And another thing…

Pets can be wonderful companions, and the (often unconditional) love they provide can really lift your spirits when things are dark and difficult. Most people want to repay that joy by giving their pets the best training, toys, and food that they can, and for food in particular, the average pet owner is spoiled for choice. A popular pet food in the UK and Ireland is Burns, and make no mistake, it is legitimately popular, because it is a good and well-liked food. The person responsible for Burns Pet Food is John Burns BVMS Lic. Ac. MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon, and in addition to offering a range of foods, he and his team also offer nutritional and health care advice for your pets, and this is where I must sadly become less complimentary.

Burns Pet Food advertises itself as a holistic pet food, and offers advice on its website about holistic health care for your pets. The principles upon which this health advice is based are:

• Good health is the normal state.
• The body will tend towards a state of good health.
• Healing will take place if it is possible.
• Acute illness is a sign that the body is trying to heal itself.
• Chronic illness is the result of failure or suppression of the healing process.

These principles raise alarm bells immediately for their similarity to a number of alternative medicine principles – namely the “healing crisis” myth (common in many CAM therapies, but homoeopathy and chiropractic in particular), and the idea of “optimum health” (common in many CAM therapies). A brief look into Burns’ “Guide to Natural Health Care (PDF)” provides a history of his education, and it becomes clear where these ideas have sprung from:

[...] A few years later, having read some impressive reports about acupuncture I decided to become an acupuncturist. The two-year course on Traditional Oriental Medicine attempted to unite ancient principles of health to our Western way of life. During this time I came to realise that acupuncture suffered from the same important shortcoming as modern medicine – the illness itself was being treated but the treatment did not address the cause of the problem.

At the same time I became a Student of the Macrobiotic movement which was in great vogue in Britain in the seventies but which has now virtually disappeared from view (in the UK at least). Macrobiotics attempted to apply and adapt ancient, traditional philosophy in a way which was practical and appropriate to our modern lifestyle.

At first, the advice given in the guide – based mostly around the idea that a balanced diet is best – seems sound. It isn’t long, however, before we tread into the nebulous region of “toxins”, and their effect on the body. Though the guide does not detail the toxins in question, it assures us that a build-up of these toxins (often a result of poor diet) can cause all sorts of illnesses, from hepatitis to heart disease. I asked Burns what these toxins were, and received some notes on the production of toxins, and a brief definition:

“Toxins” are
1.) The waste products of normal metabolism but which are produced to excess, in the form of mucopolysaccharides, cholesterol and fatty acids., urea.

2.) Pollutant chemicals which are absorbed from the gut, lungs, even through the skin.

3.) Bacterial endotoxins

4.) Ammonia from bacteria and protein metabolism

5.) Products of cell damage (inflammation, infection, free radical production)

6.) The products of fat oxidation i.e. rancid dietary fat but also oxidation of body fat.

These are the sorts of toxins that are regularly mentioned when discussing detoxification and the associated idea of optimum wellness, and they certainly sound legitimate, but even a cursory examination of the claims is enough to begin to debunk them.

Cholesterol, urea, and other chemicals/compounds/particles/etc can build up in the body and cause problems, but this is often something associated with other, more severe medical problems, rather than the cause of them. High levels of urea in the blood can cause a number of problems, such as vomiting, weight loss, etc., but high levels of urea are most often a result of kidney failure – something which is not caused by dietary (or process waste) toxins. Pollutant chemicals have a hard time affecting our bodies, because they must first pass through a number of barriers. The skin is our first line of defence against disease and “pollutant chemicals”, providing an excellent barrier which keeps out a tremendous number of substances. It keeps out any and all particles that are larger than ~40nm in diameter (pretty small!). Indeed, the development of transdermal patch medications has been limited as a direct result of the fact that many molecules (medicinal or otherwise) are simply too large to pass through the skin (and even if they do, they are diffused within the first few layers, before the molecule reaches the bloodstream). The gut is regularly assailed with foreign material, pollutant chemicals, and indeed, food, but before anything reaches the intestines (and absorption), it passes through the stomach. The low pH of the hydrochloric acid effectively kills many common bacteria, and anyone who has ever had the unpleasant experience of having food poisoning can attest to the body’s ability to expel matter that it believes damaging. These systems are not infallible, but nor are they the paper-thin,  sieve-like defences that many alternative medicine practitioners would have you believe. Dietary and stored body fat can be harmful to health, if there is a large amount of it, but it’s not “toxic”. Nor are the products of fatty acid oxidation, which is part of the process of using stored fatty acids for energy. As for the products of cell damage, protein metabolism, and other body functions, any waste material is processed by the body itself.

Just about the only really scary toxin on that list are the bacterial endotoxins – even very small amounts of them can cause severe illness in humans, and the majority of septic shock cases are caused by endotoxins. They are genuinely toxic, but so much so that no adjustment in diet will prevent them from affecting you (or your pet) . I strongly suspect that this particular entry made the list simply to add gravitas to the rest of the entries, because a pet food, no matter how good, will not prevent septic shock, and septic shock does not cause many of the “signs of elimination” discussed later in the guide (and this blog). The “toxins” listed above (even the bacterial endotoxins) do not build up in our body as a result of poor diet, and nor can they be controlled by diet. They are the waste products of normal bodily functions, or things that we encounter daily in our diet, but because of the functions of our liver, kidneys, digestive tract, skin, and other organs, we simply don’t experience toxin build-up unless there is some sort of more serious problem (e.g. kidney or liver failure, genetic disorders, etc.), and if a more serious problem exists, it’s unlikely that dietary change alone will fix it.

The guide, goes on to talk about the development of disease, stating that “as the build-up of toxins continues, the major organ systems will start to show signs of degeneration and failure. [...] One may encounter: Heart Disease, Kidney Disease, Diabetes, Tumour formation”. This is a perfect example of putting the cart before the horse – toxin build-up doesn’t cause kidney disease, kidney disease results in build-up of chemicals such as urea. We’re also told that arthritis and rheumatism are caused by muscle tension which is due to:

(1) the accumulation of waste metabolic products in the muscles.
(2) weakness of a major internal organ system. This is a viewpoint which will be familiar to students of acupuncture, but suffice to say that certain muscles relate to specific organs e.g. a weakness in stomach function affects the muscles on the front of the (hind) leg or the lumbar muscles at the level of the stomach.

This, as you might expect, is in sharp contrast to the stated causes of arthritis, as you might find them in a biology or medical textbook – damage to the joint from disease, wear and tear, or in the case of rheumatoid arthritis, inflammation in the joints causing swelling and destruction of cartilage. There is a disorder which does cause joint pain as a result of things building up in the joints, but that’s not arthritis, it’s haemochromatosis.

Throughout the guide, there are plenty of mentions of toxins, and their underlying role in all aspects of animal health. It seems that most conditions are merely “signs of elimination” – the body getting rid of all of these toxins (for example, the warmer weather draws toxins to the surface of the body, which is what causes dogs and cats to moult – a sign of elimination. This is how they expel toxic waste matter.). Ultimately, the main message seems to be that good food will solve a number of behavioural and health problems, and I’m certainly not averse to anyone feeding their pet good food, but I draw the line at questionable medical advice. Moulting (and it’s causes) might not be the most life-threatening  or dangerous condition, but it’s not long before the guide reaches more serious conditions. Approximately half-way through the guide, I came across the following paragraphs, which so shocked me that I was rendered speechless:

Holistic Medicine views epileptic fits as a process by which excess energy is discharged. Generally, excess energy is discharged by increased mental and physical activity – hyperactivity or excessively boisterous behaviour. [...]

Holistic treatment of epilepsy is by feeding a diet which is hypo-allergenic, chemical-free, low in protein and fat, and high in complex carbohydrate (brown rice is best for this). It is essential that the quantity of food meets but does not exceed the dog’s energy requirement.

Epilepsy is because you feed your dog too much, and it has excess energy to get rid of.

I can’t think of a more irresponsible thing to say to a pet owner, or a more irresponsible behaviour to encourage. A dog developes epilepsy, the owner thinks the food is exceeding the dog’s requirements and feeds less, the dog continues to have periodic fits, the owner continues to reduce the food given to the dog. I enquired as to whether there was a study I could read which might support this connection between overfeeding and epilepsy, and received the following from John Burns (via another staff member):

There is no source for this; it is my simply me musing on the nature of holistic health based partly on my understanding of traditional medicine, especially Macrobiotics.

I thought that the comments on epilepsy were quite irresponsible, but a few pages on, and I’ve found something equally questionable:

Many pet owners who are interested in holistic medicine or who are concerned about using drugs and chemicals on their pets are reluctant to have their pets vaccinated. In theory if a pet has the correct diet and lifestyle it will be naturally resistant to disease and therefore need not be vaccinated.

However, theories do not always work in practice. My policy is that a puppy/kitten should be vaccinated by conventional methods in the usual way. Distemper, parvovirus and leptospirosis are too dangerous to be treated lightly and I do not have sufficient confidence in Homeopathic vaccination.

You don’t have sufficient confidence in Homeopathic vaccination? Why would anyone have any confidence in homeopathic vaccination, let alone someone who is medically trained?

The guide finishes with an overview of a holistic lifestyle, which includes many more typical alternative medicine ideas and phrases, including lots of mentions of “Western Medicine”, and the suggestion that our society is “fragmented and ill-at-ease”, because we have “replaced the problem of infectious disease with that of degenerative disease”. We are also treated to an overview of Macrobiotics and the Seven Levels of Judgement that it is concerned with. Both sections are too long to include here, so I suggest that you consult the guide to read them.

When it comes right down to it, pets are an easy target for alternative medicine. Adults who choose alternative medicine for themselves may have been taken in by the advertising and false mysticism associated with it, but they have made that choice for themselves. Adults who choose alternative medicine on behalf of those less able to decide (young children, pets, etc.) muddy the waters, as the recipient of the treatment must naturally assume that their primary care-givers mean only the best, and that the treatment will work as promised. In this scenario, pets bring an additional complication – they can’t tell you that it isn’t working, that they are sick or in pain, or that they would rather you medicated their epilepsy than starved them for it.

Update:

Since posting my blog, Burns have responded by pointing out that I’m obviously skeptical of alternative medicine. They also have let us know that they can’t share their miraculous healing stories with us for “legal reasons”…

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.

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.

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.

My love-affair with the Baroness Greenfield started and ended when a colleague, on hearing about some of my interests (in this case, neuroscience, and science fiction), presented me with a copy of Tomorrow’s People: How 21st Century Technology is Changing the Way We Think and Feel, assuring me that it was fantastic, and that I would absolutely love it. The blurb certainly made it sound exciting – a critical look at how existing technology and future technology may shape the way we think sounded pretty interesting, and like something I would enjoy reading. Sadly, any sense of enjoyment that I felt had largely seeped out of me by the time I reached the end of the first chapter. I slogged on through the book, determined to finish (and to see if it improved), but barely struggled to the end. The book itself is not one that I can recommend. Far from being the eye-opening, explosive treatment that the cover promised, I found it to be a sub-par, overly-general, ham-fisted description that barely nicked the surface of future technology, that seemed hesitant to actually discuss effects on the brain, and that seemed more like a school report written by a teenager who had just read their first sci-fi book, and was completely new to many of the concepts. In short, it was patronising, uninformed, and rather dull.

Well, writing a bad book isn’t a crime – there are plenty of stinkers out there – and nor is it reason enough to hate someone. What makes me bristle whenever I hear the name Greenfield in a news report or an article is the unsupported, scare-tactic declarations that will inevitably follow, all stated by someone who is a qualified scientist and who, at least allegedly, wishes to promote science to the world. At first, I put it down to a strong difference of opinion. As a child/young adult of the 21st century, I have wholeheartedly embraced technology, and all that it can do for me, whereas Greenfield appears to be somewhat neophobic, or at the very least, technophobic. Now, though, I’ve come to realise that it’s more than just that.

What really bugs me is that, in so many ways, she’s similar to the kind of quacks I often blog about – she claims that modern technology is ruining the brains of our children (won’t someone please think of the children), and yet endorses and sells a “brain-training” computer game, despite mounting evidence that these games have no demonstrable effect on brain “age”, memory, or “fitness”; she makes sweeping claims about the effects of social networks, without evidence to back up what she’s saying; despite being asked repeatedly, she has yet to formalise any of her assertions in a paper (which could be examined, peer-reviewed, etc.); she claims to promote science, yet mostly seems to use her publicity to promote herself, and her unproven, unsubstantiated theories about modern tech and social networking – but unlike most of the quacks, she’s actually a scientist!

It seems that not a week goes by without an article or news report telling us how social networking sites are ruining our lives, melting our brains, or stripping us of our social skills. Whenever this comes up, we usually here about the same few cases repeatedly (the online bullying suicides, the facebook divorces, the twitterati spats), and are then told that if we continue to use these sites, we will become mindless drones, unable to pay attention to anything, unable to communicate in real life, and incapable of having friendships that exist outside of Facebook. All of these assertions have two things in common; there is absolutely no evidence to support them, and Greenfield insists on repeating them at every given opportunity. Unlike most of the “social media experts” or quacks who may prattle on about magical HIV curing boxes, or soundwave mp3s that cure cancer, Greenfield is someone who should know better. She is someone who certainly has the resources and the pull to conduct a proper study to establish the truth about brain change due to social networking, but for some strange reason, she refuses to do so.

I don’t personally believe that the advent of social networking will lead to the decline of humanity. I think that that is an attitude held mostly by those with an incomplete understanding of the technology in question, and how people really use it. In every scenario, with every new “big thing”, there will be some who misuse it (by abusing it, using it to hurt others, or simply damaging themselves through overuse), but generally, these people are the outliers, the exception, rather than the rule. For each messy “Facebook divorce”, it’s easy to find literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who use the site as intended – sharing photos, reconnecting with old school friends, and organising events, to name just a few functions. However, I’m a reasonable person and, above all, a scientist myself. If someone presents me with the studies, and they show that there really has been a change, for the worse, in our brains, then I will happily eat my words, and laud Greenfield as a visionary. However, in order for that to happen, she’d have to behave like a scientist (rather than a sensationalist) and actually do the research. As a scientist, she should be responsible enough to ensure that when she says that computers are damaging children’s brains or causing obesity, she possesses evidence to back it up. As a particularly PR-savvy scientist, she should be well aware of the fact that her name carries significant weight, meaning that people will believe what she says more readily. And finally, as a scientist, it’s her duty to back up her claims; to do the research, submit the paper, and allow it to be reviewed by her peers. Until then, it’s just empty words.

As a woman, a scientist, and someone working in an industry that is typically dominated by men (I.T.), I have a much more personal quibble with Greenfield. Recently, she was sacked from the Royal Institute. Although the exact reason is unclear, there has been much speculation about the reasons for her being sacked; among them, the massive debt in which the R.I. finds itself after a renovation spearheaded by Greenfield (although, in her defence, the trustees did also agree to go ahead with it). There are also rumours that the sacking may have been much more personal, and that there was a personality clash between Greenfield and other members at the R.I. The one thing that is certain, however, is that Greenfield is preparing to take the R.I. to an employment tribunal to allege, among other things, that sexual discrimination played a part in her sacking.

While it may be true that seeing a woman like Greenfield in a prominent position somewhere as respected as the R.I. may well have encouraged and inspired other young girls to pursue science, I believe it is also true that her tribunal will quash any such inspiration more effectively than any public sacking could have done. If there was an issue with her sacking, as there may well have been, then she has every right to take them to a tribunal, but why, oh why, must she play the gender discrimination card? Doing so sends so many messages, and they’re all bad. It tells people that, when firing a woman, you always risk a frivolous lawsuit. It reinforces the stereotypical notions that women are a bad hire because they will cause problems. And it helps to maintain the corrosive attitude that exists almost everywhere today – that women need special treatment to get along in the workplace. If there was a gender issue, then of course, she should address it, but I don’t believe that to be the case. Instead, I believe that she has seized upon the fact that it is a predominantly male workplace to class her sacking as a gender issue, and avoid the real problems. Frankly, I think it’s beneath her.

Baroness Greenfield, I (along with many others, I’m sure) invite you to write up your research into social networking, and present it to the scientific community at large, so that we may review it, and possibly benefit from the knowledge held within. And on a purely personal note, with regard to your recent termination, I recommend that you “take it like a man”.

Some quackery is obvious – there are posters, flashy ad campaigns, the works. Sometimes, though, it floats under the radar, waiting for someone to stumble upon it accidentally.

Today, I was trying to find some information on public water supply in Dublin. As you might expect, I turned to the official websites of the various councils and boards involved to try to find accurate information. One such website is the usually extremely useful Citizens Information site. This site is an Irish eGovernment initiative, and is maintained by the Citizens Information Board – in other words, it’s properly official. It’s the responsibility of the board to provide accurate and up-to-date information on all manner of public and social services available in Ireland (among other things).

As I tried to find the information I was looking for, I spotted some odd information under the Private Water Supplies section. I’ve quoted the section here:

If you are not part of a water supply scheme (capital or group), you will have to consider boring your own well and drawing out groundwater to supply your needs. One way of finding a suitable spot for a well to hire a water diviner to find out if there is groundwater beneath your land. However, even if a water diviner can tell you where to dig, he or she will not be able to tell you how deep you will have to drill or how much water you are likely to get. You can get this information from the Geological Survey of Ireland and it is usually free of charge.

Yes, that’s right. If you’d like to have your own connection to the groundwater, and want to know where you should put your well, the Citizens Information Board are happy to direct you to hire a water diviner. Water divination, for anyone who doesn’t know, is the process by which someone walks up and down with a y shaped stick, or “dowsing rod”, and when it points downwards, tells you that there is water present. If you think that this sounds ridiculous, and like it has absolutely no basis in modern science, you would be absolutely right. To date, water divining has not been shown to be any more effective than random chance. Indeed, prestigious scientific journal Nature puts dowsing in the category of “effects which until recently were claimed to be paranormal but which can now be explained from within orthodox science”, with dowsing effects being a result of the observer-expectancy effect and probability (i.e. random chance).

Worse still, a perfectly accurate and completely free resource, in the form of the Geographical Society of Ireland’s groundwater web map, is shunted to the bottom, and inexplicably recommended as something you might check after consulting a water diviner, but only to see how deep you might have to drill.

Honestly, I occasionally despair for the future of this country sometimes…

In a few days, Science Week Ireland will begin, bringing with it a host of lectures, demonstrations, and good, clean, scientific fun. The aim of Science Week is, in their own words, “to promote the relevance of science, engineering and technology in our everyday lives and to demonstrate the importance of these disciplines to the future development of Irish society and to the economy.” An excellent cause, I’m sure you’ll agree, as science impacts, in some way or another, on almost every aspect of our daily lives.

Maybe I’m biased – I’ve always loved science, from the first moment I stepped into a lab, beginning my secondary school education, to the moment when I donned cap and gown to graduate with a BSc. I have always believed that a basic understanding of science is an extremely important part of any education, even if the student does not go on to study science at a higher level. You can perhaps imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered that Science is not a compulsory subject at Junior Cert level.

I had always assumed that, while Leaving Cert science subjects were optional, Science as a subject was compulsory until Junior Cert. It seemed to make sense to me, considering that it’s an extremely useful subject, and that at least half (if not more) of all third level courses require at least one science subject to have been done at Leaving Cert level. I was honestly surprised to find that it is considered an optional subject in schools and is, as such, not a subject that schools are even obliged to offer to their students.

I have always felt that, for students just embarking upon their secondary education, one of the most difficult decisions that they must make is what subjects to study. After all, not studying Music, for example, at Junior Cert level will almost certainly preclude you from studying at Leaving Cert level, and similarly, will make attending a third level Music course nigh on impossible. By making certain subjects compulsory, schools hope to ensure that, regardless of what optional subjects a student takes, they can be sure to receive an education that is well rounded. How can any school not consider science to be a fundamental part of a student’s education, a subject that, at least until Junior Cert level, should be compulsory? Worse still, how can any school allow a student to begin their secondary level education with so many career options already closed off to them, and so many third level courses now beyond their scope, not due to inadequacy on the part of the student, but because the student may not be offered the opportunity to study science at all?

The goal of science week is to promote the relevance of science, something which, in my opinion, is even more important today than it has ever been before. The influence and impact that science and technology has on our lives has become so ubiquitous as to be almost invisible – who thinks of the detailed understanding of plant genetics necessary to produce viable crops when chopping tomatoes, or of the understanding of sound waves and their transmission when answering the phone? Surely it is crucial that people have some understanding of the world around us, steeped as it is in a rich history of scientific discovery and development.

The sad fact is that, perhaps because science is now so ubiquitous as to be commonplace, people no longer seem to feel the drive to study it. Uptake of study in various science courses remains consistently poor, and the rate of drop-off in science courses at third level is, frankly, embarrassing. I was, for example, one of just five students who took Computer Science in my 4th year in college. We shared a lab with students studying CSSE (Computer Science and Software Engineering), but between us all, we took up less than half of all the room allotted to us.

Almost without fail, when our politicians discuss the potential reasons why investors should choose Ireland, they will mention the high quality of our graduates, the progressive nature of our technology education, etc. If we are to live up to our reputation, we need to encourage people to study science, and enable them to do so. Those in charge of our curricula, namely, the Department of Education and Science, should make science education compulsory, and ensure that any student’s interest in science is not nipped in the bud before they’ve even reached their teens.

If you know someone who is starting secondary education, ensure that their school does offer Science as a Junior Cert subject, and encourage them to study it. Doing so will open up a world of possibilities, both in terms of career options, and further study options. If you know of a school that does not offer Science as an option for students, why not use Science Week to ask them why?

Normally, I like to leave a little time between blog posts. This week, however, has been far too full of blog-worthy topics to pass up, so please excuse my break from routine.

One topic doing the rounds of the internet is the launch of a new book by an Irish author, John J May, called The Origin of Specious Nonsense. The author claims that the book will “unceremoniously unashamedly and unmistakably [going to] expose the fiction of evolution”, which is, I think you’ll agree, a pretty big claim for any author to make. Of course, there are plenty of people who launch books that will “change the world”, but what made this one so special was that, for a time at least, it appeared to have the support of our very own Junior Minister for Science (and other stuff), Conor Lenihan.

Mr. Lenihan’s involvement in the launch of this book catapulted what would have otherwise been a banal book launch into the international spotlight, as news services and prominent skeptics (Dara O’Briain, Ben Goldacre, etc) cried foul after picking up the internet buzz about it. Lenihan maintains that he was launching it merely as a friend, and a TD, rather than in his capacity as minister, and therefore saw no issue with it. Perhaps he was not aware that, as a minister for science, his launching a prominently anti-evolution book would cause a stir, or perhaps he was simply hoping that his involvement would not be noticed.

After the story was picked up by news services, there was a dash to back-pedal and save face – the Irish Times tells us that the author asked Mr. Lenihan to withdraw, because he was embarrassed that the minister had been insulted. There was a hurried removal of most (but not all) mentions of Lenihan on the book launch website, and the whole issue seems to have died down. It does, however, raise an interesting question, namely, at what point, if ever, do ministers stop being ministers? Can a minister for science support anti-evolution or similar theories and still be credible in his professional role? Should we require some sort of qualification or relevant experience of our ministers to ensure that they understand the area they govern?

In the spirit of fairness, I perused the author’s launch website, and read the sample chapter provided. After all, it would be unfair to dismiss the author’s theories without first examining them. While you may be expecting me to spend the rest of this post attempting to explain or dissect his arguments, I’m afraid I’ll have to disappoint, because after a careful reading of the samples provided, and the promotional material, I have found not a single properly constructed argument or point that would stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny. That said, this would be a poor entry if I didn’t at least try, so I’ve examined the varied and unconnected points which he attempts to present as arguments, and dissected them instead.

The author poses 7 questions at the start of the sample chapter, which may lead you to believe that he intends to answer them, or refute the accepted scientific answers for them. In actual fact, he does neither – rather, he repeats the 7 questions several times throughout the chapter, at random intervals, apparently simply to fill space! The questions are:

• How and why do cells split?
• How do toes know where to grow?
• How do cells know how to build a heart?
• How do cells know how to make blood?
• How does blood have all the right chemicals?
• How did the reproductive system develop?
• Was I truly one single cell?

These don’t seem to me like questions that will shake the very foundations of evolutionary theory – in fact, they appear more like the questions of a child who has been studying some basic reproductive biology, and found the book lacking in detail. (And since he continually refers to Cell Diferenciation [sic], one could also say that they are like the questions of a child who possesses neither a dictionary, or a computer with a spell-check function).

The chapter doesn’t appear to have a single coherent point. Instead, it touches lightly on a number of processes that happen during the growth of an embryo and foetus (jumping somewhat erratically around the timeline of foetal development, from 3 weeks to 8 weeks, and back to 7, etc.), deems each of them wonderful (“The triumph of one cell metamorphosing into one beautiful baby”, “wondrous creation”,), and goes on to speculate that they could not possibly be the result of random chance, but must instead be the work of a creator figure: God.

It is irrational to suggest that such molecular action, chemical cleverness, D.N.A. codes, sperm and egg, 46 chromosomes, cellular differentiation, hormones and blood, skin and bone, eyes and heart plus millions of other atomic structures came from nothing – means nothing, will be nothing! And since it is totally irrational I commit it to the realm of ridiculous speculative fantasy. It is far more reasonable to conclude a creator of awesome prodigious intellectual capabilities was – is and forever shall be…

The Cognitive Artistic Genetic Engineer. (God)

He seems to suggest repeatedly that the only alternative theory to his own (which appears to be that we were created by God, i.e. intelligent design) is that we came from nothing, and tries to refute this point. His argument here is moot, however, because the theory of evolution does not state anywhere that we ultimately came from nothing, but that we came from our ancestors, and developed in response to various selective pressures.

In fact, the crux of the “argument” in this chapter appears to be that something so wonderful and clever could not possibly have evolved by accident, and must instead have been designed by God. To support this assertion, he simply refers to random biological occurrences and body parts, and several photos of foetuses, and asks us to agree either that they came from nothing, or that they came from God – in short, a poorly constructed straw-man argument that is barely worth blowing down. Indeed, towards the end of the chapter, his whole argument hinges on a picture of a small child with (presumably) her parents, as he implores us to believe that “It is quite simply not credible that this beautiful baby combining physical characteristics of both parents, plus linkingand [sic] strengthening two humans into three in love came from nothing!”.

In addition to some fairly questionable arguing strategies, there is also the fact that some of his sentences simply don’t make any sense. For example, later in the chapter, after demanding that we stop ignoring God and believing that pregnancy is proof of evolution, he writes:

Mental dysfunction manifests itself clearly through disassociation from reality and evinces shades of psychosis. I think the epithetmost [sic] descriptive of intelligent individuals who embrace evolution and reject reason is FANTASISTS. [sic]

What is he trying to say with the above sentence? That mental dysfunction is a result of belief in evolution, or a lack of belief in God? That psychosis is preventable if you believe as he does? Or perhaps he intends to imply that believe in evolution means that you are a “fantasist”, and that mental dysfunction is merely a side effect of those living in the evolution-believing fantasy? Leaving aside those unpalatable and ridiculous notions, there is also the fact that the sentence construction is poor, and the word usage, appalling – a trait seen throughout the chapter, and doubtless throughout the book. There is little use of punctuation, and where it is used, it is often used incorrectly. I am certain that, given enough time, a child of 10 could produce an equivalent document with fewer errors.

The book promotion website is full of jaded promotional phrases, and ludicrous attempts to attach credible names to the book itself. Below are just some of the more ridiculous statements found on the website. For clarity, my own comments on each are included in blue.

• “From author John J May comes the most controversial book in decades” – I wonder how many “most controversial” books that makes this decade?
• “It is a non academic attempt which is currently very popular worldwide due to the brilliant observationalist naturalist Charles Darwin’s 200 year birth anniversary and 150 years celebration of his monumental laughable fantasy, The Origin of Species which I have read forensically and counted 1550 suppositions.” – Is he saying that non-academic academic books are popular, that his unorthodox approach is popular?
• The international appeal of such a book is evident by four of the worlds best known innocent atheist evolutionary authors, (Plus many others) Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel C Dennett, et al – The appeal of the book is evident by other authors who vehemently disagree with the kind of things he’s saying in his book? Aside from the ludicrous idea that his book is of the same calibre as any written by those mentioned, that sentence doesn’t even make sense! These names are literally pasted in large text, before smaller text decries them as people who have “sacrificed reason on the alter of Chance, Mutations, Randomness which is a concoction for chaos”
• “The Origin Of Specious Nonsense” is a plea for sanity and reason in a dangerous world further morally polluted by the corrupting hoax of evolution as tragically illustrated by the Columbine High School killers ten years ago in the USA. Those two deluded young men spoke on video about “Helping out the process of natural selection by eliminating the weak.” One of them Eric Harris on the day of the massacre actually wore a T-shirt with the words.. “Natural Selection” – Included in the “Mission Statement” on the website is the above quote. To imply that evolution, as a theory, had any bearing on the actions of the teenagers who carried out the Columbine killings is simply ridiculous. In an attempt to weaken arguments for the theory of evolution, he is attempting to attach a horrific event to it, when in fact the two are completely unrelated.

Essentially, the website contains more of the same weak rhetoric found within the book – it’s unconvincing, badly structured nonsense. May’s understanding of evolution appears to be very poor, and based on flawed information, and so all premises based on his understanding are fundamentally flawed. In addition, the arguments he presents against evolution are not based in fact, but rather on opinion, and there is no evidence to support them (unlike evolution, for which there is plentiful evidence).

This is a book that would have faded into obscurity, like so many other self-published works (yes, surprisingly, the book is self published by a vanity publisher in Ireland), without so much as a blip and no hope of a second print run. Sadly, due to the ill-advised involvement of a prominent politician, even for a short while, John J May has received the kind of publicity that every raving lunatic with €2000 and a word processing program can only dream of. I can only hope that the fuss will disappear as quickly as it appeared, and then Mr. May can go back to handing out pamphlets on Grafton Street alongside the other “respected and revolutionary” authors of our time.