Skip to main content

How I rattled PETA's cage

To be honest I have always felt that the animal rights campaigning organisation PETA is a little flaky (in part, I suspect because it is a very American organisation, so culturally takes a very different approach to us Brits). But a recent campaign by them has really dropped them to the lowest of the low in my estimation.

PETA has been pushing the idea that there is a link between autism and dairy products, using the poster illustrated above. This is a classic example of making an incorrect deduction from very limited trials which certainly don't show what is being claimed, and is particularly appalling after the parallel 'autism and MMR' disaster caused by the Wakefield fiasco.

I was able to find very quickly two surveys of the research, one from Cochrane and one from the NHS/University of York that concluded that the evidence does not support the suggestion. I retweeted the tweet that originally alerted me to this, only to have PETA respond with a classic 'anecdote as data' response. This really isn't good enough.


You might as well argue (to deliberately pick an argument that PETA probably wouldn't run a campaign on) that wearing fur coats is good for your health, as if you ask people wearing them on a cold day if they feel better than people in a short-sleeved T-shirt, they will say yes*. This campaign is about as helpful.

* In case anyone thinks I am advocating the wearing of fur coats, I am not. Please read the words.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...