass, M; Dielacher, C; Linkesch, M; et al. "Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients." Chest. March, 2005;127:936-941. The journal, Chest, is the official publication of the American College of Chest Physicians. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Hayfever: Reilly, D; Taylor, M; McSharry, C; et al., "Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model." The Lancet. October 18, 1986, ii: 881-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Asthma: Reilly, D; Taylor, M; Beattie, N; et al., "Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?" Lancet. December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Fibromyalgia: Bell, IR; Lewis II, DA; Brooks, AJ; et al. "Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo." Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. This journal is the official journal of the British Society of Rheumatology. http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org. Fibromyalgia: Fisher, P; Greenwood, A; Huskisson, EC; et al., "Effect of Homoeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis (Primary Fibromyalgia)," BMJ. 299(August 5, 1989):365-6. Childhood diarrhea: Jacobs, J; Jimenez, LM; Gloyd, SS. "Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua." Pediatrics. May, 1994,93,5:719-25. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. ADD/ADHD: Frei, H; Everts, R; von Ammon, K; Kaufmann, F; Walther, D; Hsu-Schmitz, SF; Collenberg, M; Fuhrer, K; Hassink, R; Steinlin, M; Thurneysen, A. "Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial." Eur J Pediatr. July 27,2005,164:758-767. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Smallness88 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Is there any reason to believe that the conclusions of all these article were positive? That is, have they shown homeopathy to be an effective treatment? Hofhof (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Why don't you read them and find out? Smallness88 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Indeed, I did read some. And read the reviews of them too, which you appear to have skipped. So far, we still can conclude that homeopathy is biologically implausible because of the use of medicines diluted beyond the Avogadro limit. It is therefore reasonable to ask for a high level of randomized evidence before concluding that homeopathy exerts specific effects. The studies you linked above involve a relatively small number of patients. Hofhof (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Water has memory! Homeopathic dilutions are chemically different from pure water, because the original substance leaves an electromagnetic signature behind! The water "remembers" this electronic configuration! You should read about it! It's very interesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallness88 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Water memory is the article for this. Electromagnetic signature seems to be a non-concept.Hofhof (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Article is biased! Smallness88 (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)