Worrying gaps in people’s awareness of alcohol and cancer

Wine glasses

In January, England’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, unveiled the Government’s new alcohol guidelines.

And it’s fair to say that they received mixed reviews. Some welcomed being better informed about the health risks – including increased cancer risk – associated with drinking alcohol. Others have expressed the opinion that guidelines put the UK on the path towards becoming a ‘nanny state’.

As an organisation dedicated to beating cancer, we were in the former camp. Guidelines like these don’t tell people what to do. Instead, they offer information on how people can reduce their risk of cancer by informing them about the risks of drinking. When they were launched, we blogged about the updated guidelines, the weekly guideline of 14 units for both men and women, and how this could be useful in helping people cut their cancer risk.

But how easy is it for people to do this? And do we, as a nation, truly understand the links between alcohol and different types of cancer?

The public consultation on how the Government should communicate these guidelines closes today. And our Policy Research Centre for Cancer Prevention, an in-house research team at Cancer Research UK, working with Dr Penny Buykx’s team at the University of Sheffield’s Alcohol Research Group, have attempted to find out more about people’s awareness of the risks of alcohol.

Their latest study – carried out before the new guidelines were in place – reveals some worrying gaps in public awareness of alcohol’s harms and people’s knowledge of guidelines.

The headline figure shows that almost nine in 10 people don’t link alcohol to an increased risk of cancer. And if we dig a bit deeper, an even more worrying gap emerges.

Alcohol and cancer

We’ve written a lot about the link between alcohol and cancer – from discussing the evidence that it causes cancer, to talking about how drinking less reduces your risk of developing the disease.

When it comes to the science of how and why alcohol causes cancer, the picture isn’t too clear. But there are a few leading theories, which we blogged about recently.

Regardless of the underlying mechanism, we know that 12,800 cases of cancer are linked to alcohol each year in the UK.

To find out how much the public knows about the link, we worked with Dr Buykx’s team to survey 2,100 people in England, asking questions about their knowledge and use of alcohol guidelines – as well as their awareness of which health conditions are linked to alcohol.

Public misconceptions of alcohol and cancer

When our study participants were asked to name health conditions linked to drinking too much alcohol, only 13 per cent mentioned cancer. They were then shown a list of health conditions and asked to name those that could be caused by drinking too much alcohol. Almost half (47 per cent) selected cancer. But this is still a low level of awareness compared to 95 per cent who selected liver disease, and 59 per cent who selected diabetes. A large proportion (84 per cent) also recognised that alcohol can cause obesity and excess body weight.

But people were even more unsure when asked which types of cancer are linked to alcohol, and at what level drinking alcohol increases the risk of these cancers.

In the study, people were asked which of seven different types of cancer they thought were linked to alcohol. Of these seven cancers, four are linked to drinking (bowel, breast, mouth and throat, and liver) and three are not (brain, bladder and ovarian). The graphic below shows that awareness of the risk – or lack of risk – varied a fair bit. For example, only 18 per cent of people questioned correctly answered that breast cancer was linked to alcohol.

Each year in the UK, alcohol causes 3,200 cases of breast cancer, the second largest amount after bowel cancer, with 4,800 cases down to alcohol each year. Yet only around four in 10 people (40 per cent) linked alcohol with bowel cancer, and just under half with mouth and throat cancers.

Conversely, over half believed that bladder cancer was linked to alcohol, when research hasn’t actually found a link.

Next, the participants were asked at what level of drinking they thought a person’s risk of developing cancer starts to increase for each type. While eight in 10 people (80 per cent) had correctly said that liver cancer was linked to drinking alcohol, in this next section, the majority thought this was linked to lower levels of drinking than appears to be the case.

In the UK, around 400 cases of liver cancer are linked to alcohol each year (for context, there are nearly 5,500 cases each year overall). High levels of drinking are thought to trigger liver cancer because this causes conditions – such as cirrhosis – that damage the liver’s ability to repair itself.

Public knowledge of alcohol guidelines

Taken together, these results suggest that the public may not be too well informed about the health risks associated with drinking alcohol. If this is the case, simply offering new guidelines on drinking isn’t going to be enough to help people to understand the health risks.

But they are a good place to start. It’s the duty of the government to inform the public of health risks, and provide these guidelines to help people make decisions about their own health.

The new guidelines are clear that there is no safe level of drinking when it comes to cancer risk. But our study suggests that awareness of the risks needs to improve if the guidelines are going to have the desired effect.

Until the recent announcement, the government’s alcohol guidelines had not been reviewed since 1995.

Our survey reveals that even  though the guidelines haven’t changed in 20 years, only one in 10 men and one in seven women could correctly identify the guidelines for their own gender, and reported using this sometimes to keep track of their own drinking.

Now that the guidelines have changed to 14 units per week for both men and women, can we expect the public to know what they are? Our survey suggests that, without further work, this is unlikely.

So it’s important we – and others – continue to raise awareness of the health risks of drinking alcohol, and especially the links to cancer.

By helping people understand the guidelines, we hope that people will feel they have the information they need to make decisions about when they choose to drink, and how much. And that ultimately this will lead to a healthier nation.

Lucie Hooper is a researcher in the Policy Research Centre for Cancer Prevention at Cancer Research UK



from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1SEsYQB
Wine glasses

In January, England’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, unveiled the Government’s new alcohol guidelines.

And it’s fair to say that they received mixed reviews. Some welcomed being better informed about the health risks – including increased cancer risk – associated with drinking alcohol. Others have expressed the opinion that guidelines put the UK on the path towards becoming a ‘nanny state’.

As an organisation dedicated to beating cancer, we were in the former camp. Guidelines like these don’t tell people what to do. Instead, they offer information on how people can reduce their risk of cancer by informing them about the risks of drinking. When they were launched, we blogged about the updated guidelines, the weekly guideline of 14 units for both men and women, and how this could be useful in helping people cut their cancer risk.

But how easy is it for people to do this? And do we, as a nation, truly understand the links between alcohol and different types of cancer?

The public consultation on how the Government should communicate these guidelines closes today. And our Policy Research Centre for Cancer Prevention, an in-house research team at Cancer Research UK, working with Dr Penny Buykx’s team at the University of Sheffield’s Alcohol Research Group, have attempted to find out more about people’s awareness of the risks of alcohol.

Their latest study – carried out before the new guidelines were in place – reveals some worrying gaps in public awareness of alcohol’s harms and people’s knowledge of guidelines.

The headline figure shows that almost nine in 10 people don’t link alcohol to an increased risk of cancer. And if we dig a bit deeper, an even more worrying gap emerges.

Alcohol and cancer

We’ve written a lot about the link between alcohol and cancer – from discussing the evidence that it causes cancer, to talking about how drinking less reduces your risk of developing the disease.

When it comes to the science of how and why alcohol causes cancer, the picture isn’t too clear. But there are a few leading theories, which we blogged about recently.

Regardless of the underlying mechanism, we know that 12,800 cases of cancer are linked to alcohol each year in the UK.

To find out how much the public knows about the link, we worked with Dr Buykx’s team to survey 2,100 people in England, asking questions about their knowledge and use of alcohol guidelines – as well as their awareness of which health conditions are linked to alcohol.

Public misconceptions of alcohol and cancer

When our study participants were asked to name health conditions linked to drinking too much alcohol, only 13 per cent mentioned cancer. They were then shown a list of health conditions and asked to name those that could be caused by drinking too much alcohol. Almost half (47 per cent) selected cancer. But this is still a low level of awareness compared to 95 per cent who selected liver disease, and 59 per cent who selected diabetes. A large proportion (84 per cent) also recognised that alcohol can cause obesity and excess body weight.

But people were even more unsure when asked which types of cancer are linked to alcohol, and at what level drinking alcohol increases the risk of these cancers.

In the study, people were asked which of seven different types of cancer they thought were linked to alcohol. Of these seven cancers, four are linked to drinking (bowel, breast, mouth and throat, and liver) and three are not (brain, bladder and ovarian). The graphic below shows that awareness of the risk – or lack of risk – varied a fair bit. For example, only 18 per cent of people questioned correctly answered that breast cancer was linked to alcohol.

Each year in the UK, alcohol causes 3,200 cases of breast cancer, the second largest amount after bowel cancer, with 4,800 cases down to alcohol each year. Yet only around four in 10 people (40 per cent) linked alcohol with bowel cancer, and just under half with mouth and throat cancers.

Conversely, over half believed that bladder cancer was linked to alcohol, when research hasn’t actually found a link.

Next, the participants were asked at what level of drinking they thought a person’s risk of developing cancer starts to increase for each type. While eight in 10 people (80 per cent) had correctly said that liver cancer was linked to drinking alcohol, in this next section, the majority thought this was linked to lower levels of drinking than appears to be the case.

In the UK, around 400 cases of liver cancer are linked to alcohol each year (for context, there are nearly 5,500 cases each year overall). High levels of drinking are thought to trigger liver cancer because this causes conditions – such as cirrhosis – that damage the liver’s ability to repair itself.

Public knowledge of alcohol guidelines

Taken together, these results suggest that the public may not be too well informed about the health risks associated with drinking alcohol. If this is the case, simply offering new guidelines on drinking isn’t going to be enough to help people to understand the health risks.

But they are a good place to start. It’s the duty of the government to inform the public of health risks, and provide these guidelines to help people make decisions about their own health.

The new guidelines are clear that there is no safe level of drinking when it comes to cancer risk. But our study suggests that awareness of the risks needs to improve if the guidelines are going to have the desired effect.

Until the recent announcement, the government’s alcohol guidelines had not been reviewed since 1995.

Our survey reveals that even  though the guidelines haven’t changed in 20 years, only one in 10 men and one in seven women could correctly identify the guidelines for their own gender, and reported using this sometimes to keep track of their own drinking.

Now that the guidelines have changed to 14 units per week for both men and women, can we expect the public to know what they are? Our survey suggests that, without further work, this is unlikely.

So it’s important we – and others – continue to raise awareness of the health risks of drinking alcohol, and especially the links to cancer.

By helping people understand the guidelines, we hope that people will feel they have the information they need to make decisions about when they choose to drink, and how much. And that ultimately this will lead to a healthier nation.

Lucie Hooper is a researcher in the Policy Research Centre for Cancer Prevention at Cancer Research UK



from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1SEsYQB

Camping under Orion’s shadow

Photo by Nitish Thakur in India. You can see the constellation Orion easily in this shot, because the 3 medium-bright stars at its midsection - the stars known as Orion's Belt - are so noticeable.

Photo by Nitish Thakur of India. To see the constellation Orion, look first for the 3 medium-bright stars at its midsection. These stars known as Orion’s Belt.

Nitish Thakur? wrote:

Camping under the shadow of Orion on a hiking trip in the Himalayas.

The final picture is a composite of 3 vertical shots.

Thank you, Nitish!



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1VXrEuY
Photo by Nitish Thakur in India. You can see the constellation Orion easily in this shot, because the 3 medium-bright stars at its midsection - the stars known as Orion's Belt - are so noticeable.

Photo by Nitish Thakur of India. To see the constellation Orion, look first for the 3 medium-bright stars at its midsection. These stars known as Orion’s Belt.

Nitish Thakur? wrote:

Camping under the shadow of Orion on a hiking trip in the Himalayas.

The final picture is a composite of 3 vertical shots.

Thank you, Nitish!



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1VXrEuY

40,000 feet over Greenland

View larger. | The Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) field campaign team is flying NASA’s G-III aircraft at about 40,000 feet. On a clear day, this altitude also provides a stunning perspective of one of the world’s two great ice sheets (the other is Antarctica). The flight Saturday, March 26, over the northeast coastline was one of those clear days. Read more about this image.

View larger. | A science mission called the Oceans Melting Greenland field campaign is flying NASA’s G-III aircraft at about 40,000 feet over Greenland. On a clear day, this altitude also provides a stunning perspective of one of the world’s two great ice sheets (the other is Antarctica). The flight Saturday, March 26, 2016, over the northeast coastline was one of those clear days. Read more about this image. Image via NASA.



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1X28vGT
View larger. | The Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) field campaign team is flying NASA’s G-III aircraft at about 40,000 feet. On a clear day, this altitude also provides a stunning perspective of one of the world’s two great ice sheets (the other is Antarctica). The flight Saturday, March 26, over the northeast coastline was one of those clear days. Read more about this image.

View larger. | A science mission called the Oceans Melting Greenland field campaign is flying NASA’s G-III aircraft at about 40,000 feet over Greenland. On a clear day, this altitude also provides a stunning perspective of one of the world’s two great ice sheets (the other is Antarctica). The flight Saturday, March 26, 2016, over the northeast coastline was one of those clear days. Read more about this image. Image via NASA.



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1X28vGT

Making blood vessels ‘leaky’ could help treat children’s brain tumours

Hero2

For the last decade or so, scientists have been meticulously categorising the most common type of children’s brain tumour: medulloblastoma.

And in doing so, they’ve uncovered that the 60 cases diagnosed each year in the UK can actually be divided into different ‘types’.

Each of these develops from a different type of cell, responds differently to treatment and, perhaps most importantly, has a different outlook for the patient.

For three of the medulloblastoma subtypes this means that between 4 and 7 in 10 children diagnosed will not survive their disease.

This is partly because these tumours are less responsive to chemotherapy drugs – they just don’t work very well in these patients. The challenge is that researchers don’t know why.

In stark contrast to this, one of the subtypes – WNT-medulloblastoma – is extremely sensitive to chemotherapy. Patients respond well to chemotherapy and are often cured, even if the disease has spread to other parts of their body.

Until now, scientists haven’t known what sets these more sensitive tumours apart from the other subtypes.

Now they do.

A new study published today by a group of scientists – led by Professor Richard Gilbertson, head of the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute – could explain why there are such differences in survival between medulloblastoma patients. And, tantalisingly, the study – carried out at St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Tennessee, USA – offers a possible way of making those harder to treat tumours more sensitive to chemotherapy.

RichardGilbertson_hero

Professor Richard Gilbertson

Taking a different approach

Before beginning this research, Gilbertson and his team already knew that children with WNT-medulloblastomas do well following chemotherapy.

“Although they have this horrible cancerous tumour, they all do incredibly well,” he explains. “They respond well to treatment and are all cured.”

“What we don’t understand is the biology behind why these children are cured – why is chemotherapy so much more effective in this subtype than others?”

So they set about answering this question.

Generally, when researchers are trying to understand what makes cancer cells sensitive to treatments they crack open the cancer cells themselves and study how they work.

But Gilbertson and his team did something different – they looked at the cells surrounding the tumour instead.

Specifically, they studied the blood vessels – and the cells that line them – in four of the different types of medulloblastoma, to see if they differed.

Their rationale – blood vessels control what enters the brain.

Brains need a blood supply to grow. To make sure they have one, blood vessels grow around the brain – and brain tumours – that provide them with the oxygen and nutrients they need to survive.

But not everything should be granted access to the brain – that’s why it needs a blood brain barrier.

B0001872 Compromised blood brain barrier

Compromised blood brain barrier Credit: MRC Toxicology Unit. Wellcome Images CC-BY-2.0

What’s a blood brain barrier then?

The phrase ‘blood brain barrier’ conjures up an image of a physical blockade that stands between the brain and blood.

It’s not quite that.

It’s a term used to describe healthy, intact blood vessels acting as a filter to control which substances and molecules enter the brain tissue.

It allows molecules like water and glucose – which are essential for normal brain function – to reach the brain cells, while keeping out unwanted, damaging things like bacteria and neurotoxins.

More often than not, chemotherapy drugs are too big to pass through the barrier. This means that, in brain tumour patients, chemotherapy drugs can’t reach the tumour to kill the cancer cells.

Needless to say, this isn’t ideal.

But if the blood brain barrier prevents chemotherapy drugs reaching brain tumours, why do WNT-medulloblastoma patients respond so well to chemotherapy?

It’s all about blood vessels

To answer this question, the team used a technique called immunohistochemistry to examine the blood vessels in non-cancerous brain samples from humans and mice to establish what a functional, intact barrier looks like.

Then they looked at the blood vessels in the brains of mice with different medulloblastoma subtypes, to see if they could spot any differences between the different tumours, and compared to healthy mouse brains.

Interestingly, the team found that three of the medulloblastoma subtypes they analysed which had poorer outlooks had blood vessels similar to healthy brains. They formed a functional, intact blood brain barrier, preventing large molecules from entering the brain tissue.

But WNT-medulloblastoma tumours were different. Their blood vessels weren’t the same as those in healthy brains – or the other subtypes.

Instead, they were highly branched and very ‘leaky’. And there were also lots of them.

The findings gave the researchers a possible explanation as to why WNT-medulloblastomas are so responsive to chemotherapy.

By having lots of leaky, branched blood vessels, the WNT-subtype creates a faulty blood brain barrier that doesn’t filter properly.

This suggests that large molecules like chemotherapy drugs might be able to pass through the barrier and into the brain tissue, where they can target and kill tumour cells.

Crucially, if this is the case, the findings could point to a way of making the other types of medulloblastoma more sensitive to chemotherapy.

Influencing the neighbours

To understand what makes WNT-medulloblastoma tumours develop abnormal, leaky blood vessels and a faulty blood brain barrier, the researchers next looked at how vessels develop.

In experiments carried out in mice, they saw that healthy brain cells – and cells from the three types of tumour with the poorest outlook – all produced molecules that encourage neighbouring cells to produce healthy blood vessels – and in turn an intact blood brain barrier.

But in WNT- medulloblastomas, the cancerous brain cells produced different molecules, which prevent nearby cells from making healthy intact vessels and a functional blood brain barrier.

This could explain why WNT-tumours respond so well to treatment.

These were exciting results.

The next step was to see if the blood brain barrier of mice with non-WNT-tumours can be manipulated to develop leakier, branched blood vessels, and if they allow chemotherapy drugs through the blood brain barrier.

Don’t be so manipulative….or do?

To answer the question, the researches modified mice with non-WNT-tumours so that their tumour cells produced the same molecules as WNT-tumours.

This meant they now made a non-functioning, non-filtering barrier, similar to that seen in WNT-tumours.

Now they needed to test whether this manipulation changed how well the mice responded to chemotherapy drugs. To do this they treated them with the chemotherapy drug vincristine.

Excitingly, they saw that these mice were now sensitive to vincristine – their blood vessels were now leaky enough to let the chemotherapy drug through the barrier and into the brain.

What’s next?

The techniques used in the lab to make non-leaky blood vessels leakier can’t currently be used in people.

Nevertheless, this exciting research improves scientists’ understanding of why some medulloblastoma tumours respond better to chemotherapy than others.

And according to Gilbertson: “It’s vital, fundamental research like this that lays the foundations for clinical trials that could improve treatments for patients in the future.”

The next step is to find out if scientists can safely and accurately carry out this cell manipulation in people. This will only be possible with more research and, in the future, clinical trials

As an organisation, Cancer Research UK is committed and determined to increase the amount of money spent on research into brain tumours and children’s cancers.

To help achieve this we have highlighted the need for more research into brain tumours as part of our research strategy. And we’ve established Cancer Research UK Kids and Teens, a dedicated campaign to raise money for research into cancers affecting people under 25.

These findings are a huge step forward in understanding why some patients with medulloblastoma do better than others. Now we need to make sure we bring the benefits of this research to patients as soon as we can.

Aine



from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1M5oWBI
Hero2

For the last decade or so, scientists have been meticulously categorising the most common type of children’s brain tumour: medulloblastoma.

And in doing so, they’ve uncovered that the 60 cases diagnosed each year in the UK can actually be divided into different ‘types’.

Each of these develops from a different type of cell, responds differently to treatment and, perhaps most importantly, has a different outlook for the patient.

For three of the medulloblastoma subtypes this means that between 4 and 7 in 10 children diagnosed will not survive their disease.

This is partly because these tumours are less responsive to chemotherapy drugs – they just don’t work very well in these patients. The challenge is that researchers don’t know why.

In stark contrast to this, one of the subtypes – WNT-medulloblastoma – is extremely sensitive to chemotherapy. Patients respond well to chemotherapy and are often cured, even if the disease has spread to other parts of their body.

Until now, scientists haven’t known what sets these more sensitive tumours apart from the other subtypes.

Now they do.

A new study published today by a group of scientists – led by Professor Richard Gilbertson, head of the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute – could explain why there are such differences in survival between medulloblastoma patients. And, tantalisingly, the study – carried out at St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Tennessee, USA – offers a possible way of making those harder to treat tumours more sensitive to chemotherapy.

RichardGilbertson_hero

Professor Richard Gilbertson

Taking a different approach

Before beginning this research, Gilbertson and his team already knew that children with WNT-medulloblastomas do well following chemotherapy.

“Although they have this horrible cancerous tumour, they all do incredibly well,” he explains. “They respond well to treatment and are all cured.”

“What we don’t understand is the biology behind why these children are cured – why is chemotherapy so much more effective in this subtype than others?”

So they set about answering this question.

Generally, when researchers are trying to understand what makes cancer cells sensitive to treatments they crack open the cancer cells themselves and study how they work.

But Gilbertson and his team did something different – they looked at the cells surrounding the tumour instead.

Specifically, they studied the blood vessels – and the cells that line them – in four of the different types of medulloblastoma, to see if they differed.

Their rationale – blood vessels control what enters the brain.

Brains need a blood supply to grow. To make sure they have one, blood vessels grow around the brain – and brain tumours – that provide them with the oxygen and nutrients they need to survive.

But not everything should be granted access to the brain – that’s why it needs a blood brain barrier.

B0001872 Compromised blood brain barrier

Compromised blood brain barrier Credit: MRC Toxicology Unit. Wellcome Images CC-BY-2.0

What’s a blood brain barrier then?

The phrase ‘blood brain barrier’ conjures up an image of a physical blockade that stands between the brain and blood.

It’s not quite that.

It’s a term used to describe healthy, intact blood vessels acting as a filter to control which substances and molecules enter the brain tissue.

It allows molecules like water and glucose – which are essential for normal brain function – to reach the brain cells, while keeping out unwanted, damaging things like bacteria and neurotoxins.

More often than not, chemotherapy drugs are too big to pass through the barrier. This means that, in brain tumour patients, chemotherapy drugs can’t reach the tumour to kill the cancer cells.

Needless to say, this isn’t ideal.

But if the blood brain barrier prevents chemotherapy drugs reaching brain tumours, why do WNT-medulloblastoma patients respond so well to chemotherapy?

It’s all about blood vessels

To answer this question, the team used a technique called immunohistochemistry to examine the blood vessels in non-cancerous brain samples from humans and mice to establish what a functional, intact barrier looks like.

Then they looked at the blood vessels in the brains of mice with different medulloblastoma subtypes, to see if they could spot any differences between the different tumours, and compared to healthy mouse brains.

Interestingly, the team found that three of the medulloblastoma subtypes they analysed which had poorer outlooks had blood vessels similar to healthy brains. They formed a functional, intact blood brain barrier, preventing large molecules from entering the brain tissue.

But WNT-medulloblastoma tumours were different. Their blood vessels weren’t the same as those in healthy brains – or the other subtypes.

Instead, they were highly branched and very ‘leaky’. And there were also lots of them.

The findings gave the researchers a possible explanation as to why WNT-medulloblastomas are so responsive to chemotherapy.

By having lots of leaky, branched blood vessels, the WNT-subtype creates a faulty blood brain barrier that doesn’t filter properly.

This suggests that large molecules like chemotherapy drugs might be able to pass through the barrier and into the brain tissue, where they can target and kill tumour cells.

Crucially, if this is the case, the findings could point to a way of making the other types of medulloblastoma more sensitive to chemotherapy.

Influencing the neighbours

To understand what makes WNT-medulloblastoma tumours develop abnormal, leaky blood vessels and a faulty blood brain barrier, the researchers next looked at how vessels develop.

In experiments carried out in mice, they saw that healthy brain cells – and cells from the three types of tumour with the poorest outlook – all produced molecules that encourage neighbouring cells to produce healthy blood vessels – and in turn an intact blood brain barrier.

But in WNT- medulloblastomas, the cancerous brain cells produced different molecules, which prevent nearby cells from making healthy intact vessels and a functional blood brain barrier.

This could explain why WNT-tumours respond so well to treatment.

These were exciting results.

The next step was to see if the blood brain barrier of mice with non-WNT-tumours can be manipulated to develop leakier, branched blood vessels, and if they allow chemotherapy drugs through the blood brain barrier.

Don’t be so manipulative….or do?

To answer the question, the researches modified mice with non-WNT-tumours so that their tumour cells produced the same molecules as WNT-tumours.

This meant they now made a non-functioning, non-filtering barrier, similar to that seen in WNT-tumours.

Now they needed to test whether this manipulation changed how well the mice responded to chemotherapy drugs. To do this they treated them with the chemotherapy drug vincristine.

Excitingly, they saw that these mice were now sensitive to vincristine – their blood vessels were now leaky enough to let the chemotherapy drug through the barrier and into the brain.

What’s next?

The techniques used in the lab to make non-leaky blood vessels leakier can’t currently be used in people.

Nevertheless, this exciting research improves scientists’ understanding of why some medulloblastoma tumours respond better to chemotherapy than others.

And according to Gilbertson: “It’s vital, fundamental research like this that lays the foundations for clinical trials that could improve treatments for patients in the future.”

The next step is to find out if scientists can safely and accurately carry out this cell manipulation in people. This will only be possible with more research and, in the future, clinical trials

As an organisation, Cancer Research UK is committed and determined to increase the amount of money spent on research into brain tumours and children’s cancers.

To help achieve this we have highlighted the need for more research into brain tumours as part of our research strategy. And we’ve established Cancer Research UK Kids and Teens, a dedicated campaign to raise money for research into cancers affecting people under 25.

These findings are a huge step forward in understanding why some patients with medulloblastoma do better than others. Now we need to make sure we bring the benefits of this research to patients as soon as we can.

Aine



from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1M5oWBI

How Would You Make the Streets Safer for Cyclists?

Follow Big Dipper’s arc to Arcturus

Tonight … learn and use the most useful star mnemonic you’ll ever encounter. It’s … follow the arc to Arcturus and drive a spike to Spica.

Scouts learn this phrase. Grandparents teach it to kids. It was one of the first sky tools I learned to use in astronomy. Arcturus and Spica are so bright that you can often see them on a moonlit night – like tonight. Follow the links below to learn more.

Follow the arc to Arcturus.

Drive a spike to Spica.

Arc to Arcturus

View larger. | Photo taken by Janet Furlong in March, 2013. Thank you Janet! Big Dipper toward the center, the star Arcturus at lower right (in the trees) and the star Polaris at center left.

Follow the arc to Arcturus. Here’s how to locate the star Arcturus, using the Big Dipper as a guide. Find the Big Dipper asterism in the northeastern sky in the evening sky this month, maybe around 9 p.m. It’s very easy to see, a large noticeable dipper-shaped pattern in the northeast in the evening. Once you can see the Big Dipper, notice that it has two parts: a bowl and a handle. Then, with your mind’s eye, draw an imaginary line following the curve in the Dipper’s handle until you come to a bright orange star: follow the arc to Arcturus. Arcturus is the brightest star the constellation Bootes the Herdsman. This star is known in skylore as the Bear Guard.

Arcturus is a giant star with an estimated distance of 37 light-years. It’s special because it’s not moving with the general stream of stars in the flat disk of the Milky Way galaxy. Instead, Arcturus is cutting perpendicularly through the galaxy’s disk at a tremendous rate of speed . . . some 150 kilometers per second.

Millions of years from now this star will be lost from the view of any future inhabitants of Earth, or at least those who are earthbound and looking with the eye alone.

Drive a spike to Spica. Once you’ve followed the curve of the Big Dipper’s handle to the star Arcturus, you’re on your way to finding the star Spica. Just extend that same curve on the sky’s dome. You can read more about Spica here.

On springtime evenings in the Northern Hemisphere, extend the handle of the Big Dipper to arc to Arcturus, spike Spica and slide into the constellation Corvus the Crow. We sometimes call this extended arc the spring semicircle.

On springtime evenings in the Northern Hemisphere, extend the handle of the Big Dipper to arc to Arcturus, spike Spica and slide into the constellation Corvus the Crow. We sometimes call this extended arc the spring semicircle.

Bottom line: Use the curve in the handle of the Big Dipper to “follow the arc” to the star Arcturus. Then “drive a spike” to the star Spica. Have fun.

EarthSky astronomy kits are perfect for beginners. Order today from the EarthSky store

Donate: Your support means the world to us



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/18G0W4A

Tonight … learn and use the most useful star mnemonic you’ll ever encounter. It’s … follow the arc to Arcturus and drive a spike to Spica.

Scouts learn this phrase. Grandparents teach it to kids. It was one of the first sky tools I learned to use in astronomy. Arcturus and Spica are so bright that you can often see them on a moonlit night – like tonight. Follow the links below to learn more.

Follow the arc to Arcturus.

Drive a spike to Spica.

Arc to Arcturus

View larger. | Photo taken by Janet Furlong in March, 2013. Thank you Janet! Big Dipper toward the center, the star Arcturus at lower right (in the trees) and the star Polaris at center left.

Follow the arc to Arcturus. Here’s how to locate the star Arcturus, using the Big Dipper as a guide. Find the Big Dipper asterism in the northeastern sky in the evening sky this month, maybe around 9 p.m. It’s very easy to see, a large noticeable dipper-shaped pattern in the northeast in the evening. Once you can see the Big Dipper, notice that it has two parts: a bowl and a handle. Then, with your mind’s eye, draw an imaginary line following the curve in the Dipper’s handle until you come to a bright orange star: follow the arc to Arcturus. Arcturus is the brightest star the constellation Bootes the Herdsman. This star is known in skylore as the Bear Guard.

Arcturus is a giant star with an estimated distance of 37 light-years. It’s special because it’s not moving with the general stream of stars in the flat disk of the Milky Way galaxy. Instead, Arcturus is cutting perpendicularly through the galaxy’s disk at a tremendous rate of speed . . . some 150 kilometers per second.

Millions of years from now this star will be lost from the view of any future inhabitants of Earth, or at least those who are earthbound and looking with the eye alone.

Drive a spike to Spica. Once you’ve followed the curve of the Big Dipper’s handle to the star Arcturus, you’re on your way to finding the star Spica. Just extend that same curve on the sky’s dome. You can read more about Spica here.

On springtime evenings in the Northern Hemisphere, extend the handle of the Big Dipper to arc to Arcturus, spike Spica and slide into the constellation Corvus the Crow. We sometimes call this extended arc the spring semicircle.

On springtime evenings in the Northern Hemisphere, extend the handle of the Big Dipper to arc to Arcturus, spike Spica and slide into the constellation Corvus the Crow. We sometimes call this extended arc the spring semicircle.

Bottom line: Use the curve in the handle of the Big Dipper to “follow the arc” to the star Arcturus. Then “drive a spike” to the star Spica. Have fun.

EarthSky astronomy kits are perfect for beginners. Order today from the EarthSky store

Donate: Your support means the world to us



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/18G0W4A

An antivaccine activists explains how she uses Facebook reporting algorithms to harass and silence pro-science bloggers [Respectful Insolence]

I wish this post were an April Fools Day joke, but it is not.

Three weeks ago, Skeptical Raptor and I wrote posts describing how a particularly vicious, nasty antivaccine troll named Heather Murray had successfully gamed Facebook reporting algorithms for abuse in order to silence pro-science bloggers. It is, unfortunately, a tactic that I first heard about over two years ago, when antivaccine activists affiliated with what was then called the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) used the same sort of tactics to target pro-science bloggers and activists associated with a group whose purpose was to counter the misinformation spread by the AVN. What often happened was that the automatic reporting algorithm that Facebook uses to screen complaints for true violations of its “community standards” would issue temporary bans in response. Often the various “community standards” violated were unclear and difficult to avoid. For instance, directly mentioning someone by name in a disparaging fashion could, if complained about, result in a ban. Bascially, Facebook’s banning algorithms are the ultimate black box. They might as well be in the center of a black hole, given how impenetrable they are and how difficult it is to shine any light on them.

Obviously, as I’ve explained before, the clear intent of this tactic is to silence pro-vaccine voices on Facebook. These bans can last anywhere from a day to 30 days and basically prevent the person victimized from posting to Facebook for the length of the ban. Once a ban is in place, there is basically no appeal, either. For one thing, it’s damned near impossible to get a hold of an actual human being at Facebook to review and reconsider spurious complaints that trigger such bans. For another thing, the level of complaint that triggers a ban seems to get lower with each successive successful complaint resulting in a ban. This has allowed antivaccine activists to keep hitting their pro-science targets with new bans almost as soon as an existing ban expires, resulting in their being locked out of Facebook for long periods of time and, when they get back on Facebook, being forced to be very careful about what they say and constantly look over their shoulder for potential attacks. If one of your outlets as a pro-science activist is Facebook, these attacks can essentially shut you down by taking you offline intermittently and making you a lot more measured in what you say. It also—intentionally—discourages pro-science activists from calling out the antivaccine misinformation promoted by those who use this tactic.

Everyone knows what a piece of work Meryl Dorey of the AVN is, how nasty she is. In picturing Heather Murray, think Meryl Dorey amped up by a factor of at least 100 in terms of sheer nastiness. When last I left this sordid tale of Facebook ineptitude and lack of concern, I enumerated some of the tactics Ms. Murray had used against Ms. Hagood. These included:

  1. Starting an online petition to Ms. Hagood’s employer requesting disciplinary action or termination.
  2. Repeatedly reporting Allison to her school for her online activities, trying to get her fired.
  3. Posting her private address online.
  4. Emailing people she knows.
  5. Creating a web site, the purpose of which is solely to harass Ms. Hagood.
  6. Repeatedly sending her insulting or threatening messages.

I also described the sorts of things Ms. Murray did to get Ms. Hagood banned. For instance, Ms. Murray had Photoshopped an image of Ms. Hagood to make her look like the Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz, complete with the text, “I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!” When Ms. Hagood posted the image to demonstrate the harassment against her, it was she go got put into what we now call “Facebook jail,” not Ms. Murray. Although it can’t be proven, it was almost certainly Ms. Murray who reported her. It wasn’t just Ms. Hagood who was victimized, either. Our favorite dinosaur, Skeptical Raptor, was also targeted, receiving a ban for using the word “niggardly,” for which he was reported for using racially inflammatory hate speech. As I mentioned at the time, obviously this word has nothing to do with the actual “n-word,” which is arguably the worst racial slur there is. In fact, our friendly neighborhood Raptor’s post that got him banned was actually mocking the mistake a lot of people make in thinking that word is somehow related to the n-word.

What’s truly irritating about these particular incidents is that Heather Murray herself is a raging antisemite and Holocaust denier. I didn’t go much into it last time, but I sure as heck plan to this time. For example, look at this post right here:

Heather Murray's antisemitism

In fact, I was having acid flashbacks reading this post, back to the days when I used to blog regularly about Holocaust denial, because there sure is a heaping helping of Holocaust denial right here. Indeed, the Holocaust denying tropes that Ms. Murray regurgitates were of the very same variety that I used to spend to much time deconstructing and debunking back in my Usenet days on alt.revisionism and early in the history of this very blog. I mean, seriously. Ms. Murray swallows whole the lie that Adolf Hitler himself used to try to justify the invasion of Poland, including his utterly risible claim that he never wanted war. She also barfs up the old Holocaust denier canard that the prisoners in the Nazi camps died of typhus and starvation. Yes, many did die of disease and starvation, but there were also homicidal gas chambers. There were also two kinds of camps, work camps and death camps (although Auschwitz-Birkenau was both). In the work camps, prisoners were basically worked to death; in the death camps they were murdered by a variety of means, in particular gas chambers. Of course, no Holocaust denying, Hitler admiring rant is complete without an antisemitic comment about our “Zionist puppet masters.” That’s because Holocaust denial is always rooted in anti-Semitism. There are no Holocaust deniers who are not anti-Semites. At least, if there are, I have not been able to find them, and I have been looking for 18 years now.

So, yes, Ms. Murray is anti-Semitic as hell, and a Holocaust denier, to boot. I’d love to see her come here and spew her bigoted pseudohistory. I guarantee you that, as is the case with antivaccine loons, she can’t repeat a claim that I haven’t heard and analyzed many times before. In any case, I feel the need for a shower after that, so much so that I’ll just leave you this link if you want to see more of her blatant anti-Semitism, other than this:

heather-anti-semitism-1

OK, so Ms. Murray is a despicable, contemptible woman. That isn’t the reason I posted this, although posting this did give me an excuse to emphasize just how nasty she is, something I failed to do last time. I don’t know what I am thinking. Far more important, however, is that she is now explaining how she targets pro-science advocates. A series of comments from her from a super-secret closed Facebook group have found their way into the “wrong” hands (i.e., ours). First up:

HM1

OK, as vile as Ms. Murray is, I’ll give her credit for opening a Facebook profile named Frau Heather. Whether that was what let her succeed at shutting down Ms. Hagood and others again, who knows? Unfortunately, now that the beans have been spilled, we now know not to do that sort of thing again. Of course, I never really even tried to figure this one out because “Frau Heather” was not an insult that I used. In fact, I didn’t really use any insults at all; I just described her behavior—relatively dispassionately compared to how much her antics annoy me—more so than I have here.

Next up, Ms. Murray explains how mocking memes will get you banned:

“http://ift.tt/1pPF7se; rel=”attachment wp-att-10134″>HM2

Note that “AVWoS” stands for Antivaccine Wall of Shame.

Now, this is a rule that seems to be very inconsistently applied, because I see mocking memes about people all the time, and I know for a fact that pro-science advocates have complained to Facebook about memes made to mock them. (After all, what was Photoshopping Ms. Hagood’s face onto the Wicked Witch of the West or Photoshopping her to look like Hitler but producing mocking memes?) Notice how much Ms. Murray gloats, though. Given that I know Ms. Murray will see this post sooner or later—although not on Facebook, at least not posted or commented upon by me, as, even though I have blocked her and every sock puppet of hers that I know about, I am not stupid—let me just say right here that I take much pleasure in exposing this terrible woman, her anti-Semitism, and her antivaccine nonsense, particularly revealing what she’s saying about how she did it. This is information that will make her harassment more difficult, as it makes it possible to take precautions.

Finally, we have this:

HM3

In this post, Ms. Murray spells out exactly what she recommends and brags about how many members of AVWoS she’s gotten banned. At first, I wasn’t sure why she linked to my last post on the subject of antivaccine trolls trying to get defenders of science banned from Facebook. After all, that was a blog post. I never posted it to Facebook—intentionally so, just as I will not post this one to Facebook, either. (Why take the chance?) Of course, then I realized that she thinks she can find the commenters on that post and try to target them for harassment too, as no doubt she has been trying to target me, thus far without success. Such are her cowardly techniques.

I must admit, though, that I hadn’t heard of Jeri Keith before. It turns out that she’s another antivaccine loon. She appears to like a lot of all caps. Quelle surprise:

So as a member of several antivax groups…or should I say PROCHOICE GROUPS we are looking to see if you are willing to stand WITH US in DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS TO CHOOSE WHAT IS PUT INTO OUR BODIES. The California Senate right now is trying to FORCE VAX SCHOOL kids and adults vaccines a mile long are in the pipeline for us as well…around 300. We WILLNOT STAND FOR THIS….we are THOUSANDS, and MAYBE TENS OF THOUSANDS STRONG at this point. So we would like to know…are you with us..or against us. We are willing to help make a video with all kinds of intelligent free-thinking people. We have doctors and lawyers, and scientists, and biologists all that DONOT vax and we have the SCIENCE to back it up. What say you all? Please let us know ASAP as we are hoping to be able to POST ON THIS PAGE…..OUR BODY, OUR KIDS BODIES, OUR CHOICE. And we will NOT ELECT any official that is trying to take away our rights to choose.

Yes, Heather Murray and Jeri Keith appear made to be BFFs. They deserve each other.

Of course, as I pointed out last time, antivaccinationists have no science to back up their harmful beliefs, only pseudoscience. All they have are cherry-picked data and biased studies incompetently done by the likes of Andrew Wakefield, Mark and David Geier, Christopher Shaw, and a small cadre of scientists and physicians who somehow fell off the wagon of science into the tar bit of quackery and pseudoscience. If that weren’t the case, perhaps antivaccinationists like Heather Murray wouldn’t attack the person first but instead would do what real science advocates and scientists do: Marshal science, experimentation, and evidence to argue her case instead of trying to harass and suppress speech.

If all that succeeded in doing were to inconvenience a few bloggers and writers like Allison Hagood, Stacy Mintzer Herlihy, our skeptical scaly Raptor friend, or myself, it might not be such a big deal. The problem is that Facebook is such an enormous platform that to be banned from Facebook is to loose access to a major means of getting one’s message out. That’s the intent. In the decade-plus that I’ve been blogging, social media has changed markedly. Before, blogs ruled. Now, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and other platforms rule. I still use a blog because it allows me to say things in way more detail than these other platforms do and requires me to write actual essays, but I know that it might not be the most effective platform in general for my message. On the other hand, I know my strengths and weaknesses, and blogs play to my strengths. The point is, though, that antivaccinationists can’t win on science and evidence; so they fall back to despicable and deceptive techniques of the sort used by the Heather Murrays of the world.

Of course, the real problem is that Facebook allows this to happen. Even worse, there is a double standard that’s been demonstrated time and time again, when pro-science advocates have complained about the very same sort of mocking memes, personal attacks, and offensive posts to which pro-science Facebook members are regularly subjected to. Heck, how is it that Ms. Murray’s Now, I’m under no illusion that Facebook is anything other than a company looking to make money, nor am I under any illusion that I am Facebook’s customer. Rather, I am Facebook’s product to be monetized in any way possible, as are Allison Hagood, Stacy Mintzer Herlihy, and the Skeptical Raptor. Yes, those of you who are on Facebook are, too. The very fact that Facebook users who are victimized by these bans complain and clamor to be reinstated shows how Facebook has all the power. Add to that the billion users it has who generate far more complaints than it has employees to deal with, and, unless there is a mass exodus from Facebook because of its automated complaint algorithms or publicity that’s so bad that even Mark Zuckerberg has to take notice. So far, a few dozen users targeted by antivaccine loons doesn’t qualify. Facebook has no compelling reason to fix its broken algorithms.

At the end of the day, people like Heather Murray are contemptible pathetic people, too cowardly to try to win on the field of ideas. Indeed, I was amused to learn that Ms. Murray was very unhappy about my previous post and claims to have tried to contact me. I received no such contact then; so I’ll make it easy for her now. She is welcome to comment here—if she dares. If she doesn’t, my e-mail address is orac@scienceblogsllc.com. She should be aware, though, that any e-mails she sends to me could end up right here on this blog.

Best wishes, Heather.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1VXchCM

I wish this post were an April Fools Day joke, but it is not.

Three weeks ago, Skeptical Raptor and I wrote posts describing how a particularly vicious, nasty antivaccine troll named Heather Murray had successfully gamed Facebook reporting algorithms for abuse in order to silence pro-science bloggers. It is, unfortunately, a tactic that I first heard about over two years ago, when antivaccine activists affiliated with what was then called the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) used the same sort of tactics to target pro-science bloggers and activists associated with a group whose purpose was to counter the misinformation spread by the AVN. What often happened was that the automatic reporting algorithm that Facebook uses to screen complaints for true violations of its “community standards” would issue temporary bans in response. Often the various “community standards” violated were unclear and difficult to avoid. For instance, directly mentioning someone by name in a disparaging fashion could, if complained about, result in a ban. Bascially, Facebook’s banning algorithms are the ultimate black box. They might as well be in the center of a black hole, given how impenetrable they are and how difficult it is to shine any light on them.

Obviously, as I’ve explained before, the clear intent of this tactic is to silence pro-vaccine voices on Facebook. These bans can last anywhere from a day to 30 days and basically prevent the person victimized from posting to Facebook for the length of the ban. Once a ban is in place, there is basically no appeal, either. For one thing, it’s damned near impossible to get a hold of an actual human being at Facebook to review and reconsider spurious complaints that trigger such bans. For another thing, the level of complaint that triggers a ban seems to get lower with each successive successful complaint resulting in a ban. This has allowed antivaccine activists to keep hitting their pro-science targets with new bans almost as soon as an existing ban expires, resulting in their being locked out of Facebook for long periods of time and, when they get back on Facebook, being forced to be very careful about what they say and constantly look over their shoulder for potential attacks. If one of your outlets as a pro-science activist is Facebook, these attacks can essentially shut you down by taking you offline intermittently and making you a lot more measured in what you say. It also—intentionally—discourages pro-science activists from calling out the antivaccine misinformation promoted by those who use this tactic.

Everyone knows what a piece of work Meryl Dorey of the AVN is, how nasty she is. In picturing Heather Murray, think Meryl Dorey amped up by a factor of at least 100 in terms of sheer nastiness. When last I left this sordid tale of Facebook ineptitude and lack of concern, I enumerated some of the tactics Ms. Murray had used against Ms. Hagood. These included:

  1. Starting an online petition to Ms. Hagood’s employer requesting disciplinary action or termination.
  2. Repeatedly reporting Allison to her school for her online activities, trying to get her fired.
  3. Posting her private address online.
  4. Emailing people she knows.
  5. Creating a web site, the purpose of which is solely to harass Ms. Hagood.
  6. Repeatedly sending her insulting or threatening messages.

I also described the sorts of things Ms. Murray did to get Ms. Hagood banned. For instance, Ms. Murray had Photoshopped an image of Ms. Hagood to make her look like the Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz, complete with the text, “I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!” When Ms. Hagood posted the image to demonstrate the harassment against her, it was she go got put into what we now call “Facebook jail,” not Ms. Murray. Although it can’t be proven, it was almost certainly Ms. Murray who reported her. It wasn’t just Ms. Hagood who was victimized, either. Our favorite dinosaur, Skeptical Raptor, was also targeted, receiving a ban for using the word “niggardly,” for which he was reported for using racially inflammatory hate speech. As I mentioned at the time, obviously this word has nothing to do with the actual “n-word,” which is arguably the worst racial slur there is. In fact, our friendly neighborhood Raptor’s post that got him banned was actually mocking the mistake a lot of people make in thinking that word is somehow related to the n-word.

What’s truly irritating about these particular incidents is that Heather Murray herself is a raging antisemite and Holocaust denier. I didn’t go much into it last time, but I sure as heck plan to this time. For example, look at this post right here:

Heather Murray's antisemitism

In fact, I was having acid flashbacks reading this post, back to the days when I used to blog regularly about Holocaust denial, because there sure is a heaping helping of Holocaust denial right here. Indeed, the Holocaust denying tropes that Ms. Murray regurgitates were of the very same variety that I used to spend to much time deconstructing and debunking back in my Usenet days on alt.revisionism and early in the history of this very blog. I mean, seriously. Ms. Murray swallows whole the lie that Adolf Hitler himself used to try to justify the invasion of Poland, including his utterly risible claim that he never wanted war. She also barfs up the old Holocaust denier canard that the prisoners in the Nazi camps died of typhus and starvation. Yes, many did die of disease and starvation, but there were also homicidal gas chambers. There were also two kinds of camps, work camps and death camps (although Auschwitz-Birkenau was both). In the work camps, prisoners were basically worked to death; in the death camps they were murdered by a variety of means, in particular gas chambers. Of course, no Holocaust denying, Hitler admiring rant is complete without an antisemitic comment about our “Zionist puppet masters.” That’s because Holocaust denial is always rooted in anti-Semitism. There are no Holocaust deniers who are not anti-Semites. At least, if there are, I have not been able to find them, and I have been looking for 18 years now.

So, yes, Ms. Murray is anti-Semitic as hell, and a Holocaust denier, to boot. I’d love to see her come here and spew her bigoted pseudohistory. I guarantee you that, as is the case with antivaccine loons, she can’t repeat a claim that I haven’t heard and analyzed many times before. In any case, I feel the need for a shower after that, so much so that I’ll just leave you this link if you want to see more of her blatant anti-Semitism, other than this:

heather-anti-semitism-1

OK, so Ms. Murray is a despicable, contemptible woman. That isn’t the reason I posted this, although posting this did give me an excuse to emphasize just how nasty she is, something I failed to do last time. I don’t know what I am thinking. Far more important, however, is that she is now explaining how she targets pro-science advocates. A series of comments from her from a super-secret closed Facebook group have found their way into the “wrong” hands (i.e., ours). First up:

HM1

OK, as vile as Ms. Murray is, I’ll give her credit for opening a Facebook profile named Frau Heather. Whether that was what let her succeed at shutting down Ms. Hagood and others again, who knows? Unfortunately, now that the beans have been spilled, we now know not to do that sort of thing again. Of course, I never really even tried to figure this one out because “Frau Heather” was not an insult that I used. In fact, I didn’t really use any insults at all; I just described her behavior—relatively dispassionately compared to how much her antics annoy me—more so than I have here.

Next up, Ms. Murray explains how mocking memes will get you banned:

“http://ift.tt/1pPF7se; rel=”attachment wp-att-10134″>HM2

Note that “AVWoS” stands for Antivaccine Wall of Shame.

Now, this is a rule that seems to be very inconsistently applied, because I see mocking memes about people all the time, and I know for a fact that pro-science advocates have complained to Facebook about memes made to mock them. (After all, what was Photoshopping Ms. Hagood’s face onto the Wicked Witch of the West or Photoshopping her to look like Hitler but producing mocking memes?) Notice how much Ms. Murray gloats, though. Given that I know Ms. Murray will see this post sooner or later—although not on Facebook, at least not posted or commented upon by me, as, even though I have blocked her and every sock puppet of hers that I know about, I am not stupid—let me just say right here that I take much pleasure in exposing this terrible woman, her anti-Semitism, and her antivaccine nonsense, particularly revealing what she’s saying about how she did it. This is information that will make her harassment more difficult, as it makes it possible to take precautions.

Finally, we have this:

HM3

In this post, Ms. Murray spells out exactly what she recommends and brags about how many members of AVWoS she’s gotten banned. At first, I wasn’t sure why she linked to my last post on the subject of antivaccine trolls trying to get defenders of science banned from Facebook. After all, that was a blog post. I never posted it to Facebook—intentionally so, just as I will not post this one to Facebook, either. (Why take the chance?) Of course, then I realized that she thinks she can find the commenters on that post and try to target them for harassment too, as no doubt she has been trying to target me, thus far without success. Such are her cowardly techniques.

I must admit, though, that I hadn’t heard of Jeri Keith before. It turns out that she’s another antivaccine loon. She appears to like a lot of all caps. Quelle surprise:

So as a member of several antivax groups…or should I say PROCHOICE GROUPS we are looking to see if you are willing to stand WITH US in DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS TO CHOOSE WHAT IS PUT INTO OUR BODIES. The California Senate right now is trying to FORCE VAX SCHOOL kids and adults vaccines a mile long are in the pipeline for us as well…around 300. We WILLNOT STAND FOR THIS….we are THOUSANDS, and MAYBE TENS OF THOUSANDS STRONG at this point. So we would like to know…are you with us..or against us. We are willing to help make a video with all kinds of intelligent free-thinking people. We have doctors and lawyers, and scientists, and biologists all that DONOT vax and we have the SCIENCE to back it up. What say you all? Please let us know ASAP as we are hoping to be able to POST ON THIS PAGE…..OUR BODY, OUR KIDS BODIES, OUR CHOICE. And we will NOT ELECT any official that is trying to take away our rights to choose.

Yes, Heather Murray and Jeri Keith appear made to be BFFs. They deserve each other.

Of course, as I pointed out last time, antivaccinationists have no science to back up their harmful beliefs, only pseudoscience. All they have are cherry-picked data and biased studies incompetently done by the likes of Andrew Wakefield, Mark and David Geier, Christopher Shaw, and a small cadre of scientists and physicians who somehow fell off the wagon of science into the tar bit of quackery and pseudoscience. If that weren’t the case, perhaps antivaccinationists like Heather Murray wouldn’t attack the person first but instead would do what real science advocates and scientists do: Marshal science, experimentation, and evidence to argue her case instead of trying to harass and suppress speech.

If all that succeeded in doing were to inconvenience a few bloggers and writers like Allison Hagood, Stacy Mintzer Herlihy, our skeptical scaly Raptor friend, or myself, it might not be such a big deal. The problem is that Facebook is such an enormous platform that to be banned from Facebook is to loose access to a major means of getting one’s message out. That’s the intent. In the decade-plus that I’ve been blogging, social media has changed markedly. Before, blogs ruled. Now, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and other platforms rule. I still use a blog because it allows me to say things in way more detail than these other platforms do and requires me to write actual essays, but I know that it might not be the most effective platform in general for my message. On the other hand, I know my strengths and weaknesses, and blogs play to my strengths. The point is, though, that antivaccinationists can’t win on science and evidence; so they fall back to despicable and deceptive techniques of the sort used by the Heather Murrays of the world.

Of course, the real problem is that Facebook allows this to happen. Even worse, there is a double standard that’s been demonstrated time and time again, when pro-science advocates have complained about the very same sort of mocking memes, personal attacks, and offensive posts to which pro-science Facebook members are regularly subjected to. Heck, how is it that Ms. Murray’s Now, I’m under no illusion that Facebook is anything other than a company looking to make money, nor am I under any illusion that I am Facebook’s customer. Rather, I am Facebook’s product to be monetized in any way possible, as are Allison Hagood, Stacy Mintzer Herlihy, and the Skeptical Raptor. Yes, those of you who are on Facebook are, too. The very fact that Facebook users who are victimized by these bans complain and clamor to be reinstated shows how Facebook has all the power. Add to that the billion users it has who generate far more complaints than it has employees to deal with, and, unless there is a mass exodus from Facebook because of its automated complaint algorithms or publicity that’s so bad that even Mark Zuckerberg has to take notice. So far, a few dozen users targeted by antivaccine loons doesn’t qualify. Facebook has no compelling reason to fix its broken algorithms.

At the end of the day, people like Heather Murray are contemptible pathetic people, too cowardly to try to win on the field of ideas. Indeed, I was amused to learn that Ms. Murray was very unhappy about my previous post and claims to have tried to contact me. I received no such contact then; so I’ll make it easy for her now. She is welcome to comment here—if she dares. If she doesn’t, my e-mail address is orac@scienceblogsllc.com. She should be aware, though, that any e-mails she sends to me could end up right here on this blog.

Best wishes, Heather.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1VXchCM