Tetherd Cow Ahead

Cow Commenter DaveD brings to my attention the latest shenanigans from the makers of Shoo!TAG, the ridiculous superstitious trinket that is supposed to keep insect pests away from your pet (and now from humans too).

Regular readers of The Cow will be familiar with my call to Energetic Solutions (the company behind Shoo!TAG) to show us the science (that they keep boasting they have) that substantiates the efficacy of their ludicrous little piece of plastic. Well, we still haven’t seen any results from the ‘European trials’ that they have bragged about in the past, ((These supposed trials were either a lie or they produced negative results that Energetic Solutions don’t want people to see. Otherwise, why not provide the data? I’m betting that the former proposition is true.)) but it appears my niggling has made them realise that no-one will take them even remotely seriously if they can’t provide some proper scientific results to back up their claims.

Only one small problem… they don’t actually understand what science is.

The Shoo!TAG site is now making the following announcement:

Texas A&M University monitors Field Trial
74% reduction in mosquito bites with shoo!TAG™!

How many of you understood this to mean that Texas A&M University had something to do with these tests? Well, it won’t surprise you, I’m sure, when I tell you that you’re wrong. How many understood it to mean there were successful, properly run scientific trials that showed some amazing results? Wrong again.

Let’s re-word the Shoo!TAG announcement in a more factually correct manner, shall we?

Poorly-constructed Shoo!TAG™ test prompts an independent observer to suggest (on Texas A&M University letterhead) that results are statistically meaningless!

Ah, yes. The actuality doesn’t sound nearly so impressive, does it? But this scenario is nothing more than we’ve come to expect from Shoo!TAG: don’t let a bit of truth get in the way of some duplicitous self-aggrandizing! What, you think that the Shoo!TAG people couldn’t possibly be that disingenuous? Hahaha! You haven’t been paying attention!

But, for the sake of science, let’s examine the Shoo!TAG experiment and the actual conclusions of Dr Rainer Fink, the independent observer who viewed the proceedings.

The full report of the Shoo!TAG trial written by Shoo!TAG CEO Carter McCrary is here. In a few sentences from the begining of the abstract we get to this:

The Purpose of this Initial Field Test is to verify the claim that the shoo!TAG® significantly reduces the number of mosquito bites to humans when worn as instructed.

Whoopsy. Oh well, he’s not a scientist I guess, so you expect that kind of thing. Did you spot it?

‘The Purpose of this Initial Field Test is to verify the claim…‘

Uh-uh, Mr McCrary. You’ve scuppered your scientific credibility ((OK, I know I’m being generous in allowing that these people have any scientific credibility in the first place…)) in the very first paragraph of your abstract. Science is not done like that. Scientific tests are not set up to endorse something you’ve already decided to be true. If you approach science like this, you’re already demonstrating something that real scientists go a long way to avoid: bias. I don’t suppose you have the faintest clue how this works though, so I’ll forge on to some of the more egregious problems with your trial.

The ‘Methods’ section of the abstract outlines the procedural method of the test:

The study consisted of six participants who were divided into two groups.

You what? SIX people? Surely you’re not going to tell us that you’re going to attempt to do meaningful statistical science with a group of six people? ((Divided into two groups? Can three people even be considered a group?)) Oh. You are. Right. But that’s going to be really difficult for a double-blind trial… Oh, what’s this… it’s not double-blind. OK, you can still do worthwhile science with a blind trial… Oh… lookit that. It’s not a blind trial either.

Um. OK. Do you Shootaggers know anything at all about science, other than what you’ve seen on the SyFy channel?

OK, Acowlytes, let’s take a look at some of the other howlers in this escapade. I’ll synopsize a bit, but I urge you to read the pdf of the trial yourselves in order that you might see that I, at least, am not playing fast and loose with facts.

The next thing that happened is that the test subjects, 3 of whom were wearing Shoo!TAGs, and 3 of them not, were put in separate tents with mosquitoes. Bites were counted. Then there was some baffling shuffling of tags and people in and out of tents during which time mosquitoes also apparently were free to come and go.

It must be noted that a portion of the mosquitoes in the Group 3 tent escaped during the change-out or had already bitten the participants, thus the number of available mosquitoes was estimated to be only 250 during the second set of testing – the data was corrected by an estimated x2 factor to compensate.

Hang on, surely that can’t be right. I’ll read it again. An estimated number of mosquitoes flew away, an estimated number were excluded due to satiation and an estimated factor of magnitude was added in to ‘compensate’ for these estimations? If there were worse things you could do in a science experiment, its hard to imagine them. Especially in an experiment with a subject sample size of six people. ((Humans are notoriously bad at estimating. Try to imagine, if you will, estimating the number of mosquitoes flying around in a tent… could you tell the difference between oh, a hundred and two hundred? Try five hundred and six hundred?))

Quite incredibly, the Shootaggers then go on to attempt a statistical analysis of all this spurious data.

A total of 362 bites were recorded. The mean number of bites experienced by participants with the shoo!TAG® was 18, with a standard deviation of 15.87. The mean number of bites experienced by participants without the shoo!TAG® was 67.5, with a standard deviation of 22.45. There is a significant difference between the mean number of bites of subjects with the shoo!TAG® present and those without the shoo!TAG® present. The P- Value for the two-sample unpooled t-test between the means of bites is approximately 0.00538.

Let me translate that into something that makes more sense:

Numbers; more numbers; some more numbers; some fancy statistical language that sounds impressive but means nothing in this instance; completely fanciful conclusion.

Or, in one single word: bullshit. If you know anything at all about statistical data correlation, this whole exercise is one laughable step after another. The waving around of a P-Value is completely berserk in this ridiculously small sample. If the point of this experiment is to gain scientific credibility for the effectiveness of ShooTAG, it is a piece of unparalleled buffoonery.

But we all know, of course, that the point of the experiment is nothing of the sort. The real purpose behind these farcical proceedings is to fool people who know nothing of science into thinking that science has been done.

The Shoo!TAG report goes on to fluff out the abstract by adding in all kinds of equations and tables – none of which have any real meaning given the experimental protocol – and then ends with the most entertaining bit of all: two ‘references’ that are contextually irrelevant, and three attached ‘exhibits’, the first two of which are the Shoo!TAG packaging. It is to laugh. They think this is science?

The third ‘exhibit’ is the letter from the ‘independent observer’ of the experiment, one Dr Rainer Fink, and it is here that we find the real meat in the sandwich of this whole exploit. Dr Fink appears to be a bona fide scientist. According to his credentials on the letter, he is an associate professor (of what it doesn’t say) and a ‘director’ in an engineering department of Texas A&M University. Let’s give his credentials and his independent status the benefit of the doubt – he hasn’t disgraced himself in our eyes yet. His full report, in the form of a letter on Texas A&M University letterhead, is here.

First of all, I want to point out that Dr Fink details his ‘independent’ status quite clearly at the end at the end of his letter:

I have no financial interest in and have not been promised any financial interest in Energetic Solutions LLC, or in the product Shoo!TAG. I received no payment or incentive for my participation. My motivation was purely scientific.

Of course, having no financial interest in something doesn’t guarantee you don’t have some other interest – you might want to see your pals do well in their business, for instance, or you might hold unusual beliefs of your own that you’d like to see substantiated. ((I’m not suggesting at all that this is the case for Dr Fink, just making it clear that there are many kinds of motivations other than money.)) Certainly, Dr Fink’s professed motivation of science seems quite peculiar when, in his first paragraph, he makes the same partisan mistake as Mr McCrary.

The object [of the Shoo!TAG Field Test Study] was to prove [my emphasis] Shoo!TAG’s ability to repel mosquitoes from humans…

Interesting language for a scientist. Shoo!TAG’s ability to repel mosquitoes has never, ever, been scientifically established, so, as you can see, Dr Fink is already demonstrating bias. Which is, again, quite interesting given that his #2 self-reported reason for his involvement in the proceedings is given as:

2. [To] Oversee the Field Test Study to ensure it remained unbiased such that independent results are obtained.

Well, of course, as we have seen, this ‘experiment’ fairly reeks of bias from all quarters, so Dr Fink is already on the back foot.

Dr Fink outlines the experimental progress, and several episodes are detailed that don’t appear to have made it into Mr McCrary’s relating of events. This one is particularly good:

…during the time interval between exiting from Control Group 1 and entering the tent as Control Group 3, participants were asked to use their cellular phones to attempt to dissipate any remaining frequency based interferences remaining from the time they were wearing the Shoo!TAG.

Excuse me? What? Cell phones were waved around to dissipate ‘frequencies’ that were… what… hovering in the air. Or something? As an independent scientific observer, Dr Fink is starting to look like a prize idiot. He reports this as if it was an acceptable – conventional, even – scientific procedure. ((Even if you were dumb enough to buy into the sheer daftness of these concepts, representatives from Shoo!TAG have said in their own words right here on Tetherd Cow Ahead that the ‘frequencies’ that Shoo!TAG uses have nothing to do with cell phone frequencies.))

Oh boy. A loon ‘independently’ verifying, on University stationery, the antics of other loons. I’m sure you’re getting a vivid picture here.

Dr Fink goes on to relate all manner of other things, including completely unsubstantiated personal speculations such as this:

Once the participants left the tents, mosquitoes that had either escaped through the tent opening or were physically attached to the study participants aggressively attacked all the study contributors and observers with a complete lack of interest in study participants still wearing the Shoo!TAG. Leading to a possible conclusion that the Shoo!TAG caused the mosquitoes to preferentially feed on unprotected or less protected individuals in the area before biting Shoo!TAG wearers.

Such terrible subjective observations and conclusions are no better than the vapid testimonials that Shoo!TAG has trumpeted on their web site as ‘evidence’ that the daft thing works. It is most profoundly not the language you’d expect from someone calling himself a scientist.

But probably the most damning thing about Rainer Fink’s analysis of the whole affair are his conclusions. No matter how predisposed he is toward helping the Shootaggers out, he is smart enough to know that there are some things you just can’t put on the letterhead of your employer without risking your job. After some tabling of the numbers gathered in the test, he writes:

‘…… it must be noted that the size of the study conducted was insufficient to evaluate the statistical significance of the results.’

…and, again later in the report:

… the scale of the test was insufficient to establish the efficacy of Shoo!TAG performance to be supported by statistical data analysis.’

In other words, any actual data gathered from the experiment (as questionable as it is), is, in Dr Rainer Fink’s opinion, completely useless. In fact, the only outcomes that Dr Fink consider affirmative are of the spurious subjective kind that Shoo!TAG has already promoted ad nauseum as ‘scientific’.

One must question once more, in that light, the Shoo!TAG website boast of ‘74% reduction in mosquito bites with Shoo!TAG’ and their attempt to promote statistical success in their own reading of the data. They have again, as they have done many times in the past, just pulled a completely fictitious ‘fact’ from their asses and are using it to promote their product. ((This 74% figure is remarkably close to the ‘75%’ figure that Energetic Solutions has already bandied about a year or more ago. It seems to me that they had already decided this number WELL before this experiment was carried out; a number big enough to be impressive, but not so big that it rules out the odd usual flea that someone spots on their pet.))

So, to succinctly recap the some of the numerous problems with Shoo!TAG Initial Field Test:

•The test is riddled with bias: the conductors of the test expected to see positive results before they commenced the experiment. In short, they had already made up their minds about what was going to happen – the experiment was not about gathering impartial data.

•The trial was completely unblinded: experimental blinding is specifically designed to counteract bias. A lack of blinding combined with evidence of bias (as above) are strong indications of corrupt procedure and would, by themselves, get any serious experiment kicked out on its ass.

•The subject sample size was insignificant: an experimental base of six subjects is preposterous (and we don’t even know how the subjects were chosen – my bet is that they are all friends of the experimenters)

•The ‘experimenters’ made subjective assessments in numerous areas: there was no rigorous control of most vectors of the experiment. Guesses were made of variables and then taken as fact. This is a scientific dog’s breakfast.

•The ‘experimenters’ made spurious subjective data alterations: data was altered by ‘guessing’ and making unguided assumptions. Way to screw up your dataset.

•There is NO endorsement by Texas A&M University of this trial, although that is heavily implied: Texas A&M University is not shown to be endorsing this test. The test was not carried out on the premises of Texas A&M University nor with Texas A&M University supplied protocols. It certainly does not have the imprimatur of Texas A&M University. The fact is that a person who works at Texas A&M University was called on to be an observer and provided his observations on a University letterhead.

•The scientific credentials and bias of ‘impartial’ observer are questionable: Dr Rainer Fink’s statement exhibits bias and subjectivity as well as irrational thinking.

•The scientific endorsement of the trial is equivocal: The only definite conclusion made by Dr Fink is that there isn’t enough data to make any kind of meaningful sense from the results. In any other scientific situation this would mean that the test was useless and a better experiment was required.

In Shoo!TAG’s world, though, this translates as an outstanding success worthy of trumpeting on their website.

Here on Tetherd Cow Ahead, the call for Shoo!TAG to ‘show us some science’ has been frequent and firm. The Shootaggers vocally insist, at every opportunity, that their product is based on scientific principles, and is not (as I contend) just a pseudoscientific trinket that smacks of magical thinking. Critics might say that this first Shoo!TAG ‘Field Trial’ is at least an effort by Energetic Solutions to attempt to gather some scientific data on their product. I say it’s nothing more than a publicity stunt designed with the express purpose of deceiving potential customers into believing that there is some science behind Shoo!TAG when there is none.

Setting the hopeless errors of procedure aside, the mere fact that Energetic Solutions is leading people to believe that this test has the endorsement of a university, or has produced data that shows anything at all is a testament to their world view. They don’t care whether or not their product works, they just want your money.

And they’re prepared to lie to get it.

Acowlytes! Atlas has sent me some astonishing new evidence that demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that Shoo!TAG actually works! Yes, yes – I realise that after all my previous skepticism on this topic this about-face will seem completely unexpected, but… you see… Oh dammit, words can’t really do the job. I’ll hand over to the following YouTube presentation to do the explaining:

So, you see, putting it in scientific terms, there’s this, like, blurry light, that, like, makes a sort of glow all around the person and, like, all around the Shoo!TAG and it’s AMAZING! And when the Shoo!TAG gets close to the person, it’s all, like, glowy and yellow and white and stuff. Freakin’ awesome! That proves that there’s auras around Shoo!TAG! And those auras prove that Shoo!TAG keeps insect pests away from your pets! OMG! If that doesn’t convince you close-minded skeptics, well, I don’t know WHAT would!

What’s that you say? Some double blind scientific trials would be more convincing? Than an aura movie? Oh, come ON! Aura movies are the bomb. Why, I have a snap here that PROVES that Tetherd Cow Ahead HQ is haunted:

Pretty definitive, right?

The Shoo!TAG aura movie comes to the world courtesy of a product called WinAura, and although that sounds like the outcome of a psychic chocolate wheel, ((I wanted to put a link to an explanation of what a chocolate wheel is, for all the non-Australians, and it seems there is no actual definition available on teh internets. That’s amazing. So, for your enlightenment, let me inform you that a chocolate wheel is a kind of spinning wheel that is common at fétes and church fairs in Australia and New Zealand. It has numbers around its face, and participants are able to buy a ticket that is attached to a number. The numbers correspond randomly to prizes. When all the tickets have been sold, the wheel is spun (sometimes once, or sometimes three times), and when it stops on a number, the owner of that ticket collects their prize. Of course, most prizes are worth less than the price of the ticket, and there are usually only one or two decent prizes.)) it is in fact a gadget that supposedly captures movies of your aura. If you are so inclined, you can visit the home of WinAura and find out all about machines that photograph your aura. Or, you could just stay here and I could save you from wasting precious minutes of your life by telling you that these shonky devices merely use coloured LEDs, software algorithms and blurred overexposure to trick very gullible people into believing that what they see has some kind of mystical explanation. For an exorbitant price, naturally. ((I defy anyone to be able to find, anywhere on the AuraPhoto site, an indication of how much you’re going to be out of pocket for one of these things. I reckon you can infer from this page that they’re not cheap.))

On the other hand, if you did go to the AuraPhoto site, you could visit the What Color Is Your Aura page and get something just as useful as the results from an Aura Camera without spending a penny. That’s what I did! Here is a picture of my aura:

According to my aura reading I have a lot of lavender in my chakras (or something). Evidently I have some in my Third Eye as well, which does help explain why I was having trouble seeing out of it. The interpretation of my results says, in part:

Others are instantly attracted to you as you sparkle and glow with a mysterious inner light. You also seem to be a magical, fairylike creature, born of another world.

You’d rather talk about miracles, magic, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow than anything ordinary or mundane. You want to share your miraculous visions with others. The beautiful world of fantasy, art, and the imagination is where you feel safest and happiest. You create a magical environment for yourself and others in which to live.

How accurate is that?!!! I think everyone would totally agree that I truly am a sparkly glowing fairylike creature who attracts admirers like a roo light attracts Christmas beetles. And there can be no dispute whatsoever that my my magical playground, filled with fantasy and art, is nothing other than the Realm of the Tetherd Cow! (I feel I should also point out that the lavender colours go extremely well with the TCA colour scheme).

As far as I can see, though, it doesn’t matter what colour your aura is on the AuraPhoto site, it’s impossible to come away with a reading that says anything that could be construed to be negative. Such as, for instance:

You’re a duplicitous and morally compromised swindler who is quite prepared to sell rigged computer software and tweaked camera hardware to credulous nitwits in exchange for exorbitant amounts of cash.

If we had a picture of that person’s aura, I imagine there’d be a lot of Dead Salmon and Cat Breath in their chakras. And probably a pronounced squint in their Third Eye.

The world can be divided easily into two groups of people. Those who have experienced serious back pain, and those who haven’t. As a sufferer from a chronic but (thankfully) episodic problem with my lower spine, these days I can totally pick a person from either of those groups pretty much instantaneously.

The first time I experienced my condition was when I was in my late 20s and I was driving along the highway from Goulburn to Sydney. I don’t actually recall doing anything at all to bring it on – I merely shifted my weight in the seat.

SKRINK! (Each time you see that word, I want you to imagine that it is the Bernard Herrmann knife-stab motif from Psycho – you know, that high-pitched violin screeching sound). It was like someone had taken a marlin spike and rammed it through my back. ((This is colourful imagery, you understand. I don’t really know what it would feel like to have a marlin spike rammed through my back, but I imagine it would not be pleasant.)) I put my foot on the brake. SKRINK! Again. Bad move. But I couldn’t keep driving. I finally got the car to stop on the side of the road. My breath was ragged and I was whimpering involuntarily with the excruciating pain. ((The word ‘excruciating’ comes from the same word roots as crucifixion.)) With every effort of willpower I got out of the car and lay flat on the ground. It was all I could think to do to attempt to stop the agony.

In a minute or two, a car pulled up and a middle-aged woman jumped out and hurried over.

“My God! Are you OK?” she cried.

“It’s my back… I don’t know what I did but it’s terrible.”

“Oh,’ she said. ‘I thought it was something really serious.”

I know now that this woman was in Group B: People Who Have Never Experienced Back Pain.

Now, in mechanical terms, what is wrong with me is very common and something that can happen (to anyone) surprisingly easily. It’s just a muscle weakness in my back that allows my spine to make contact with the nerves that run along it. It tends to be a kind of a feedback loop – the muscle goes into spasm, the nerve gets pinched, I involuntarily ‘overcorrect’ (to avoid the intolerable stabbing pain) which causes the muscle to spasm even worse… and so forth. It doesn’t take much to trigger it – I had a particularly bad episode in 1987 that was instigated by merely bending down to take a power plug from a socket. Thankfully it only happens every two or three years, and usually it’s correctable by my physiotherapist and I’m only out of action for a few days.

But it hit me on Friday night worse than I’ve ever had it before, and, annoyingly, all the local physiotherapists are closed over the weekend, so I’ve been completely bed-ridden for the best part of two days. I don’t really take to that very well. To give you some idea of what it’s like, let me describe what I did just now when I decided to get up and make myself some tea.

Sitting up in bed with computer (while I sit still, I feel COMPLETELY fine). Slide computer off lap and take blanket off knees. SKRINK! Make whimpering noise. Slide legs off side of bed. SKRINK! Jesus! Stand up and walk to kitchen like a ninety-year-old man. Put kettle on and inadvertently knock sharp knife off bench. Instinctively move bare foot out of the way to stop artery being severed. SKRINK! Fuck! Try to pick knife up. SKRINK! SKRINK! SKRINK! Fucking Jesus Cunt Fuck! Whimper. SKRINK! What the fuck? I barely moved that time! Give up on knife. Fill kettle. Mince around in terror that the pain will strike again SKRINK! Thanks. Make tea (Eventually. It takes three times longer than normal thanks to the the additional swearing and the stop-start nature that has now been imposed on the process). Take tea and cup back to bed. Attempt to set teapot down on bedside table. SKRINK! SKRINK! FUCKING SHIT JESUS BLOODY HELL! SKRINK! Scream. SKRINK! Drop teapot on table from six inches above and hope it won’t fall off. Do the same with cup. SKRINK! FUCK. Attempt to get back into bed. SKRINK! SKRINK! SKRINK! SKRINK! SKRINK!.

Every time the pain hits it’s as bad as the first time. When I do finally manage to get back into bed, sitting up straight, the pain is totally absent. The problem with pain like this is that there is no visible sign that there’s something wrong. So what my family sees is me sitting in bed seeming entirely OK (because as long as I don’t actually MOVE, I am) and having a jolly ol’ time on the internet. And, if I have to get up, I seem to suddenly go into Tourette’s-like convulsions of screaming and sobbing for no visible reason. If you’ve never experienced this kind of pain, you simply cannot know what it’s like – I know, because up until it happened to me I used to be part of Group B. And I know, because of this, that those in Group B who see you hobbling about think you’re hamming it up! Well, they might attempt to be sympathetic, but I know that what’s really going on in their minds: ‘Oh come on. It can’t possibly be that bad. You were FINE a second ago.’ Eventually they even lose the sympathetic air and you can almost hear them saying ‘Yeah, yeah, we get the idea – it’s painful. You can stop with the screaming now.’ Only you can’t stop with the screaming because it’s FRIGGIN’ AGONY. ((I have to be truthful here and say that Violet Towne is really one of the few people who can be classified as belonging to neither Group A or Group B. She is a very empathetic person. I think she understood how bad the pain was when she saw me turn white and lose my power of coherent speech the first time I got stabbed in the spine. She has also been good-natured enough to put up with my constant moaning, and has been looking after me very well through this latest episode.))

You know you’ve discovered a Group A person, though, when you tell them what’s wrong and they go a kind of ashen colour. Their brain instantly replays a little bit of the pain for them – it’s an involuntary response reserved for those of us who have been to this special circle of Hell. Usually their sympathetic words are confined to ‘Oh Jesus. Fuck.’, and they sometimes grab reflexively onto a nearby shelf or other stable object. ((The Group A people can be divided into two further groups: Group A1, who know that you’re in for some serious physiotherapy and a few more days off your feet, and Group A2, who offer you some kind of idiotic remedy involving acupuncture, homeopathy or crystals. When I’m in agony and beset by peddlers of woo-woo, I want to grab some of those crystals and shove them right where the sun won’t make rainbows.))

The other shitty thing about this problem is that it makes me so incapacitated. The smallest tasks become almost impossible and even showering or putting on my shoes creates whole new vistas of torment. I’m not really good at sitting doing nothing so I probably do the worst thing I can do under the circumstances and make numerous attempts to get on with my normal life, despite urgings from Violet Towne to take it easy.

It really gives me renewed respect for all those people out there who live with remorseless chronic pain. You brave and courageous souls! I salute you! SKRINK! Aaaaagh. FUCKING HELL!

Today it is seven years since my beloved Kate died. The time seems to have passed simultaneously quickly and slowly. I think of you often buddy and I miss you.

You know what they say, Faithful Cowpokes: ‘Better late than robots!’ Well, maybe only I say that. But you know what I’m getting at! I know some of you can barely keep your pants on in anticipation of this year’s Annual Rasputin Competition. Well, here it is. For the newcomers, rules, as always, can be found here (I suggest the veterans revisit them too). Obviously the opening and closing dates are not relevant this year, so I’ll keep it running until I stop laughing. It would be nice if we could get some new players too, so spread the word. It’s always more fun with more people.

And lastly, do try to keep it clean.

HAHAHA! Just kidding. Hit me.