Sunday, December 16, 2007

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

The fecking feckless Daily Mail. Again. To be honest, it's getting a bit repetitive; boring even. And yet, by some god/allah/visnu-awful twist of fate/luck/karma I keep getting exposed to the utterly, irredeemably and continuously nonsensical tosh that appears in the 'Health' pages of this miserable waste of paper, and each time the result is the same - incandescent rage, tempered (or encouraged) by some Highland Park.

Now, the ScienceMangle™ seems to be a bit rusty, as the Daily Wail are allowing other people to do their 'Science' writing - namely, the people who are trying to flog some fad nonsense.

Laydeez and gentermen, I present to you the Lemon Juice Diet. Lemon Juice! Of course! Why hadn't some clever person thought of this before? Lemon JUICE! It's so simple when you think about it.

Opening lines:

Hoping to lose a few pounds before Christmas but gloomy about your chances of success with conventional diets? Then lemons could be the answer.


No. Keeping calories in less than calories out will do that. Lemons may well be part of that; but really, honestly, they aren't necessary. As has been bleated by any boffin with an ounce of knowledge, plenty of veg, some meat, not too much alcohol, a bit of exercise, not too much sugar, salt and fat and pretty much everything will be OK.

Not so the advice from Theresa Cheung, author of the Lemon Juice diet. Or erm, actually, yes, erm, this IS the advice of Theresa Cheung author of the Lemon Juice diet. It seems that Theresa Cheung also believes that lemons aren't necessary. But then, how is she going to flog a miserable book as a stocking filler to fat women (that's an educated guess) before Christmas.

Let's have a look and see what this wizardina of nutrition has to say about how lemons will thinify us all. Like every good, hollow, empty, self-promoting, miserable, fad rubbish that the Daily Mail likes to lavish on its unintelligent readers, it has Seven Principles. Everybody knows 7 is good. (In ad-land anyway).

1. Drink lemon juice with warm water every morning. Starting the day with the juice of a lemon in a glass of warm water will stimulate your digestive system.

Water is also crucial to weight loss. Water aids healthy digestion and the elimination of waste, so make sure you drink six to eight glasses a day. Alcohol should be limited to one small glass of wine a day, and keep coffee and tea to a minimum. Avoid fizzy drinks and sweetened fruit juices.


Ah yes, the old 6 glasses of water a day chestnut. A staple diet of the rubbish fad dieter. Good to get that digestive system stimulated. Apparently that helps lose weight.

2. Eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. All vegetables and most fruits are low-calorie nutritional powerhouses, rich in vitamins, minerals, fibre and nutrients that can boost immunity, balance hormones, calm the nervous system, aid digestion and help weight loss.


This is not anything to with lemons. In fact, it's government guidelines. What is it about rubbish fad diets that always need things to 'aid digestion' and 'boost immunity'?

3. Balance your blood sugar levels. Irritability, poor concentration, fatigue and headaches are all symptoms of fluctuating blood sugar levels, which can make you crave sweet and fattening foods. When blood sugar levels swing too high, so does insulin. This hormone helps shuttle blood sugar (glucose) into your cells to be used as energy. In other words, it promotes fat storage.

Eat protein with each meal, as it steadies your blood sugar by delaying the absorption of carbohydrates and fats. Eating five or six times a day will combat food cravings.


Again, not a whole load about lemons.

4. Cut down on sugar-rich foods. This give you a brief high followed by a big slump, and leave you feeling edgy and tired. Refined foods - such as white bread , white rice, instant potatoes and cornflakes - can act like sugar in your system, and end up being stored as fat. Instead, stick to whole grain, fruit, vegetables and protein.

Natural sugars in fruit can hit your bloodstream fast, so don't eat a piece of fruit without a handful of nuts or seeds to slow the impact. Beware of artificial sweeteners as they can increase sugar cravings.


Lemons?

5. Forgot low fat - your body needs some fat to lose weight. Unsaturated fats can help with weight loss by delaying the passage of carbohydrates into your bloodstream, keeping blood sugar levels stable and insulin down.

Avoid saturated fats - found in red meat, cakes and pastries - and trans-fatty acids in processed foods. These are low in nutrients and can increase your risk of heart disease and obesity.

Increase your consumption of omega 3 and omega 6 essential fatty acids found in nuts, seeds and oily fish, and unsaturated fat found in extra virgin olive oil.


Lemons?

6. Eat lots of fresh whole foods. Switch from processed to whole foods to boost your intake of the nutrients your body needs for weight loss. Whole foods such as beans, pulses and lentils also contain fibre, which stimulates the digestive system and can slow down the conversion of carbohydrates into glucose.

Best of all, whole foods are free of hidden sugar and chemicals that overload your liver, making it hard for your body to digest food and burn fat. Choose brown pasta, wholegrain bread and cereals, vegetables, fruit, fresh soups, smoothies and juices (not from concentrate), and eat a salad with every meal


Lemons?

7. Slow things down. Eat slowly and chew properly. Chewing relaxes the lower stomach muscle and triggers nerve messages that activate the digestive process. If food is not properly chewed, nutrients remain locked in and undigested.

Keep portions moderate, and eat at regular times. If you find you're still hungry, wait 20 minutes for your brain to catch up with your stomach and recognise that you are full.

Your stomach and intestines are sensitive to stress. When you feel anxious, digestion will shut down, leaving food partially digested. So finding ways to manage stress is not only important for your emotional health, but your digestive health, too.


And at the risk of sounding repetitive, em, lemons?

Now. The final bit,

If you combine these seven principles with an exercise regime involving 30 minutes of aerobic activity five or six days a week, within just a week you should start feeling healthier and your clothes will be looser. By week two, you will be dropping pounds.


What the hell/purgatory/limbo is this all about? Here is a 'diet' based on the wonderment of lemon juice, which doesn't involve lemons, and says "do this alongside 30 mins excercise most days". I reckon most people could continue their diet EXACTLY as is, but if they did 30 mins of aerobic activity five or six days a week, they wouldn't be needing to increase the import of lemons.

Don't get me wrong, there is some good advice here, but you will appreciate that there is nothing new or rocket-sciencey in it. Or, surprisingly, much about lemons.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Not big and not clever.

Am crazy busy, so will just put the nub of the heart of the gist up, without my usual wibblings.

Equazen Eye Q (TM) adverts have been given a roasting by the Advertising Standards Agency here:

The final paragraph says it all:

We told Equazen to remove the claims "... may help maintain concentration levels and healthy brain development", "the Clever Capsule"Scientifically tested in schools", "proven in schools" and "proven by Science" from future advertising for eye q. We also told them to avoid implying in future that the advertised product could benefit the general population or that a trials results related to a product with exactly the same composition and dosage as the advertised product if that was not the case


The Durham Fish Oil 'trials' were a joke and the company is the leading the PseudoScientific charge. Not very clever.

EDIT: Should say, as sadly often is the case, that pesky duck has blogged this more eruditely and fully than I ever could here :)

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Indulge me, please.....

Pope offers reduced Purgatory TimeShare

Here is Dr* T's one-sided view of life-after-death as seen by Roman Catholics.

Once upon a time, a man said "Follow me, so that when you die you will live forever and not fry". Pretty straight forward. Then some other chap piped up and said "Now, how's about someone does that, and then just before carking it, tells a white lie or steals or goat or something - those are unrepentant sins and so they'll fry, yah?". Much stroking of beards.

"Aha! Perhaps there is a different place in between heaven and hell where people can have a little bit of eternal punishment which will clean their filthy wretched souls and make them suitable for pearly gatedom", said a different chap followed by "and a donation to the church would help shuffle them through".

What a wheeze! People pay money to the church to help loved ones pass quickly through the little bit of eternal torment. There wasn't a strict tarriff neither was there a letter confirming when the said soul had been purified. Best to keep paying. And all this long before labour party peerages.

You can get the official version here.

Luckily, whilst on earth you can open a credit account, where the currency is The Indulgence (I$). You can be awarded indulgences which will limit the amount of time you need to stay in purgatory - although the Church is at pains to point out that it

does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person's case


Now for most people, indulgences and purgatory are 'old skool'. A bit medieval.

Nonetheless, everyone's favourite German Pope has decided (in his infallible wisdom) that anyone visiting Lourdes in the year starting Dec 8 can have an indulgence, which will the reduce the (undefined) time spent in (undefined place) purgatory.

Lourdes remember was the place where Mary (virginal single mum) appeared as an apparition in 1858 to a 14-year-old girl. So as not to have people believe that the girl was just ADHD, The Good Lady had the decency to appear another 17 times. (Unlike the last Pope who appeared a paltry once, and even then for a split second in a bonfire. No real style.)

Only a twisted cynic would point out that 5 million visitors now come to Lourdes to see and give money to the Church there, so perhaps El Papa is showing his business sense in telling people that in this bonus year, you can reduce your time in the fires. I do hope The Sun runs this story with the headline "Herr-ching".

In the event of death (and subsequent breach of contract), I reckon you'd be hard pushed to get your money back. It's probably in the smallprint.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Daily Mail in reasonable journalism shocker.....

No. No. No. It's true. Look here:

The Case for and Against Homeopathy

Everyone's favourite tousle-haired Bad Science Ninja, Dr Ben Goldacre (ahem, Dr - as in medical, rather than Dr* as in Chemical...) has provided the common sense side of the argument - and done it well. Mind you, the arguments for homeopathy are paper thin and could be easily destroyed by a 10 year old (although in this case, it's someone who looks like a ten year old :)


The only real problem with it is that the case for is pretty weak (and has been given a proper fisking here as these two points of view have both appeared before, bizarrely, in The Guardian, the liberal lefty (usually) intelligent scourge of Daily Mail readers). It's a massive bugbear that I will not doubt blawg about at a later stage, that in the interests of 'fairness' we have to hear ALL sides of the argument, with no weighting being given to how sensible or bonkers the argument is.

The opening gambit is a beauty and in many ways negates reading the rest of the article (it's also interesting why someone with a bit of knowledge in the field didn't write the article):

A leading novelist who swears by it. A science expert who thinks it's tosh.


Imagine it wasn't homeopathy. Imagine a full reversal - say, for instance, a heart triple bypass and then you read in the paper a debate about its merits and found

A science expert who swears by it. A leading novelist who thinks it's tosh.


This could get silly. Thankfully, it's mid-day and the Christmas supplies of vino haven't arrived yet, so this particular train of thought has hit the buffers.

Oh, just one then......

Bible suggests young earth:
A creationist swears by it, a leading world class paleontologist thinks it's tosh


Thursday, November 22, 2007

Good Evening Mrs Storm, is your daughter in?

It's a slightly surreal title, I know, but then I've just put another empty bottle of Macallan into the recycling.

I am not a meteorologist. However, I do have an inkling about how some weather systems work...

**parades 'A' in GCSE Geography**

But the little I know leads me to believe that I know more than Jo MacFarlane, or at least more than she's letting on. (I don't even know if Jo is male or female but that, as so often is the case, is irrelevant).

Mother Of All Storms Will Blast Britain At Christmas

Now, being the Daily Express, it has no truck with fact and so can quite happily state 6 week weather forecasting as truth incarnate.

As an aside, the BBC would (if it was a REALLY slow news day) have headlined this with:

Adverse weather to "blast Britain at Christmas"


knowing that quotes negate any need to justify the headline. The Sun would have led with

Ghost of Christmas Blast


although I reckon it would have been lost on most of its readers, and the Mail would have led with:

Lower houses prices and increased taxes expected as Brown fails to prepare for coldest Christmas on record caused by asylum seekers committing benefit fraud


As I said, the Macallan is finished.

Now the point of this drunken tirade is two-fold:

1. Predicting that in Britain there will be storms in Winter is a bit like predicting that the next Pope will be Catholic. It certainly doesn't mean you can claim Randi's Millions if you are correct.

2. If the Met Office say that "[longer term predictions] are not necessarily within the scientific understanding of weather forecasting" I would tend to believe them, rather than Piers Corbyn, whose reasons for making [exciting if vague] predictions are clear either from a profit point of view or from a personal point of view.

Now, whether or not Mrs Storm does arrive at Christmas is not the point, it's whether Mr Corbyn predicted it. Given that we're currently (as in tomorrow, Friday 23rd Nov) supposed to be enjoying "Dangerous storms and tornadoes" (also penned by Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms MacFarlane) I'll happily put him in the file marked "Bluffers".




EDIT: Just thought I'd put in today's (FRI 23rd Nov) report from the Met Office, compared with Mr Corbyn's 'predictions':

MET OFFICE:
Friday day
Most parts dry, sunny but rather cold, a brisk, chilly northeasterly wind bringing rain, sleet or snow showers to some North Sea coastal areas of England and wet and windy weather arriving in the far northwest of Scotland.

Friday night
Widespread frost. The north, becoming windy, rain spreading southeast, turning to snow for a time over eastern Scotland and hills of northern England. Risk of icy conditions for a time.


Daily Express:
...“dangerous storms” to hit by Friday.

Regions could be battered by heavy rain and winds gusting up to 100mph, said forecaster Piers Corbyn at Weather Action.

He also warned that conditions would be perfect for tornado development, especially off the South Coast.


EDIT: January 1st 2008 - Happy New Year. Looks like we managed to escape the tornadoes over Christmas. What a waste of time Piers Corbyn is.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Religion MUST be a good thing......

....otherwise we wouldn't get stories like these:

Donkey wedding staged to bring rain

Man marries bitch to beat curse

Still, I suppose when you take into account all the people who died in religious wars and people whose lives have been made misery by varying forms of religious-instilled bigotry, it's maybe not such a good thing after all.

Nonetheless, seems like a good time to introduce Jesus & Mo, two random characters based on nobody in particular (either living, dead or a little bit of both). Here is the Wiki blurb, which (let's face it) puts it more succintly and cleverly than I could:

The simply drawn comic features two present day religious prophets, Jesus and Mo. While Jesus is portrayed as the actual Christian prophet, Mo claims to be a body double ... to get around the restriction in Islam of representing the prophet Muhammad pictorially.

Jesus and Mo share an apartment and occasionally venture outside, principally to a public house, The Cock and Bull, where they imbibe Guinness stout and engage in conversation and debate with an atheist female bar attendant known simply as Barmaid.

A fourth character, Moses, another Abrahamic prophet, appears in a few strips. The Hindu god Ganesh made a one-time appearance; both Jesus and Mo mocked his depicted weight and four arms.


Enjoy at your leisure.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Pass me the ScienceMangle™

The Daily Mail's irony-meter must have been broken this week, as they published on their website (about half way down) a reasonable diatribe written by Prof. Karol Sikora, Medical Director of CancerPartners UK regarding the recent report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective.

The first inkling that something was up was that the DM webpage didn't mention the name of the report, referring to it only as "last week's health report". The thrust of the piece was that publishing a report which pretty much said that everything you eat will affect your cancer risk to some degree will make people switch off listening to the good healthy eating advice and lose the message.

What struck me as odd, is that the Daily Mail for as long as I can remember has been putting all inanimate objects in the known universe into the categories of either causing or curing cancer. With the help of a sturdy ScienceMangle™ they have been one of the most repetitive sources of cancer fear for the worried well. How could we forget those lethal grapefruit or the bowel-busting one-glass-of-wine? I'm certainly glad that I'm not a tall, 14-year-old, left-handed, brunette who is sexually active (from the Daily Mail's perspective, at any rate....)

EDIT: I said 'inanimate objects' above. Apparently, it is also animate objects - bring on the carcinogenic canine.

Mangle.....whirr.....mangle.....whirr.......

Luckily for us all, DM debunks its own stories every once in a while. Now listen up and read carefully. It's time for Spot The Difference or Compare & Contrast or however you like to refer to it. Have your ScienceMangle™ set to "Irony".

Let's start with the DM's "Unravelling the Cancer Myths".

MYTH: You can get cancer from barbecued food.

FACT: The blackened crust of barbecued food contains substances called heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs), which are carcinogenic.

But there has been no evidence produced which links barbecued food to cancer.

Perhaps this is because you would never eat enough charred food to cause the DNA damage that is central to cancer development.

And compare with the article "Cancer: Foods to Avoid"

HETEROCYCLIC AMINES

A potential [cancer-causing] culprit is [sic] heterocyclic amines which are formed on the surface of meat when it's grilled, roasted, fried or barbecued - especially when burned or charred.

Risk factor: Although animal studies suggest that high intakes of heterocyclic amines can promote cancer, there is no direct evidence in humans. But it makes sense to minimise any risk.
Minimise any risk, you say? Hmmm... talk to me about deodorants:

"Why Women should avoid deodorants that could cause breast cancer" (if I was being pedantic, I would say the answer is in the title, but I digress). Two weeks later we get:

MYTH: Using anti-perspirant can cause cancer.

FACT: An e-mail made the rounds a couple of years ago falsely linking antiperspirant with an increased risk of breast cancer.

It said anti-perspirant stopped toxins being purged from the body in sweat instead being deposited in the lymph nodes, causing cell mutations.

Cancer Research UK and the American Cancer Society have rubbished the claim, saying it is simply not true. Firstly, sweat does not contain toxins. And there is no proven link between anti-perspirant chemicals and cancer.

Now, of course, everyone knows that mobile phones cause cancer - at least, we're told it does by the DM; eye cancer and brain tumours are your lot, even if you're only on the phone for ten minutes. But, phew, relief and everything's fine because the ScienceMangle™ has been momentarily switched off, so that we can be told

MYTH: Mobile phones give you brain cancer.

FACT: So far, most studies have found no link between mobile phone use and brain cancer. But the jury is still out on just how damaging mobiles are.

Of course they are - the jury consisting of the DM's shareholders and lots of middle class unintelligentsia. These stories will always sell papers to this demographic - all you need is a list of all the objects in the world, access to some medical journals and a good, well-maintained ScienceMangle™.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

I want to sell you FEAR......mwah ha ha ha ha (etc)

Your humble bloggist has a dirty secret which must be shared with the world. Outwith the realms of e-wittering, I'm a salesman.
There.
I've said it.
Hundreds of books and seminars have covered the topics of selling - how to grab your audience's attention, how to push them to buy, how to press their buttons that will make them part with their cash.

In the world of TV advertising, one of the easiest ways to do this is as follows:

1. Place Mrs Mugwump in a situation she understands. (Chopping veggies in the kitchen - make sure Tarkwin gets his five-a-day!).
2. Slap her repeatedly in the face with mangled science and occultic statistics.
3. Frighten the bejesus/be-allah/be-vishnu out of her.
4. Introduce your product as the saviour (non-denominational) of this oh-so-rational fear.

Fear selling uses dirty tricks to play with words chosen to purvey a different impression from what's actually written. For example, a few months ago I saw an article for padded bicycle shorts which informed me that not using them can lead to some of the symptoms similar to prostate cancer. Let me write that again:

can lead to some of the symptoms similar to prostate cancer


Two modifiers (can & some - a far cry from 'will' and 'all') and two "surrogate end points" of sorts (symptoms - may not have anything to do with having the cancer, and in any case the symptoms are only similar - pain in the hips/pelvis and lower back pain to name two. I reckon these are the least of my pains after 25km of muck, stones, hills etc).

I use the above as an example, and not as proper investigation as to whether heavy-duty multi-terrain mountain biking gives you 'issues'. The real thrust of this blog comes from our great Sentinels of Selling, the Advertising Standards Authority.

Every week, they publish on the web every complaint that has been made about an advert, and whether or not the complaint is upheld - generally makes for interesting reading, not least to see the crazy things people complain about.

Let's go back to fear selling, and a complaint made by 3 different people regarding Dettol Multisurface Cleaner. The advert told us:

"Fact, your chopping board harbours 50 times more bacteria than your toilet seat. But Dettol Surface Cleanser kills 99.9% of bacteria, including MRSA, E.Coli, salmonella and even the flu virus ..."


Now, apart from anything else, I don't count the flu virus as being alive therefore I don't have any truck with products that claim to kill it, but that's a personal thing. Also, they didn't even have the decency to class the bacteria as 'good' or 'bad' - a distinction they were keen to keep to themselves.

Anyway, the ASA asked parent company Reckitt Benckiser to prove this 'fact'. As it happens, it turns out the 'fact' was derived from taking samples at 5 houses in Hertfordshire (all with kids under 3 years old) and the ASA in their good wisdom reckoned this wasn't representative of the nation. Complaint upheld.

In addition, the 5 chopping boards DID have bacteria on them but they

"did not show that the bacteria found posed a risk to health ... and it was unclear whether they had been cleaned normally after use


Next we get the 'playing with words' - US or UK, harbours/harbors indicates a long term holding - harbouring anger against Sarah Beeny for talking rubbish about chemicals, for example. The ASA also felt that by using the word 'harbour' RB were inferring that these chopping boards were crawling with all this bacteria after being washed by a normal person in a normal way. The evidence produced by RB indicated (as most people know) that rubbing a couple of chicken breasts on a chopping board before using it to wipe your arse produces a surface which may be "unsafe for food preparation". What they didn't provide evidence for was that if you wash it in the normal way, you'd be surprised how clean it becomes, that is without using an antimicrobial.

And therein lies the rub. The Dettol product didn't claim to clean better than other products, it just claimed to clean, but pressed the fear buttons of MRSA, E.Coli and salmonella.

I would like the advert to be run again, with a bit more accuracy:
"Fact - your chopping board harbours some bacteria. But don't worry, they won't do you any harm if you've washed it in the normal way after it was last used.

If you do have an irrational fear of things you can't see/understand and want to live in an artificial, sterile, (in)sanitary bubble, then using **branded** Multisurface Cleaner will kill things like MRSA, E.Coli and salmonella, even when they're not there.

Do remember, that the moment you touch your nose, a lot of your work will have been in vain.


------------------------

There are further fun and games from the ASA website regarding all the upheld complaints about the highly dubious York Allergy Tests by YorkTest Laboratories. Not surprisingly, everyone's favourite pill peddler Patrick Holford is a fan - read the outcome on HolfordWatch.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Holy Moses! The pope's on fire......

Everyone knows that God/Allah/Arthur Brown spoke to Moses via a burning bush - fact (Exodus 3). He also helped those Israelites with their lack of direction through the desert guided by a pillar of fire - fact (Exodus 13:21) around the same time he was feeding them bread which fell out of the sky for 40 years (Exodus 16:35 - Shame he doesn't send some to Darfur, but I digress...)

No real scientist would doubt any of the facts, they stand to reason and are everyday occurances.

However, when El Papa JP2 (think less John Prescott, more John Paul) appears in a fire in Poland for some reason people are sceptical.

The Daily Mail ran the story here giving further proof (if any were needed) for Dr* T's First Theory. Here is the photo from this truly momentous event. It's clearly obvious that it is the Pope and indeed, his followers seem to agree.

The Daily Mail, known for its responsible journalism and level-headedness, reported the head of the Vatican TV station Father Cielecki saying he was convinced the picture showed the former pontiff.

The Telegraph quoted the photographer as saying;

"I was so happy with the picture that I showed it to our local bishop who said that Pope John Paul had made many pilgrimages during his life and he was still making them in death."


Really. Now of course, we learn a lot from the afterlife here - the pope still has his back problems. A bit rubbish for a place of eternal happiness if you ask me. But before I drift off on a diatribe of what is actually light-hearted journalism poking fun at people's religious fervour, it should be said that there are people who think it's him. Actually him. Here for a brief second at the right angle to say ... well, nothing, but it was him.

When you realise there are people who believe anything as fervently as this, despite 99.9999% of the population having a giggle, it really brings it home that some people will believe absolutely anything, regardless of how ridiculous it is. I promised myself I wouldn't mention homeopathy in this post, but I've just failed.

To me the headline should have been thus:


Sunday, October 14, 2007

Be shamed, Society of Homeopaths.

I know I'm a bit behind the game on this one but it's an important topic and cuts right to the core of what adventures in science are all about.

The most wonderfully sensible, intelligent, and possibly attractive blogging duck that I am aware of (le Canard Noir) has been threatened with legal action by the Society of Homeopaths for an article he blogged last August on the follow up to the Sense About Science sting on dodgy homeopathy/sugar-pill salespeople, selling sugar pills to people on the pretence/misguided belief they would be prophylactic to malaria.

So rather than speaking to Mr Duck themselves, they decided to threaten the web-page host with legal action, who in turn shat their lilly-livered y-fronts and had the page removed from their servers.

One of the most revered bloggers in scientific academe David Colquhoun, is keeping the story alive and updated on his blog, DC's Improbable Science, as he has also been bullied and threatened for a similar thing.

Here is the post in its entirety - you can decide for yourself:
(I should say, that I copied this from A Night on the Tiles)

The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing


By The Quackometer



The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are a shambles and a bad joke. It is now over a year since Sense about Science, Simon Singh and the BBC Newsnight programme exposed how it is common practice for high street homeopaths to tell customers that their magic pills can prevent malaria. The Society of Homeopaths have done diddly-squat to stamp out this dangerous practice apart from issue a few ambiguously weasel-worded press statements.

The SoH has a code of practice, but my feeling is that this is just a smokescreen and is widely flouted and that the Society do not care about this. If this is true, then the code of practice is nothing more than a thin veneer used to give authority and credibility to its deluded members. It does nothing more than fool the public into thinking they are dealing with a regulated professional.

As a quick test, I picked a random homeopath with a web site from the SoH register to see if they flouted a couple of important rules:

48: • Advertising shall not contain claims of superiority. • No advertising may be used which expressly or implicitly claims to cure named diseases.

72: To avoid making claims (whether explicit or implied; orally or in writing) implying cure of any named disease.

The homeopath I picked on is called Julia Wilson and runs a practice from the Leicestershire town of Market Harborough. What I found rather shocked and angered me.

Straight away, we find that Julia M Wilson LCHE, RSHom specialises in asthma and works at a clinic that says,

Many illnesses and disease can be successfully treated using homeopathy, including arthritis, asthma, digestive disorders, emotional and behavioural difficulties, headaches, infertility, skin and sleep problems.

Well, there are a number of named diseases there to start off. She also gives a leaflet that advertises her asthma clinic. The advertising leaflet says,

Conventional medicine is at a loss when it comes to understanding the origin of allergies. ... The best that medical research can do is try to keep the symptoms under control. Homeopathy is different, it seeks to address the triggers for asthma and eczema. It is a safe, drug free approach that helps alleviate the flaring of skin and tightening of lungs...

Now, despite the usual homeopathic contradiction of claiming to treat causes not symptoms and then in the next breath saying it can alleviate symptoms, the advert is clearly in breach of the above rule 47 on advertising as it implicitly claims superiority over real medicine and names a disease.

Asthma is estimated to be responsible for 1,500 deaths and 74,000 emergency hospital admissions in the UK each year. It is not a trivial illness that sugar pills ought to be anywhere near. The Cochrane Review says the following about the evidence for asthma and homeopathy,

The review of trials found that the type of homeopathy varied between the studies, that the study designs used in the trials were varied and that no strong evidence existed that usual forms of homeopathy for asthma are effective.

This is not a surprise given that homeopathy is just a ritualised placebo. Hopefully, most parents attending this clinic will have the good sense to go to a real accident and emergency unit in the event of a severe attack and consult their GP about real management of the illness. I would hope that Julia does little harm here.

However, a little more research on her site reveals much more serious concerns. She says on her site that 'she worked in Kenya teaching homeopathy at a college in Nairobi and supporting graduates to set up their own clinics'. Now, we have seen what homeopaths do in Kenya before. It is not treating a little stress and the odd headache. Free from strong UK legislation, these missionary homeopaths make the boldest claims about the deadliest diseases.

A bit of web research shows where Julia was working (picture above). The Abha Light Foundation is a registered NGO in Kenya. It takes mobile homeopathy clinics through the slums of Nairobi and surrounding villages. Its stated aim is to,

introduce Homeopathy and natural medicines as a method of managing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Kenya.

I must admit, I had to pause for breath after reading that. The clinic sells its own homeopathic remedies for 'treating' various lethal diseases. Its MalariaX potion,

is a homeopathic preparation for prevention of malaria and treatment of malaria. Suitable for children. For prevention. Only 1 pill each week before entering, during and after leaving malaria risk areas. For treatment. Take 1 pill every 1-3 hours during a malaria attack.

This is nothing short of being totally outrageous. It is a murderous delusion. David Colquhoun has been writing about this wicked scam recently and it is well worth following his blog on the issue.

Let's remind ourselves what one of the most senior and respected homeopaths in the UK, Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital, has to say on this matter.

there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.

Malaria is a huge killer in Kenya. It is the biggest killer of children under five. The problem is so huge that the reintroduction of DDT is considered as a proven way of reducing deaths. Magic sugar pills and water drops will do nothing. Many of the poorest in Kenya cannot afford real anti-malaria medicine, but offering them insane nonsense as a substitute will not help anyone.

Ironically, the WHO has issued a press release today on cheap ways of reducing child and adult mortality due to malaria. Their trials, conducted in Kenya, of using cheap mosquito nets soaked in insecticide have reduced child deaths by 44% over two years. It says that issuing these nets be the 'immediate priority' to governments with a malaria problem. No mention of homeopathy. These results were arrived at by careful trials and observation. Science. We now know that nets work. A lifesaving net costs $5. A bottle of useless homeopathic crap costs $4.50. Both are large amounts for a poor Kenyan, but is their life really worth the 50c saving?

I am sure we are going to hear the usual homeopath bleat that this is just a campaign by Big Pharma to discredit unpatentable homeopathic remedies. Are we to add to the conspiracy Big Net manufacturers too?

It amazes me that to add to all the list of ills and injustices that our rich nations impose on the poor of the world, we have to add the widespread export of our bourgeois and lethal healing fantasies. To make a strong point: if we can introduce laws that allow the arrest of sex tourists on their return to the UK, can we not charge people who travel to Africa to indulge their dangerous healing delusions?

At the very least, we could expect the Society of Homeopaths to try to stamp out this wicked practice? Could we?


Friday, October 5, 2007

OH MY GAWD ! Chemicals? Are you sure?

I don't like to brag on my blog, it just sometimes happens to be inevitable.

Now, I would like to provide more evidence to substantiate Dr* T's First Theory (vide infra):

Is your Make-up killing you?

EDIT (14/10/07): The Daily Mail have now removed this link from their website. All down to this blog, of course ;) I'll try and find a cached version, otherwise it becomes a little bit pointless...

EDIT (14/10/07): ValueAddedWater has kindly put a .doc version of the Daily Mail's article here. Now you can read at your leisure - is your make-up killing you?


The answer is indeed no. Let's not forget, that this is nothing more than a press release for a TV show.

At the risk of treating the Daily Mail with any sort of seriousness, I couldn't let the article slip away unnoticed without drawing out a few salient points.

First of all, the Daily Mail's attitude to science is pretty well demonstrated here. For instance take the line:

Last year, Britons spent £6.4billion on cosmetics and grooming products, with the average woman applying 12 toiletries every day.

But here's the rub - these toiletries can bring with them at least 175 chemical compounds.


CHEMICALS? Can you fricking believe it? I mean, for God/Allah/Zeus/flying spaghetti monster (with his noodly appendage) sake, those blasted chemicals get everywhere! Is there anything safe in this world that hasn't been besmirched by CHEMICALS? Quick, Take ecover...... (there's a pithy middle class joke in there, but don't waste too much time looking for it)

Of course, the manufacturers would say these chemicals and resulting products are safe, but a growing school of thought begs to differ.


Of course they do. These manufacturers can do what they like. We don't have rules or regulations or overseeing bodies or government departments that can make sure that only suitable ingredients go into these type of products. Oh wait...

I think this gets to the nub of why this sort of program/article has me screaming like someone possessed (with what, I don't know) - where is the balance? Where is the person saying "Actually, what you're talking about is invented, manipulative, fear-inducing rubbish."

They were then challenged to live without their beauty products for eight days, swopping everything for natural chemical-free varieties.


Hmmmmm..... what would they be, then? No chemicals.
Water? Nope, it's got a Safety Data Sheet, so must be a chemical.
Air? Surely even the Daily Mail wouldn't allow us to say that oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide et al aren't chemicals.

One thing is for sure: few of us would want to rub any of these chemicals into our eyes, far less ingest them in liquids by drinking them.


Ditto vinegar. And it's a chemical. Yet we put it on our chips! Please someone think of the children (etc.)

"Man-made chemicals first emerged 100years ago, and every decade since, the overall production of these synthetic chemicals has doubled.


100 years ago? 1907? How about ...ooohh....so may to choose from.....Alfred Nobel's dynamite company (set up in 1860)? (allow to me kindly ignore thousands of years of "making chemicals").

Both girls use a natural deodorant, which contains no chemicals.


For the love of sweet baby Jesus/Aphrodite/Thor/Ra, what the hell does this mean?



The caption at the bottom of this photo is

Natural beauty: TV presenter Sarah Beeny has been without make-up for two years


Look around the eyes. Don't look at the eyes, look around the eyes. No make up? At all? Let me ask you, is this the face of someone who hasn't used make-up for two years?

Allow me to reinvoke Dr* T's first theory.

Monday, October 1, 2007

Three Strikes and you're out (Part 2)

So where were we? Oh yes, I was wittering about people's anti-scientific attitude and how, due to all the hard-to-understandness that comes with sciencey things people are choosing in their droves (sheep analogy might be better) to believe something much more understandable and appealing to their uncritical personalities, but which are fundamentally, incorrect.

Acupunture is a bit of a classic. It's got needles, history (the chinese were apparently using it 14 billion years ago), drama, excitement, mysticism, religiousity and theatre all rolled up into one non-offensive therapy. The question, as always, is does it show any benefit over placebo?.

Well, that depends not on the results but on the newspaper you read. A well-documented story in the paper last week (covered by Ben Goldacre in his excellent Bad Science column in the Saturday Guardian) gave details of research that suggested that acupuncture was better than no acupuncture, but no better than random pin insertion. I'm not going to cover it here - the full dialogue on the Bad Science website is well worth the read.

So that's "Strike 2".

Strike 3 is very similar to strike 2, and actually means a lot more to me personally. (Can you believe it has taken this long for me to get to the point of why I'm writing this? Must learn to be more succinct.)

Despite being 30 years old, both my hips are crumbling as we speak due to osteoarthritis. Bummer. Nothing outside very invasive surgery will do anything for it - science fact. That doesn't stop everyone telling you that chondroitin will re-hipify you or that without glucosamine you will die before dawn.

The experience has given me insight into why people are taken victim to these therapies despite any proof of cure (outwith placebo) - when there is little hope, any hope (regardless of what it involves) shines brightly.

And so to the study; it was a randomised multi-centre controlled trial to investigate the benefit of adding acupuncture to a course of advice and exercise delivered by physiotherapists for pain reduction in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.(Published in BMJ 2007;335(7617):436 (1 September) - abstract here) They took three groups; Advice and exercise (n=116), advice and exercise plus true acupuncture (n=117), and advice and exercise plus non-penetrating acupuncture (n=119). Have a look at the abstract for the details, the whole article is behind a paywall. The conclusions are as follows:

The addition of acupuncture to a course of advice and exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee delivered by physiotherapists provided no additional improvement in pain scores. Small benefits in pain intensity and unpleasantness were observed in both acupuncture groups, making it unlikely that this was due to acupuncture needling effects.


Strike 3 - out?

Three Strikes and you're out (Part 1)

It has been referred to as 'The Endarkenment'. Hundreds of years of people engaging their brain are being turned head-over-heels because of a desire to believe in any self-indulgant made-up Science-Lite™ drivel, which is much more appealing and self-centred than the difficult, complicated, non-personal universe in which we find ourselves.

Ben Goldacre in his excellent Bad Science columns has on a number of occasions written about this desire to believe e.g. that fish oil supplements can solve complex social problems such as bad attitude in kids or that vitamin C, so cheap, so good for you, so easily available can cure Aids.

The last few days seems to have dressed the media with some really interesting stories regarding complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)- namely homeopathy and acupuncture.

Firstly (Strike 1, with 2 more to come later) Tunbridge Wells Homeopathy hospital is to have its NHS funding removed.See BBC link here. Surely good news for all other areas of NHS funding (dare I say it, the more efficacious areas).

How could anyone not want homeopathy to be a success? Cheap, safe readily available ingredients (i.e. water and possibly sugar), no side effects, no problems with overdose, no controlled substances. All we need is the evidence that it works, which after many years of wasting resources trying, is why we need put the therapy to bed as a failure.

Having written to my own MP, James Gray, regarding his signing of an Early Day Motion which promotes CAM and calls on the Government to "actively ... support these national assets [Homeopathic hospitals]", I was pleased with the result. However, just as the EDM motion did, Mr Gray's letter used homeopathy synonymously with CAM, which really grates, as any person with an gram (or ounce, if you're old school) of sense can see - try this for logic:

"My understanding is that, according to Dept of Health, about half of GPs refer patients to alternative therapists - indicating that they view homeopathy as worthwhile for their patient's needs" - James Gray MP, CON, Wiltshire North (my bold)

Doesn't follow, James, I'm afraid. (Also being a pedant, I would reckon he meant to put that apostrophe after the s, assuming of course, the said Doctors have more than one patient, but I'm getting sidetracked.)

There may well be useful alternative therapies out there, but there isn't a scratch of evidence to show that homeopathy (as opposed to placebo effect) is one of them. Nonetheless, he finished off by saying that "alternative therapies ought to be available where they are wanted and prove cost- and clinically- effective" (my bold), which I guess means he's happy enough for the funding to be withdrawn from Tunbridge Wells as well.

Whew. Take a break. Pour more coffee. More to come :)

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Theory #1.

Hot-diggedy. You go thirty years without a single blog and then you do two in one night. Crazy.

Anyway, here is my first theory (I'll be interested in all examples that provide proof or otherwise):

**clears throat**

Any tabloid heading that starts 'Is this....', 'Could this be...' etc. can be safely answered 'No'



Usual suspects are the Daily Mail putting all inanimate objects into the pigeon holes of causing or curing cancer "Can pomegranates protect you from cervical cancer?" and of course the omnipresent McCann story. "Is this Maddie?"

I say 'First Theory' as I fully expect there to be more. Otherwise, my life has just reached it's blogging peak. Hmmm.......

EDIT: 17th Oct 07 : An excellent exhibit here. Ticks ALL the boxes. Incidentally, I disagree with the Vatican TV director.

EDIT: 26th Oct 07: A fine specimen courtesy of JDC. Slaps rational scientific thinking with a wet plant, and cures the cold at the same time.

EDIT: 3rd Nov 2007: This is outstanding. Ok it's from 2003, but the Daily Mail just cant help itself. "Bring me the ScienceMangle™..."

EDIT: 6th Dec 2007
More cancerous lipstick.The product in question is not used in lipstick. See here

Hmmm... need to find a way of retaining a copy of the evidence.....

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Here we go......

Well, let's get started and stop muffing around.

Where better to start than the wonderfully spleen-ventable world of the religion/science interface.

In my head, if someone spends a long time studying, reading and musing on a subject for a good length of time (even to the point where they get awarded a degree or perhaps more) then their point of view on that subject is often of value. Outside of that field, their p-o-v carries no more weight than that of London cabbie.

And so to Archbishop Francisco Chimoio. (Note: not any old Bish, but and archbish and God's top man in Mozambique). This sensible chap has decided that European condoms (only from 2 countries though) are loaded with AIDS virus to "finish" the African people for good.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7014335.stm

Now perhaps speaking to the Archbish, he could have spoken authoritatively on how both snakes AND donkeys learnt to speak in days gone by (Genesis 3; Numbers 22:28-30) but I'm keen to find the out the Archbish's credentials on European Condom Manufacturing processes (Part B: Secret Ingredients).

If it wasn't so damned tragic, there would a number of extremely humourous and waspishly sarcastic comments to be made.

But I can't actually speak.








There was an error in this gadget