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.

Crossposted from The 21st Floor:

I don’t often watch adverts, but every now and again, I’ll see one that annoys me so much that I actively seek it out. The culprit this time: Dettol, and their two recent adverts for for Complete Clean, and their “No Touch” handwash system.

I’d like to first address Complete Clean, as, to be honest, it’s Complete Rubbish. It opens with a bold declaration – “Fact: some bacteria are almost indestructible. They can even survive in lava”. Well, this is undeniably true. A number of organisms have been discovered living (and thriving) in temperatures previously thought to be hostile to all life; they are known as hyperthermophiles. They were first discovered in hot springs in Yellowstone National Park (in 1969), and since then, have been found in (and on) several other environments, such as deep sea hydrothermal vents. Organisms in this class have been known to survive temperatures of up to 130 degrees Celsius, and some have even been able to reproduce in environments heated to 122 degrees Celcius (e.g. Methanopyrus kandleri). This statement is made over what appears to be a close-up of some bubbling lava, but what is then revealed to actually be a spill on a stove-top, and it’s at this point that Dettol begin to engage in something I like to call not-quite-false advertising -  ”Fact: some bacteria are almost indestructible. They can even survive in lava, so think how easily the bacteria in your kitchen could survive.” Holy nonsense! I’d better run out and buy some cleaning products right now to protect my loved ones and children! Or, maybe I could just turn off my stove, since hyperthermophiles thrive in hot environments, such as those of 60 degrees Celcius and above, so unless I’m running my stove constantly, and in the vicinity of a hot spring, I’m probably ok.

There are numerous laws in place to prevent companies from lying when advertising their products, so instead, several companies seem to be resorting to this not-quite-lying. Granted, it’s true that there are bacteria that can survive in lava. And it’s also true that bacteria can survive in my kitchen. To link the two facts, however, while not technically lying,  is about as close to lying as you can get. As I’m unlikely to start cooking with lava any time soon, the likelyhood of my kitchen becoming infested with hyperthermophiles is extremely low (M. kandleri can only survive in anaerobic conditions, for example!), and even if it were to become infested with them, there’s no proof that they are more harmful than any other organism which I might find in my kitchen. The fact that hyperthermophiles exist has no impact on the existence of common kitchen bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, and other such organisms, particularly since most of these organisms could not co-exist in the same environment (Salmonella being unable to survive after an hour at 55 degrees C, for example). In truth, linking the two makes as much sense as declaring that “Black bears enjoy eating honey; think of the damage bee stings could do to your children!” It’s not technically false advertising, but it is blatantly manipulative, and at its heart, dishonest.

I might be temped to call this campaign a fluke, or a one-off, if I hadn’t then seen the numerous advertisements for the new “no touch” hand washing system, which will enable your adorable little darlings to handle all sorts of scary things like frogs and normal household waste, and then wash their hands, all without having to touch a “germy soap pump”. Now, before I even begin to examine the science behind this silliness, I can’t help but point out the most obvious flaw in this advertisement – they are touching the germy soap pump immediately prior to washing their hands. It wouldn’t matter if the germy soap pump was liberally coated in raw chicken fillets and puppy excrement, because immediately after touching it, they will be removing any potential contamination by washing their hands. This, surely, is a sensible enough reason for most to leave this expensive and nonsensical product on the shelf. If not, we’ll examine some of the facts they present as part of the advertisement.

“Fact: Your soap pump can harbour hundreds of bacteria”. Well, once again, that’s undeniably true. A soap pump, like any surface, may harbour bacteria if the conditions are right. Those bacteria are most likely to be kitchen and bathroom bacteria (since these are the places where one is likely to place a soap pump), and as such, are likely to include our old reliable Salmonella and E. coli, as well as some new favourites such as Shigella and Cholera. Who would want to touch a soap pump laden with such disease causing bacteria? Well, someone about to wash their hands, since hand washing has been shown to effectively curb the spread of all of the above conditions by effectively removing the bacteria from the hands, and thus preventing transmission. A soap pump may harbour bacteria, but so may any number of surfaces in a typical house. Basic hygiene practices will effectively prevent infection by those bacteria, so long as, after you touch the “germy soap pump”, you use the soap you’ve pumped to wash your hands. At the end of the ad, we’re treated to a scene where a mother kisses a child’s (hopefully clean) hand – don’t they know how dangerous “germy mom mouth” is?!

Humans are, for the most part, pretty robust. We have reasonably effective immune systems which, over time, build up immunity to any number of common illnesses – this is why vaccinations are effective, and it is why we have been able to almost eradicate some diseases altogether; it is why being exposed to common bacteria in childhood is important. By the time we enter adulthood, we have immunity to most common bacteria, and knowledge of the hygiene practices that will keep us safe from the rest, but companies like Dettol are changing that. There is increasing evidence that children who are living in over-sterilised environments are missing the opportunity to develop these basic immunities through a lack of exposure to the bacteria in question, and this may be linked to a rise in a number of autoimmune diseases. Of course you should wash your hands after preparing raw chicken, but if your child is crawling on the floor, there’s probably no need to sterilise the entire surface for fear of lava bacteria. Go on, live dangerously – touch the germy soap pump.

Yesterday, I received a notification about a comment on a previous blog of mine. When I logged in to approve the comment, I noticed that the visits to my blog had spiked unexpectedly, and when I viewed the comment, and my site stats, I found out why. My blog was linked to by Jennifer Ouellette in a blog which was published on the Scientific American website. Understandably, I was curious as to what had brought my blog (relatively small as it is) to the attention of someone posting on SA, so I headed on over to see. Unfortunately, I wasn’t that thrilled with what I found. The blog was about the recent “elevatorgate” furore, and about sexism in science in general, and it seemed that my blog had been referenced in, what I believed to be, a rather unfavourable light.

After the link was brought to my attention, I posted about it on twitter, wondering whether Ouellette had actually read my blog (since she seemed, in my estimation, to be misrepresenting what I had said, and indeed, who I am). You can also see her (slightly confusing) reply in the tweet linked above. I attempted to continue the conversation, by explaining that I wasn’t offended, but didn’t agree with how she had referenced me (those tweets read from last to first, to get the sentences in correct order). I had hoped to engage in further discussion with her on the point, but that hope was quickly quashed by, arguably, one of the more dismissive responses I’ve received in recent times – “Interesting that in a 3000 word post with 25+ links, you’re making it all about you.” My final reply (again, read from bottom to top) attempted to call her on this behaviour, but she obviously considered the matter closed, as I’ve received no further reply.

Many of you may wonder why I’m even bothering to blog about what is, let’s face it, a relatively minor slight on twitter. Well, the truth is, I’m not really writing about that; I’m writing about the value of integrity and honesty, and the will to stand behind something that you have written, even if others do not agree. I’ve pictured the paragraph in question here. The truly astute among you will probably notice that, although I’ve obviously taken a screenshot of the paragraph in question, there doesn’t appear to be a link there. That’s because there isn’t … now. Some time after my twitter comments, the link to my blog was quietly removed without comment. I received no message to tell me it was done, and no comment appears on the article to indicate that it was further edited after being published. If it wasn’t for the fact that I have web data records to prove the visits coming from the blog, the link might never have existed. And, frankly, that’s more than a little pathetic.

People say that newspapers are dying, and that internet media (particularly blogs) are the way forward. With this in mind, a great many bloggers have been catapulted from relative obscurity to internet-fame as the modern journalists and commentators of our time. Being able to put together a blog, however, doesn’t necessarily mean that what you have to say is worth anything. What makes certain blogs stand out is the quality of the writing, and often, the willingness of the writer to stick with their beliefs and convictions, even if others disagree; it’s much harder to ignore disparaging comments than to accept praise. Standing behind your writing, possessing integrity, means that you don’t bend at the first inkling that someone might not agree with what you’ve said; it means that you write what you believe to be true, you check your facts, you check them again, and you maintain a standard that doesn’t bend whenever you’re too lazy to maintain it; no secret-editing, no phone hacking, no shady journalism.

There was a time when being a writer, or writing for a major newspaper, was a respected profession, and one I even thought about entering into myself. As we uncover more about the phone hacking, lazy journalism, and illegal dealings of News International (who are, sadly, not alone in engaging in these activities), it’s more important than ever that those of us who write hold ourselves above this. When I write here, I write what I genuinely believe in. I source and check my facts, and if it’s not certain, or not legal, it’s not in my post. I don’t change my posts after I’ve written them to better suit my mood, or to avoid something that I don’t want to deal with. I stand by what I write, even if others don’t like it. If a small-time blogger like me can manage, surely someone like Jennifer Ouellette can at least try?

Unless you’ve been in space, or travelling without net access, you’re likely to have come across just some of the fallout from “Elevatorgate”. If you haven’t, here it is in a nutshell, with copious links. Skepchick Rebecca Watson was approached by a guy in Dublin following an atheist conference, and later spoke about it in a video, saying that he shouldn’t have done that. And then the world exploded. Blogs appeared everywhere, either to defending or persecuting, and on Twitter, occasionally things got downright ugly. And then Richard Dawkins commented on one of these blogs, and things got a little more crazy again, culminating in a final post which, confusingly, aims to outline athiest pick-ups to prevent further snafus.

If you’ve opened every link up there, I commend you for your commitment to information, and indeed, for your patience. There’s a lot to read there, and in my opinion, an awful lot of it is pretty tough to swallow. Unfortunately, an imaginary dichotomy appears to have sprung up, and throughout the land, people are being broadly classified as either “feminist, and therefore supportive and helpful and likely, a male apologist” or “anti-skepchick and therefore pro-rape, sleazy, and generally a bad person”. This is primarily what I would like to challenge, and hopefully, lay to rest for at least some of my readers.

I don’t often focus on myself in these blogs, but in this instance, I think that a little context would be valuable. I work as a programmer, having received a degree in Computer Science and Biology, and in my spare time, I train in a number of styles of martial arts. I also like to game (tabletop RPGs and video gaming). It shouldn’t be a surprise, then, that I often come across stereotypes relating to women – after all, I received my degree in a class composed almost entirely of men, I work in a male dominated field, and the martial arts that I do tend not to attract many female participants. In short, I’m a woman in a man’s world. With all of the above in mind, it may surprise some of you to learn that I don’t consider myself a feminist. In fact, I often find myself possessing very little patience for the feminists of today.

I’m a “modern woman” who just doesn’t agree with modern feminism, and it’s a terribly awkward position to be in. I know that, as a woman, I’m still more likely to be paid less for the same work, and less likely to be promoted to senior management positions. I know that, as a female martial artist, I’m more likely to be regarded as someone who received their grade simply because they’re a girl. And while I don’t think that this is right, or ideal, I also don’t think that we’re going the right way about changing that.

Feminism isn’t supposed to be about the superiority of the “fairer” sex, it’s supposed to be about equality between both sexes, and with that, there has to follow a little give-and-take. There are so many places where, even in this day and age, it is a struggle to be a woman; woman are routinely abused, denied rights, and subjected to treatment that is not handed out fairly or evenly. This, I can’t condone, and I don’t believe that anyone should. There are plenty of “first world problems” too, such as pay and promotion disparities, and these too, should not be allowed. I just don’t believe that a man asking to spend time with a woman, and then saying “ok” when she refuses, is in the same league as the systematic abuse perpetrated in many countries on a daily basis. Perhaps it might make you feel uncomfortable if you’re not attracted to the person, but that’s not a feminist issue, it’s a personal one.

You can’t simultaneously demand equality, and then also demand different treatment because you are a woman. Equality should mean equality on all fronts, which should mean that men and women are free to express their desires, and men and women are free to say yes or no. And as long as no crime occurs (i.e. sexual assault after a clear refusal), then that really should be the end of it.

I have believed for some time that modern feminism isn’t fighting for the things I believe in. Instead, it’s fighting for something beyond equality, where women are untouchable, and every conflict is a sexist issue. It is such a hot topic that any man saying disagreeing with the majority feminist viewpoint risks being publicly named and shamed in the manner of a sex offender. Much of this behaviour happened on twitter in the last week or two, and frankly, it’s ridiculous. The fact that I’m a women doesn’t change the way I deal with the various issues I blog about, or my beliefs. I’m female, but I won’t treat being female like it’s something that should give me carte blanche, or something that should change the way I live my life.

I am lucky enough to live in a corner of the world where, for the most part, being a woman isn’t a big deal. I won’t look for sexist issues where they don’t exist, and I won’t add gravitas to otherwise unimportant happenings by tacking the word “feminism” onto them; especially when so many women do not enjoy the many freedoms that I take for granted. I’m not a feminist. I’m just a programmer, a martial artist, a blogger, a scientist, and a skeptic. I also happen to be female.

…and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32)

Parents, teachers, and religious folk may not always agree on all aspects of child-rearing, but it’s likely that they’ll all agree that “tell the truth” is an important rule. Perhaps that’s why it’s so disappointing when the grown-ups, the role models, and the moral compasses of this world choose to lie to impressionable children to further their own beliefs, or to gain.

Recently, a friend of mine tweeted a link to an article in the Irish Times about the Knock Summer Festival, a Catholic Youth Festival with prayer, reflection, talks, song, and a whole host of wholesome and religious activities. The article itself is not particularly noteworthy, featuring benign quotes from various organisers interspersed with local history facts and comments on some of the activities that took place. What struck me, however, were the comments made by one teenage attendee regarding a talk given by one Patrick Reynolds, entitled Love and Relationships, quoted below for clarity:

They have just been at the workshop on relationships given by a lay Christian, Pat Reynolds. Reynolds is Glaswegian, funny, engaging and deeply sceptical about the reliability of both the condom and the contraceptive pill, issuing several statistics on safety and health risks along with the story of his life as a single lad prior to meeting his wife in Knock five years ago. His talk is deeply personal: “We have three beautiful children with us and one in heaven.” And while nothing is hammered home, his talk subtly nudges listeners towards thinking about attitudes towards contraception and sex.

“The relationship yoke, my friends would have enjoyed that,” Tania says. “I am 16 now and I was thinking of going on the pill and wouldn’t touch it after that. No point in getting the pill if it is going to kill you.”

I have searched long and wide, but have not been able to find a video or transcript of this talk (although I did find Patrick on facebook and intend to ask him about the talk), but based on his position as a contraception skeptic, and the comments about it, it seems that the talk highly discouraged the use of contraception. More than this, the talk seems to have highlighted, and over-emphasised, the risks associated with the pill, such that teenagers attending the talk left with the impression that it was somehow lethal.  I wish this were an isolated case, but even a cursory internet search will find numerous websites and Christian and Catholic groups preaching about contraception, and in many cases, the information given is more than a little biased.

Websites such as The Pill Kills are not uncommon, and seem to primarily engage in the same tactics used by many woo-peddling charlatans previously featured on this blog – focus only on the statistics which support what you want to say, and ignore those which do not. Proponents of NFP (Natural Family Planning) quote figures of 99.5% success in preventing unwanted pregnancy, which they say is much more effective than the pill. Only sometimes is this declaration accompanied by the “when used correctly” caveat, and almost never is it displayed alongside the actual success rates (i.e. those based on typical, rather than perfect, use). In that instance, we can turn to a more neutral party to discover that NFP has success rates of just 73-75% – a stark contrast from the 99% ideal and 92% actual effectiveness of the Pill. Studies have found that NFP methods are only effective with continuous intensive coaching and monthly review – a tall order when compared to taking a daily tablet, or a monthly injection.

When not focusing on the relative success and failure rates of the different contraceptive methods versus NFP, these groups highlight the medical risks associated with taking the pill. In this respect, they are technically correct (the pill does have some potential side effects) but morally questionable. Every medication has side effects, and in order to market medications, the list of side effects must accompany the medication. However, when these lists are displayed, they are categorised by relative risk (e.g. common side effects to extremely rare side effects), and most often with the percentage risk too. This is to enable a patient to make an informed choice about the medication, and displaying these risks without the full information is purposely sensational, and more than a little underhanded.

As we are discussing side effects, I would also like to briefly discuss the side effects of another related condition:

• Anemia
• Lumbar pain
• Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
• Constipation
• Edema
• Vomiting
• Heartburn
• Nausea
• GERD (Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease)
• Haemorrhoids
• Pelvic Girdle Pain
• Depression
• Psychosis
• Round Ligament Pain
• Urinary incontinence
• Urinary Tract Infection
• Varicose Veins
• PUPPP
• Diabetes
• Death
• and many more…

What else could these young innocent children have to face with so many risks? Pregnancy. In addition to the above risks which are associated with every pregnancy (including pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and a number of conditions affecting the foetus, to name a few conditions not listed above), a number of specific concerns relate to teenage pregnancy. Incidences of low birth weight and premature birth are higher in younger mothers, and they are less likely to seek and receive prenatal care, putting them at higher risk for a number of life-threatening pregnancy-related conditions. Risk of death as a result of pregnancy is twice as great for mothers between 15-19 than for those who are 20-24, and it can be up to 5 times higher for girls who are between 10 and 14. Obstructed labour, often caused by an underdeveloped pelvis, is extremely common, leading to Caesarean section (which itself carries all the risks of major surgery), and the risk of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia is higher in young women who are pregnant.

Of course, it would be remiss of me to present only one side of the coin – the risks of pregnancy, for many, do not outshine the potential gains, and for most pregnancies, there will be few, or no, problems. Presenting biased information that shows only one side, however, is exactly what these organisations and people are engaging in, and it’s deceitful and wrong. If you want children to understand your belief that contraception shouldn’t be used, or is a sin, do so by explaining it properly, rather than lying to them, exaggerating the risks, and discouraging them from seeking contraception at all.

If you look hard enough, it’s easy to find enough information to support almost any argument, but I have yet to find compelling information that would make me support outright deceit on the part of those supposed to nurture and teach impressionable young minds. The pill probably won’t kill you; ignorance, on the other hand, just might.

Dear Deborah Orr,

When you next choose to write a small piece for the Guardian’s Science section, please do try to include some actual science. It’s considered good practice by scientists to label correctly what you do, and by no stretch of the imagination could said piece be considered science.

I consider myself to be a good scientist – I try to be thorough in my research, I do my best to be balanced, and I always explain my work. That’s why, rather than simply complaining that your piece is shallow, inaccurate, misleading, and, lets face it, a bit rubbish, I’m also going to explain why.

Thrilling news from Geneva. Scientists at Cern have captured some of those elusive antimatter atoms. We’re a tiny step closer to corralling the God particle. If, of course, its predicted existence is correct. I love that nomenclature, “the God particle”. It is a sign that scientists sometimes are unabashed about acknowledging what atheists are often reluctant to grasp: that “believing” in science involves faith too.

Faith in science is far more practical than faith in the idea that a big, omnipotent boy did it and ran off. Or I place my faith in that argument anyway. But it’s still faith, not fact, so sneering at faith per se is not a very reasoned or logical mode of argument.

Source: The Guardian, 9/6/11

1. The God Particle – I’m glad that you enjoy the nomenclature, since an awful lot of real science nomenclature is rather stuffy, being based mostly Latin and/or Greek. I expect that someone else who’ll be glad is Leon Lederman, the author of the book “The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question”. It is, of course, this book which has led to the media dubbing the Higgs boson particle the God Particle. In fact, take a brief look at the term (and in this instance, you need not look any further than another article from the Guardian) and you’ll find that, for the most part, scientists don’t use the term God Particle. They don’t like it, and tend to think that it portrays scientists as arrogant, and overstates the importance of the particle, which, funnily enough, is rather similar to what you’ve done in your piece. In short, it is people like you, with an extremely poor understanding of science, and 5 minutes to search the net, that keep propagating this term by using it, even though science never has.
2. Faith – OED defines faith as:  Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine) and contrary to your apparent belief, there is no stipulation that faith is something which must be blind. While faith is most often used to describe the fact of belief in a religious context, that’s far from the only meaning of the word. Faith and belief are not dirty words simply because they are also used in a religious context. They both simply mean that you accept that something is correct, true, or trustworthy on the basis of the evidence that you have. Blind faith is just a little bit different, since that is accepting that something is correct, true, or trustworthy in the absence of evidence, or indeed, in spite of evidence which is proof of the lie.
3. Faith in Science – Faith in science does tend to be a good deal more practical than faith in many other things. For example, I have faith that, should I jump off a bridge, gravity will ensure my speedy reunion with the ground. I have faith that if I combine hydrogen with oxygen, I will have water. Why? Because these things have been proven, demonstrably, to be true. Theories in science are rarely just flights of fancy – they are usually based on existing principles which have been proven to be correct. Additionally, a key difference between “science” and “blind faith” is that, while “blind faith” refuses to change, “science” redevelops its theories when new, more accurate evidence comes to light, even if that means contradicting something which was earlier thought to be true. For example, should there prove to be no higgs boson particle, scientists will not continue irrationally believing in it, but will instead accept that the hypothesis has been dis-proven, and move on.
4. Logical mode of argument – As we’re conversing about modes of arguing, I suppose that I should bring up a construct known as a straw man. This is when someone sets up a falsely weak argument (e.g. linking science and God in a title by way of a particle named by the media and not scientists) and then proceeds to knock it over. While you may appear to have scored a point, you haven’t really tackled the core issue at all, merely the straw man which stands alongside it (and is loosely related to the argument, but is not the same). It’s considered a pretty poor technique, and is often used by people who don’t have a full understanding of the issues, but who just want to appear right.

Science is a popular target indeed. You can’t comment on people’s religious beliefs without being labelled a bigot, but mock someone for being a scientist, and you’re likely to wind up published in the Guardian. Science is based on fact. When scientists are trying to prove that something exists, that is not based on “blind faith”; it is based on evidence from previous experiments, established scientific principles, and facts which have been proven correct to the best of our ability.

It’s much easier to sneer at science than it is to sneer at faith, but perhaps you should consider the fallacy in your argument (one I expect was unintentional); if science truly is a faith, then aren’t you just as bad as the rest of us scientists?

With warmest regards,

Jen

How much would you pay for hope? £75,000? How about $140,000? Given a life-threatening illness, or a chance to completely change your circumstances, I’d guess that most people would say that hope is priceless, and that they would pay anything, and indeed, everything, for that chance at hope. The fact that hope is priceless often comes up when discussing medical treatments, particularly those for terminally ill people.

Skeptics are often decried as horrible people who aim to steal hope from people when they debunk various quack treatments, dangerous cults,  or weird beliefs; in many cases, these quack treatments have successfully preyed on very vulnerable people who are trying to fight something that we probably all fear – an early, or untimely, death. And who are we, the nameless, soulless skeptic, to come and tear this last hope from the hands of the dying?

Well, in answer, I’d first like to turn my initial question around – we all probably have a good idea of exactly how much we’d pay for that last dash of hope, but how much do you suppose you’d charge for it? An assertion oft put forward by proponents of alternative medicine, for example, is that there are cheap and effective treatments available for many life-threatening conditions, such as cancer and AIDS, but that because the molecule can’t be patented, “big pharma” can’t make a profit, and therefore isn’t interested. It is lucky for us, therefore, that these renegade magicians are available to offer this cure, at this extremely cheap price, to everyone, profit-free. Oh, wait. That’s not quite right. Actually, each “cheap and effective” cure that “big pharma” ignores because it can’t turn a profit is usually bundled up with some appropriate pseudo-science sounding nonsense, perhaps tacked to someone with a dubious qualification, and usually offered to the public at the phenomenal price of approximately $your life savings$…

One such treatment recently brought to light is provided by the infamous Stanislaw R. Burzynski. While his name is often followed by a string of letters indicating credentials, I won’t include them here. Their legitimacy is questionable at best:

Burzynski’s claim to a Ph.D. is questionable. When I investigated, I found:

• An official from the Ministry of Health in Warsaw informed me that when Burzynski was in school, medical schools did not give a Ph.D. [1].
• Faculty members from at the Medical Academy at Lubin informed me that Burzynski received his D.Msc. in 1968 after completing a one-year laboratory project and passing an exam [2] and that he had done no independent research while in medical school [3].
• In 1973, when Burzinski applied for a federal grant to study “antineoplaston peptides from urine,” he identified himself as “Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D, D.Msc.” [4]

Quackwatch, Nov 2006

This treatment, involving an unproven substance derived from human urine, will allegedly cure numerous forms of cancer with virtually no side-effects, and far fewer damaging effects than the standard treatments of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. It’s a treatment that one British woman, Laura Hymas, is saving hard for, because both she and her family are banking on it giving her back her life.

It is at this point that skeptics tread a very narrow line, and agonise over writing posts like this. Do you tell this young, photogenic woman with her adoring husband, and their adorable son, that their last hope is hopeless? Or do you let them scrimp and save for the treatment, knowing with a good degree of certainty that it’s likely to result in her spending her last days away from her husband and son, squandering both time and money on a treatment that will do nothing good, and may even worsen her condition.

Many people adopt a hard line, saying that if people are gullible enough to be sucked in, then, as the saying goes, fools and their money are soon parted. That’s a bit too hard for me; when you are desperate, the blinkers must surely be hard to shake off, and the drive to see only the information which gives you hope must be immense. And often, these charlatans are convincing. Burzynski’s website is not a laughable hack-job – it’s full of official looking documentation, attractive patient before and after photos and stories, and pages full of pseudo-medical jargon that could easily mislead anyone who is not looking to disprove the treatment (and, after all, if it’s your last hope, are you looking to disprove it?)

Whenever skeptics debunk pseudo-science, nonsense treatments, or other questionable beliefs, there is always someone who will say “what’s the harm” or “why does it matter if someone believes that <insert treatment here> will cure them”. It’s true that, in a lot of cases, there’s little harm; your headache will go away whether you do nothing, take aspirin, or take homoeopathic belladonna, and the only difference is likely to be the time it takes to go away. But what of those who don’t just spend a few euro on sugar pills to rid themselves of a headache? What becomes of those people who spend their last months receiving IV urine derivatives, or forcing down juices while receiving coffee enemas, all while their life savings dwindle away? They die, and often, their families are left in severe debt, paying for the treatment that “big pharma” doesn’t want you to know about.

Earlier, I asked how much you would pay for hope. £75,000? $140,000? £75,000 is the cost of one 12-month cycle of Burzynski’s “life-saving” treatment, not including transport and accommodation costs, etc. This is the amount that will not be covered by the NHS or by health insurance, because the treatment is not sanctioned, and is, to date, completely unproven.

$140,000? This is the amount of money recently paid by one Robert Fitzpatrick to spread the message that the Rapture was coming on May 21st. He is a retired American man, and it represents his life savings. On May 21st, he stood in Times Square, clutching a bible and handing out leaflets explaining what would happen, and when nothing did, he was left dumbfounded, saying “I did what I had to do. I did what the Bible said. I don’t understand why nothing has happened.” Unfortunately for Mr. Fitzpatrick, life goes on, and he’s now broke, and likely, a broken man. The Rapture was a joke to many, but some people invested heart and soul, and significant finance, in it, and now, they have been left with nothing.

Pedalling false hope is a charlatans game, practised by the lowest of the low. They prey on people who have found themselves in desperate situations, and who have found themselves low on hope. They take advantage of vulnerable people, and leave them financially destitute, and once again, hopeless. Sometimes, the nonsense they sell (whether it is a physical product, or the promise of the metaphysical divine) is so laughable that it’s easy to forget that it’s not a victimless crime.

I can only suggest that anyone who truly wishes to help cure the diseases which rob us of friends, relatives, and loved ones, should donate to a respected and established charity or trust, or even donate time to help care for those who are dealing with these illnesses. Medical science is making huge advances, and diseases once thought deadly are now treatable, and in some cases, curable. As for the rest, we’ll get there. I hope that Burzynski doesn’t get a cent of that money, and that instead, the Hymas family can use the money to ensure that the time Laura has left is as amazing as it can be. I hope that she is the outlier, and that she does recover with conventional treatment. I hope that Robert Fitzpatrick manages to find some solid ground to stand on, and that he is not now rendered so hopeless as to consider his life meaningless. Mostly, though, I hope that people who pedal false hope are found out and stopped.

While writing this post, I was reminded of a poem by Emily Dickinson, which I studied in school. It is called “Hope is the thing with feathers”, and for me, it has always spoken right to the heart of hope itself – it never stops, it is not abashed, and it asks for nothing.

Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune–without the words,
And never stops at all,

And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.

I’ve heard it in the chillest land,
And on the strangest sea;
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me

Update (28/11/11): You may be interested in another, more recent, post about Burzynski.

Not so long ago, there was a time when medical experts thought that they were close to eliminating measles permanently. Now, the World Health Organisation has had to push that target date back to 2015, at the earliest. Many people, particularly those of a more skeptical nature, will attribute this to the infamous Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who was responsible for the publishing of a paper which irresponsibly linked the MMR vaccine to Autism (a link which has been subsequently disproved, and a paper which has been so thoroughly debunked that Wakefield has been struck off the medical register in the UK). However, Andrew Wakefield is not the only person responsible for the spread of these baseless lies. He may have originally authored and published the paper, but what of those who are responsible for ensuring that its contents spread far and wide?

Well, now they’re publishing articles warning us of the dangers of measles, a disease that was once close to complete eradication, and reminding us, in the smallest of bullet points, that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and Autism. One such article, published just the other day, is by the BBC – Measles outbreak warning as cases rise in Europe and UK. In this article, we’re told about the epidemic of measles in France, and warned that, particularly for families travelling with young children, the risk is high. They also helpfully remind us that the only way to definitely prevent measles is to receive the vaccine. The fact that there is no link to Autism is mentioned as a small bullet point under a column entitled “Measles Facts”. The presence of such a bullet point is extremely annoying, for two main reasons; firstly, the continued linking of the terms measles, MMR, and Autism only serves to reinforce the notion that there ever was a legitimate link between those terms, and secondly, and most importnatly, the only reason that such a bullet point is needed is because of the irresponsible and lazy reporting by organisations such as the BBC in the first place.

You need only look in the archives of the BBC to find numerous articles about the MMR vaccine and its purported link with Autism. In 2004, they invited readers to comment on the idea that the vaccine had been declared “safe”, and while they make sure to tell us that the comments shown reflect the balance of opinion they have received, the inclusion of the word safe in inverted commas belies their alleged balanced view. Indeed, the BBC, like most other news sources at the time, reported extensively on the “discovery” that the vaccine was linked to Autism, and was neither cautious nor balanced in the headlines they published – “Child Vaccine Linked To Autism”.

The finger has been pointed at Wakefield, but the journalists, news channels, newspapers, and other pundits shouldn’t also escape blame. The media furore was what caused the spread of the story, about a paper which otherwise would likely not have been read by many, and this furore was caused by the media themselves. It is very easy for the BBC to report on the GMCs rulings about Wakefield, and to casually remind us all that the link has not been proved, but while the Lancet has issued a retraction, and admitted that the paper should never have been published, no news organisation has apologised for the part that they played in it, or issued a retraction for the irresponsible scaremongering that they engaged in. Every time an article like this is published, we are reminded of two things; one, irresponsible research and publication is damaging, and two, when it comes to reporting, there is simply no accounting for accountability.