Register for an account


Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.


Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.


Annotated Links

Neuroskeptic iconNeuroskepticBy NeuroskepticApril 20, 2009 2:47 AM


Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Sydney Spiesel writes about the myriad claimed treatments for autism in Slate. He's skeptical

If there is any illness for which 100 treatments are available, you can be sure that none of them works.

True. But he doesn't do a great job of addressing

why parents swear by such ineffective treatments. His answer is the "Hawthorne Effect". I think there's rather more to it than that. For one thing, Spiesel does not consider the possibility th

at a treatment might have no effect at all - not even a non-specific "placebo effect" - and still become popular.

But that happens. A PLoS ONE paper,

From Traditional Medicine to Witchcraft,

triesto explain why.

Although it features some maths and lots of graphs, the argument is summed up in a sentence

In other words, the less well a treatment works, the longer it gets used, and therefore, the more likely it is for other people to see it being used and adopt it.Of course this only holds under when people are completely unable to tell whether treatments used by others work or not. This may be a valid assumption.

Superstitious treatments and maladaptive practices can spread because their very ineffectiveness results in sick individuals demonstrating the practice for longer than efficacious treatments, leading to more salient demonstration and more converts


Psychology Today interviews rebellious British psychiatrist David Healy about his new book, Mania, which I really need to read.

Healy notes that bipolar disorder became a fashionable diagnosis starting in the mid 1990s. A while back I plotted a graph showing how often bipolar disorder was mentioned in the British media. It became much more popular after about 2000 - which sort of makes sense.

Healy's one of the few people who manages to be deeply skeptical of much about modern psychiatric diagnosis and treatment while avoiding Tom Cruiseist anti-psychiatry. His last book was a homage to ECT, ferchrisakes.

A lot of people felt actively betrayed by that. But if you still doubt Healy's intellect, his use in the interview of a Buffy metaphor to explain the history of "mood stabilizing drugs" should set you straight. Genius.

    3 Free Articles Left

    Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.


    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

    Want unlimited access?

    Subscribe today and save 70%


    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In