And another thing…

Boiron sue completely innocent blogger because he dared to tell the truth about homoeopathy!!!!!11!!11! Can it possibly be true? Well, no, not exactly, and one thing this case will serve to demonstrate well is the fact that you can’t say much without facts, and that it’s easy to lose sight of them in all of the fuss. To any who don’t know what I’m talking about, here is a summary:

• Blogger Samuele Riva posted an article about homoeopathy, including a picture of a particular product made by Boiron
• Boiron sent a letter (in Italian) to the internet provider in question demanding the removal of the article, etc. (Several translations of the letter appeared to show Boiron taking exception to a number of points in the blog.)

Already, comparisons between this case, and that of BCA vs. Singh are being bandied about, and the picture of Samuele Riva as David to Boiron’s Goliath is forming rapidly, but I think that the whole situation deserves further scrutiny before Riva is painted as a hero of modern science. As the letter is originally in Italian, some of the translations have been a little shaky (several machine translations have been doing the rounds), and as the legal wording is likely to be quite important in such a case, it’s difficult to understand the spirit of the letter without being able to read it, fluently, in its original Italian (and in the context of Italian law). As I can do neither, I can only look to the translations, as others have been doing.

A selection of the points Boiron seem to be complaining about are as follows:

• The unauthorised inclusion of a picture of their product
• The caption associated with the picture (the total nothing that according to Boiron is the cure for influenza… diluted 200C does not contain any molecule of active ingredient!)
• A further article, including a picture, and caption associated with the picture (Seriously damages the intelligence (of the person buying it))

The letter also contains some other points, such as demands for removal of internet services, denying Riva’s access to his blog, etc. All in all, it’s the kind of letter that I’m sure anyone would be intimidated to receive, and I have little doubt that this was the intention, and while I recognise that Riva has a right to state his opinion, there are things he could have done differently that may have prevented this letter arriving in the first place.

As unpalatable as it may be, the simple fact of the matter is that people tend to be rather lax about copyright on the internet. We take images from websites without crediting them or asking the owner, and often use them repeatedly without asking the owner. This is as wrong as it would be to copy a chapter from a book and claim it as your own. Copyright law means that you cannot just take the first image you find and use it with impunity – if that image belongs to someone else, and you haven’t asked their permission to use it, and they haven’t stated that it’s there for the taking, then you are breaking the law by using it. In this respect, Boiron do have the right to request that their image be removed, as I suspect they were not asked for permission to use it, and were certainly unlikely to give permission given the context in which it would be placed.

The next major point is to do with the caption of the image – “the total nothing that according to Boiron is the cure for influenza… diluted 200C does not contain any molecule of active ingredient!” We know that one part of this sentence is fact – a 200C dilution can not include a single molecule of the active ingredient. This has been tested and proven repeatedly, and it is an established fact. In this respect, Boiron really have no complaint, though I would welcome the situation in which they were legally obliged to provide proof that this statement was untrue, should it arise. The first part of the sentence, though, is a bit more tricky. The author states that Boiron say Oscillococcinum is the cure for influenza, and if this were true, it would be both laughable and sad. A thorough scouring of their promotional media, however, has failed to turn up a single instance of Boiron stating that Oscillococcinum is a cure for influenza – the strongest claim they make is that is is used “to reduce the duration and severity of flu-like symptoms”. They don’t claim to cure the flu, and it’s quite likely that this is a conscious decision made as a result of legal advice given to them – quite simply, they’re not stupid, and they haven’t come to be the largest manufacturer of homoeopathic products in the world without learning a thing or two. Whether or not their employees believe in the efficacy of the product, their literature is carefully crafted to avoid the mention of an outright cure, and instead employs the same terminology as often found advertising other products with questionable scientific background (e.g. may help to improve x, etc.). By putting words in their mouth, Riva left himself open to criticism and sanctions – to say that they claim it’s a flu cure is, factually speaking, untrue.

The last point I’ve highlighted refers to another use of a product picture, and the caption accompanying it - Seriously damages the intelligence (of the person buying it). This is a comment which, I believe, falls into a bit of a gray area. While I make absolutely no pretence at being a lawyer, I’d imagine that Boiron will argue that this is a serious slight against their product and a claim about a side-effect which doesn’t exist. In this, and only this, respect, this is similar to BCA vs. Singh, because it can possibly be argued that this is use of opinion, etc. on the part of Riva. For a better discussion of where this particular argument may go, I suggest you look up the various rulings for the BCA/Singh case, as they explain it far better than I could.

Let me be absolutely clear – I don’t like what Boiron are doing, and I think it is a disproportionate response, but to cast them as the big bad wolf without any consideration for the blog itself is neither rational, nor critical, nor sensible. Libel laws are, in many countries, downright punishing, and sadly, open to abuse, but here’s the rub – if we want the law to change, to better protect bloggers and authors and anyone else who wishes to share an opinion, then we also have to play nice with the existing laws. Direct criticism of a company or their product is a difficult thing to do, and there is a fine, often poorly defined, line between valid criticism and outright libel. You can be critical of a company or product if you have evidence to back up that criticism, but you cannot invent evidence to support a criticism. You can share your opinion of a product or company, but you can’t put words in their mouth. In short, you can’t libel a company simply because you don’t believe in their product, and you can’t use their copyrighted imagery to help you libel them. I have sympathy for the position that Riva now finds himself in, but I also hope that others take this as a cautionary tale and learn from the mistakes that were made. Check your facts, and then check them again; don’t make claims that you do not have evidence to support, and above all, write responsibly.

Edit: This blog post also appears on The 21st Floor.

PZ Myers is a ranty, mentally disturbed individual. Too long we have sat on our hands and done nothing, while this mentally deranged menace continues to spam twitter and the internet by posting frequent opinions that I disagree with. It’s time to lock him up and throw away the key, before he has a little psychotic break, loses his disturbed mind, and hurts someone pure and good and innocent. Seems harsh? Well, I invite you to read PZ’s latest blog, and see if you can’t spot a few similarities.

PZ’s blog deals with a reasonably well known internet poster/spammer known as Mabus, or Dennis Markuze. There’s no need for me to explain who he is or identify him; a simple Google search will turn up plenty of results, and luckily for us, this is not PZ’s first post on Markuze, and he has no problem with identifying him. I’m not going to pretend that I agree with Markuze’s tactics, because they are, let’s face it, a little crude. Spamming blog posts and fora tends to paint one in an unfavourable light, and the content tends to be patchy at best. Additionally, I don’t agree with Markuze – I’m an atheist, and therefore we would, undeniably clash were we to meet in real life. PZ’s blog is not about Markuze’s spam, though, but about his mental health. In  this respect, I suppose that myself and Markuze do have one thing in common – we’re both crazy. Call the men in the white coats and get me a stylish new jacket – I’m crazy, and posting unsupervised on the internet. Surely those around me must fear for my safety and well-being, for left unchecked, I am certain to become a danger to others, and it is inevitable that I, too, will have a psychotic break and murder someone. Or, maybe not, since this is one of the oldest, most incorrect, and most unfair characterisations of mental illness out there.

It is always disappointing to see someone perpetuate silly and damaging myths about mental illness. It is even more disappointing when the person who is doing so is someone who should, allegedly, know better. Skeptics are supposed to be motivated by the evidence, making statements based in fact and truth. With this in mind, I’d like to share a few home truths about mental illness.
Statistically, people with a mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. As a group, mentally ill people are no more violent than average [1]. While there are people who will commit horrible crimes, and who may also suffer from mental illness, the vast majority of crimes in our society are not committed by those who are mentally ill. In fact, only a small percentage of violence in society is attributable to mental illness [2]. Substance abuse is more strongly associated with acts of criminal violence than mental illness [3], and though some studies have said that disorders such as schizophrenia are associated with violence, meta-analyses of these studies has shown that this violence is mediated by substance abuse (a condition that is often co-morbid with various mental illnesses). It’s easy to cite papers and create a paragraph full of link soup, but what does that all actually mean? Well, people who have mental illnesses do commit crimes, as do people without mental illnesses. People who abuse drugs or alcohol are more likely to commit violent crimes, and this is also true for mentally ill people who abuse these substances. While occasionally, crimes are committed by people who are mentally ill, those who are receiving community support and treatment are far less likely to commit crimes, and also less likely to turn to substance abuse as a way to cope with the symptoms of mental illness. This point, above all, is crucial, and it is why I take such exception to blogs like PZ’s.

People with mental illnesses, who are receiving treatment and community support, are no more likely to commit a crime than anyone else. This being the case, you would expect that anyone with a mental illness would be – excuse the pun – crazy to not seek help, and yet, it took me several years to do so myself; what these statistics don’t necessarily show is the profound effect of the stigma which still accompanies mental health issues, and how difficult this stigma makes it to seek treatment and to keep up with it. Though conditions such as bipolar disorder require a similar amount of treatment and lifestyle management as diabetes, and both conditions can evoke similar mental problems when uncontrolled, no one treats diabetes as if it’s your fault. No one encourages a diabetic to simply “snap out of” a hypoglycaemic slump (and the associated low mood). People understand when you decline certain dishes, or excuse yourself to take medication, or change your lifestyle, to manage diabetes. Do so to manage a mental condition, and you’re more likely to experience uncomfortable questions and a dearth of social support. For example, while dealing with the side effects of a crippling depressive phase, coupled with medication issues, I was bullied mercilessly by co-workers in my job, eventually resulting in my leaving the position. Had this occurred due to a physical condition, you can bet that the company would have been more cooperative in helping me to deal with the issues. In my case, however, I was simply rebuked for not being friendly, for being sleepy at my desk (a side effect of the  medication which I had, unbeknownst to them, already been attempting to resolve for months with my doctor), and told that, though I was a real shining star when I was hired, that my light had dimmed recently (seriously). All this, despite the fact that, the moment I was diagnosed and began treatment, I spoke to my manager and disclosed both my diagnosis, and my ongoing treatment (in addition to continuing to deliver; surely no one can wonder why people keep their mental illness a secret when this is what can be expected.

The treatments available for mental health issues have never been better. Newer drugs have fewer side effects, and newer forms of therapy are proving highly effective in helping people to manage their condition. In short, mental illnesses are more treatable than ever before, but people will continue to deceive themselves and others about their mental illness for as long as dangerous and damaging myths are perpetuated by prominent figures and believed wholeheartedly by the general public. Though we live in an ostensibly liberal and open society, having any sort of mental illness is still like having the black plague – no one wants you around, and everyone treats you as if you are a ticking time bomb, ready to explode, hurt them, and perhaps even infect them with crazy. Until these attitudes change, we will, sadly, continue to see people driven to the brink, and too scared to seek help. PZ, If you are going to talk about mental illness, please do some research, and make sure that you are not just spreading the same damaging and insulting lies that cause so many to hide their condition and, ultimately, to suffer alone. Otherwise, you only compound the problem, and are no better than the many charlatans that you debunk for making grand claims with no proof.

[1] New South Wales Mental Health Sentinel Review Committee. (2003). Tracking Tragedy: A systemic look at suicides and homicides amongst mental health inpatients. NSW: Centre for Mental Health, Department of Health.

[2]Walsh, E., Buchanan, A., & Fahy, T. (2002). Violence and schizophrenia: Examining the evidence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 490-495.

[3]Brennan, P. A., Mednick, S. A., & Hodgins, S. (2000). Major mental disorders and criminal violence in a Danish birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 494-500.

“The car’s on fire!”

“Which car?”

“Your car!”

It’s almost 4am, and this is how I have woken up. Without even thinking, I run downstairs and start to fill something, anything, with water. I sprint to the front door and throw it open, realising as the handle burns my fingers, and the heat singes my face, that the fireball I’m looking at is beyond this tiny bit of water I’ve brought. A moment later, it hits me. The smell is everywhere; burning plastic, petrol. The noise is deafening. There are loud bangs, little explosions, the repeated beeping of a car horn. I rush backwards and close the door, and then I’m suddenly upstairs again. As I’m standing, watching the fireball engulf our front garden, the window cracks with the heat, and I call the fire brigade again, crying, and begging for them to come before it’s too late. I can see neighbours and friends outside on the street calling the emergency services, and shouting at us to stay back from the windows. It’s almost 4am, and my dad’s car, parked just inches from our front door, has been set on fire.

Our home, and the car burning white hot. Though you can't see, I'm watching from the upstairs window.

A few months ago, I learned what it feels like to be afraid in your own home, to be afraid to close your eyes and go to sleep in case something happens, to jump at every noise. A few months ago, we were the victims of an arson attack which destroyed my dad’s car and damaged the front of our home. Every window in our house had to be replaced, as they cracked and buckled under the heat. The driveway was ruined, and needed to be dug up and resurfaced. The garden, my mum’s pride and joy, was singed and blackened, and the grass and flowers died. Our front door melted, and had we not opted for toughened glass in the porch, we suspect it would have collapsed entirely. Our beautiful wooden floor in our hallway was damaged and stained – water leaked in when the firemen sprayed the house, and soot and debris were walked into the grain when they came in afterwards. We are lucky – the noise of the tyres and other car parts exploding woke us up, and we are all safe. The damage to the house has now been repaired, the damage to our sense of self and safety has taken a little longer. When someone targets your home, it’s more than just physical damage that needs to be repaired. Your home is somewhere you should be able to feel safe, and when something like this happens, you don’t feel safe any more. Your home has been violated, and for those who’ve set the blaze, it’s just another night.

It is because of this recent experience that I feel so keenly for those in the UK who also don’t feel safe in their own homes, as people riot, damaging and destroying property with reckless abandon. The news has been dominated by stories of rioters damaging shops and homes, looting, and setting cars, buses, and premises ablaze without any regard for the people they might hurt. In some cases, rioters have shown what can only be described as callous disregard and contempt for those whom they’ve injured, terrorised, and stolen from.

Terrorised might seem like a strong word to use, but I believe that it accurately describes what is happening at the moment – innocent people are being terrorised by a few opportunists who have used the death of a young man as an excuse for violence and thuggery. People are afraid to leave their homes, afraid to be out on the streets, and afraid of what might happen. These riots are not political protests. They are not motivated by systematic oppression of the people of the UK. They are not comparable to events in Syria, or Egypt. They are far removed from the original, peaceful march intended to highlight a desire for an inquiry into the death of Mark Duggan.

By 6.30am, the burnt out husk of my dad’s car had been removed from our driveway, and we were left to sit with our own thoughts. At 9am, friends, family, and neighbours began to show up at our front door, brushes and hoses in hand, ready to help us clean up and make sense of what had happened. No one asked them to come, but they came, because an attack on one member of our community is an attack on all of us. We swept, hosed, and cleaned as best we could, some neighbours prepared lunch for us, and the shock of the night gradually settled. In the UK, communities are rallying around to show that they, too, will not be bullied. Heartening images show people willing to give up their time to clean up a mess that they had no part in creating, to restore their community, even though a few choose to destroy it. Though some media outlets chose to condemn modern technology, and the part it has played in the riots, people have shown the power of positive online campaigns, organising riot clean up groups, and encouraging people to aid those who are disabled, or may need extra help and support dealing with the riots or staying safe.

Efforts to identify those involved in the looting and destruction are ongoing, and I encourage you to do what you can to help (though I hasten to point out that vigilante justice is not the goal, and should absolutely not be encouraged). If you know someone who is involved in the looting, now is not the time to stay silent. Those involved should be identified, and reported to the police, because no one should be too scared to go to sleep tonight.