And another thing…

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.

It should be no surprise to anyone that there are unscrupulous people in the world. There are people who will, given a chance, sell you counterfeit, broken, or ineffective goods, and leave you high and dry when you realise that there is a problem. At best, you’re left with a defective piece of equipment and a lighter wallet. At worst, you’re left with something potentially dangerous and/or life threatening, and that is exactly what this post deals with.

MMS, or Miracle Mineral Solution, was “discovered” by Jim Humble, who allegedly exponentially improved the effectiveness of a South American health drink by adding a few drops of vinegar to it. With this miracle drink, he single-handedly treated over 2000 patients, and trained others to use the formula to treat a range of diseases – everything from malaria to HIV. Sounds pretty amazing, right? Here’s Humble himself, talking about his life and the creation of MMS as he’s interviewed by Project Camelot (a group who are deserving of a blog post all of their own):

Jim Humble interviewed by Project Camelot

In this interview, you’ll hear him state that “MMS will cure cancer”, that he cured malaria in 4 hours, and that the “American drug companies” called the government of the country he was in and stopped him curing malaria under threat of cessation of drug provision to local hospitals. He also states that he further developed the formula of “stabilised oxygen” so that its treatment success rate was 100%. He goes on to explain that he optimised the delivery mechanism, so that you can add lemon juice or vinegar to this MMS powder, and produce chlorine dioxide, which he maintains will cure cancer, malaria, AIDS, and more with a 100% success rate.

This, of course, is complete and utter rubbish of the highest order. MMS falls into the same category as many purported miracle cures, in that it doesn’t do what it is supposed to do. Where MMS differs from many of these other cures, however, is that, not only is it ineffective, but it is actually dangerous, and continued use can lead to life-threatening conditions such as vomiting, severe diarrhoea, and symptoms of dehydration. (FDA warning about MMS, stating the proven health risks associated with ingesting chlorine dioxide as prescribed by the MMS treatment)

Chlorine dioxide is typically used as an industrial bleach to bleach things such as wood pulp, and also in large scale water purification. When used for water purification, the final levels in drinking water may be no higher than 0.8mg/L (milligrams per litre),  in order to prevent any harmful affects associated with ingesting the chemical. It can cause skin irritation, lung irritation, digestive tract irritation, vomiting, nausea, diarrhoea, etc. The MSDS (material safety data sheet) for chlorine dioxide states that if it is ingested, medical attention should be sought immediately. This is in sharp contrast to the treatment plan prescribed by Humble, which states that you should increase the amount of MMS you take each day until you induce nausea, slightly reduce the intake until the nausea passes, and then continue to raise the dose again to try to “push past” the nausea. This is patently unsafe, and potentially very dangerous, and yet Humble continues to assert that his MMS will cure cancer, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis, etc.

Jim Humble is not a qualified physician. He is not a biologist, or a chemist. He has no understanding of the interaction of these chemicals within the human body, and no knowledge pertaining to curing any of these diseases. He is, quite simply, a quack. It is of the utmost importance that everyone knows this, so that he will not be able to continue to sell this dangerous chemical as a panacea.

In the above interview, he states that the MMS doesn’t have the power to damage healthy cells, and only attacks the pathogens which cause the problem. This is a statement that has no basis in fact.

He states that all pathogens which cause diseases, and which have a bad effect on the body, are anaerobic bacteria. In conjunction with this, he also states that aerobic bacteria are much stronger than these disease causing, weak anaerobic bacteria. This is another statement that has no basis in fact. While anaerobic bacteria cause disease, aerobic bacteria are just as effective at causing disease (as evidenced by Mycobacterium tuberculosis, a highly aerobic bacteria, which causes most cases of tuberculosis).

He states that the way MMS kills the anaerobic bacteria is by “blowing a hole in the skin” and that there is no possibility of any pathogen developing a resistance to MMS. He also tells us that the reason MMS is more effective than antibiotics because they must be developed specifically to enter the bacterium and cause the nucleus (the “heart” of the cell) to stop working. These statements are incorrect. While it is certainly true that some antibiotics may attack the nucleus of the cell to kill bacteria, there are many different kinds of antibiotics, including those which attack the cell wall or membrane, those which stop protein synthesis, etc. Bacteria are constantly changing to develop resistances to the various antibacterial chemicals that we use in daily life. To say that bacteria will never develop a resistance to the presence of MMS in the body, even if MMS did what it was supposed to do, it absolutely untrue, and simply serves to further prove that Humble has not got even a basic grasp of biology, biochemistry, chemistry, or any relevant scientific or medical information.

Later in the interview, he tells us that by mixing the MMS with DMSO (a compound which readily penetrates the skin), and rubbing it on the skin, it absorbs into the skin, and penetrates cancer cells (“soaks into the cancer cells themselves”), killing the “little bug” inside the cell which causes it to be cancerous, and leaving a healthy cell which doesn’t need to be killed after the removal of this “little bug”. This is, of course, patently false. There is no proof that cancer is caused by an anaerobic “little bug” which can be killed, leaving only healthy cells. This simply serves to demonstrate how limited his understanding of cancer truly is.

To round up the interview, he tells us that MMS cures malaria, AIDS, cancer, influenza, the common cold, “all types of diseases of the mouth”, abscessed teeth, etc. While it’s true that brushing or rinsing with a mild bleach (such as highly diluted hydrogen peroxide) will probably kill anything untoward in your mouth, brushing with the concentrations of bleach in MMS is more likely to cause blisters and mucous membrane irritation. As for the rest of that list, there is absolutely no proof that MMS is effective in curing any of them.

Essentially, Jim Humble sings the same familiar song as many alternative health practitioners – his miracle cure is being kept down by the government and the “big pharma” companies, it has 100% cure rates, and it is effective on virtually everything. And, just like those other health practitioners, what he is selling is little more than lies, made even worse by the fact that the chemical he is selling is also dangerous.

In short, MMS is not a miracle cure. Rather, it is a dangerous chemical that should not be ingested or used in the manner that Jim Humble is prescribing. It is a product that should not be purchased, and should not be used. If you have any, please dispose of it. If your friends or family have any, dispose of it for them, and tell them why.

MMS is dangerous, and I hereby publicly defame Jim Humble, and his criminally irresponsible promotion of MMS. I wholeheartedly encourage you to do the same.

Yup, there it is in black and white.

Over the last few days, Ms Gillian McKeith has been causing quite a storm on twitter by misusing the service, and then trying to back away and deny it. This would maybe have worked, if the service wasn’t also used by a number of very tech-savvy people, who know that the best policy is to save and screenshot everything, so that when the inevitable denials come, there is proof. It seems that Gillian would have been better off investing in a fake PhD in Social Media, and perhaps this all wouldn’t have happened.

So, where on earth did it all start? Well, It seems to have started with a woman called Rachel Moody, who noted on twitter that she was about to start reading a chapter in Bad Science (by Ben Goldacre) about Gillian McKeith. This prompted a series of pretty nasty replies from Gillian, claiming that the poster was anti-american, that Goldacre was a liar, and other such statements. Unfortunately for her, some clever sort decided to take a screenshot of the tweets, which meant that when Gillian decided to back pedal and delete the tweets, pretending they never happened, the screenshots remained. Image source: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/gillian_mckeith_does_not_have.php

Clearly worried about her image, Gillian has been trying to distance herself from this twitter account, first by beginning to tweet in the third person, as if it were someone else behind the account, and then by posting explicit declarations that it wasn’t her – “Do you actually believe this is real twitter site for the GM?” For a moment, you might be tempted to believe that it was all an elaborate hoax. For just a moment though, until you begin some basic fact checking, and discover that it’s essentially just another lie to add to the pile.

You see, what Gillian forgot is that you can’t suddenly delete yourself from the internet, because there will always be a remainder somewhere – be it in a cache, in a screenshot, or in the lazy code where you don’t properly remove the twitter link from your official website, but instead merely comment out the code…

Unfortunately, many people know how to look at website source code, and so it was immediately obvious what had happened. If more proof were needed, well one would only have to look at a screenshot taken from her website earlier today, where the twitter link was in pride of place alongside her other social media badges. Luckily, I have just such a screenshot.

People have been finding other forgotten links all over her website too – links in email newsletters and on less prominent pages, all encouraging you to follow Gillian on twitter, at her official address, www.twitter.com/gillianmckeith – it seems that the lazy webmaster also forgot to remove links beyond the front page.

What has the response been? Well, aside from roundly ignoring any requests for clarification, Gillian has been blocking people who tweet that she doesn’t have a PhD or other similar statements.What could have been solved with an apology, and a clarification, has instead turned into a nasty little mess and a PR disaster. Still, there are lessons to be learned here for all parties involved; 1) The print screen button should be your best friend when dealing with people like Gillian McKeith, who is a quack of the highest order, 2) Having a fake PhD doesn’t make you smart, and 3) Clicking “Undo” on the internet is a good deal harder than you might think.

Collected Screenshots not shown above

Gillian points us to her official twitter – at www.twitter.com/gillianmckeith. Can’t figure out why that url seems so familiar…

Even though it is difficult to do so, it is important to stand your ground. It is even more so when people try to pull that ground from underneath you by discrediting you with facts that really have nothing to do with the ground upon which you stand.

My day job is as a web developer. I work for a company which distributes pharmaceutical and other products (such as cosmetics). Until today, my company did not know about my protest, and are most certainly not in support of it or behind organising it. They know now, as I have had to avoid their good name being drawn into disrepute when it is really me that the homoeopaths seek to target.

Today, in an effort to make me look bad and to heap discredit on my protest, people began to throw the name of this company around like mud. This displeases me greatly, as they don’t deserve it.

I will say it, and I will continue to say it. Homoeopathy doesn’t work. I have always believed that it didn’t work. Bogus science is what drove me to get my degree and do my own investigations.

If homoeopathy worked, you wouldn’t have to personally discredit me to prove it, you would just be able to prove it. The fact that you have attacked my credibility, rather than providing evidence, simply shows that the only response you have is to attack me personally. And that puts you firmly on the lower moral ground.

For shame, homoeopaths. Today, you have sunk to a new low.

So, this week my 1023 campaign has seen a fair bit of media interest, and has had at least one article published so far, in the Sunday Times. The Times, being very fair, opted to let the Irish Society of Homoeopaths and a practising homoeopath, have their say. Both responded with what are fairly typical comments, which I will now attempt to redress.

The Irish Society of Homoeopaths is reported as saying that I, and other campaigners, have no idea how it works:

The Irish Society of Homeopaths has criticised the planned mass overdose, claiming campaigners have “no understanding of how homeopathy works”.

Having done a large amount of research, I would rather argue that I do have an understanding of how homoeopathy works, and it’s probably a better understanding than many practising homoeopaths. I understand that there is no mystical or spiritual properties to the medicine. I understand that the medicine cannot contain any active ingredients as a result of its factor of dilution. I understand that there is no way water can have a “memory”. And, finally, I understand that the comment above is a standard comment, rattled off in response to anyone criticising homoeopathy.

As I’ve said, time and time again, there is nothing in these homoeopathic remedies. There can’t physically be anything in these remedies unless the process of succussion allows homoeopaths to break the laws of physics and chemistry. I also know that water can do many things, and exist in several interesting and unique forms, but it doesn’t have a memory. The water cycle tells us that water exists in a continuum, moving between states, but never being created or destroyed. With that in mind, would you want water that had, for example, travelled through a sewage processing plant, to have a memory of where it had been? There is nothing about homoeopathy that would make water selectively “remember” the minuscule amounts of anything put in it. In short, water does not have a memory, and to suggest that it does, and indeed base a treatment plan on it, is nothing short of ridiculous.

The second quote, from a practising homoeopath (Sheelagh Behan), states:

A highly diluted homeopathic remedy will never act unless the symptoms of the patient fit the specific symptoms that the remedy will treat.

To my mind, this seems to go against certain principles of homoeopathic treatment. For a start, if we are to believe the original “like treats like” principles of homoeopathy, then the medicines should not have no effect. In fact, they should induce the very conditions that they claim to treat. Sleeping tablets should induce insomnia, malaria treatments should induce malarial symptoms, etc. To say that they will have no effect or that they will not act is to ignore one of the founding principles of homoeopathy.

Another principle of homoeopathy is to treat the patient, not the symptoms. Consultations with homoeopaths are frequently long and involve many questions to establish a patient history, so that their symptoms and feelings can be looked up in the big book of homoeopathy to discern a treatment program. This often results in custom remedies being made for the person. With this in mind, and their heavy “patient-first” emphasis, one has to wonder if they support generic over the counter homoeopathic “medicines” being sold in places like boots, where a practising homoeopath isn’t on hand to question. What if the consumer gets their symptoms wrong, and purchases the wrong remedy? Will there be no effect, or will they be stricken with another illness that they are, inadvertently, taking the homoeopathic cure for?

If homoeopathy is truly the highly personal and efficient replacement for modern medicine, then how do mass produced, over the counter sugar pills fit into it?

I call on any homoeopath who is offended by my demonstration to answer the questions above without resorting to bashing conventional medicine.

As a result of my dealings with Boots, and my general attitude toward homoeopathic products, I’ve decided to take a leaf out of the book of the 1023 campaigners in England, and launch a similar campaign here in Ireland. The website for the campaign is now live, and I’d love it if you would all take a look, pass the link on, and consider supporting the campaign.

The reason I’m posting this is twofold – firstly, to let everyone know that the campaign is now starting, and that I need your support, and secondly, to talk a little bit more about why I’m doing it.

I think that everyone should have freedom of choice when it comes to their health. The decisions you make can affect the rest of your life dramatically, so it’s important to make the right ones. With so much advertising, it can be a bit tough to siphon out the useful information from all of the advertisement chaff when it comes to healthcare, so many people turn to their pharmacist for advice. And this is really where the problem starts. You could argue that it is someone’s choice to use homoeopathic remedies, and indeed, it is a choice that we should be free to make. But when that choice is made with incomplete or inaccurate information, then it’s not really a choice at all. Unless your pharmacist is specifically telling you that there is nothing in these remedies at all, then you are not making an informed decision.

Another oft-heard argument is that it’s not doing any harm to anyone to have them on sale, or for people to take them. After all, the placebo effect is a demonstrable phenomenon, and surely if that’s enough, we should leave them be? While I would typically refer these people to a number of cases where people have died unnecessarily due to carers withholding conventional medicine in favour of homoeopathic medicine, in this case, I’m going to look a little deeper.

The relationship between patient and pharmacist or doctor is a delicate thing. The doctor/pharmacist relies on the complete honesty of the patient in order to diagnose or treat correctly, and the patient has to trust the doctor/pharmacist enough in order to be completely honest. When this relationship fails, people are wrongly diagnosed and don’t get better. In order for a placebo drug, such as a homoeopathic medicine to work, the doctor/pharmacist has to lie to the patient. They have to say that it is a real medicine, that will cure what ails the patient. Every doctor and pharmacist would have to agree to treat homoeopathic medicine like a giant “emperor’s new clothes” conspiracy, and simply not mention the fact that there’s nothing in it, and lie to the patient if they ask directly. And when the doctor/pharmacist lies to the patient, that delicate bond of honesty and trust is broken.

In addition, it is often forgotten that the placebo effect is not limited to placebo medicines. For example, when you go to a doctor, and they prescribe you with a conventional medicine, the expectation is that you will get better, so you will experience the same placebo effect, along with the conventional treatment. Again, this relies partly on that bond between doctor/pharmacist and patient – the patient has to believe that the doctor/pharmacist is not lying to them and that the medicine will do them good. To return to a world where doctors and pharmacists lie to patients is to take a massive step backwards in the way we look after ourselves, and it shouldn’t be encouraged. In order for doctors and pharmacists to be honest, they need to let people know that there are no active ingredients whatsoever in the homoeopathic remedies that people are purchasing. Currently, this isn’t happening, and people are spending money on useless remedies.

I hope that, by organising this protest, I’ll be able to show some people that there really is nothing in homoeopathy, and that they shouldn’t waste their money on it. And I hope that I can show Boots that we would rather know the truth about our medicines than be lied to. If you agree, I hope that you’ll join me in the demonstration.

Yesterday, I emailed the Boots customer care address, about homoeopathic products. I did this because I discovered that Boots was selling homoeopathic remedies in their stores in Dublin. The store that I visited was in the Jervis Street shopping centre, and it had prominent displays outside promoting the pharmaceutical advice and products available. I was pretty shocked, then, to find that they were selling useless sugar pills alongside actual effective medication. I was shocked enough that I was prompted to write a quick note, as follows:

To whom it may concern:

On visiting a local Boots store over the weekend, I was shocked and horrified to discover homoeopathic remedies for sale in the store (Jervis Shopping Centre branch). This particular store had a heavy emphasis on the pharmacy side of the business in its advertising, so I would not have expected it to also be selling unproven and essentially fake medicine to people, alongside useful drugs.

Homoeopathic remedies contain no actual substance other than sugar pills and/or water. They are diluted beyond the point where one molecule of the original substance can be in the final product, and that is scientifically proven. I cannot understand, therefore, why you would choose to sell such products alongside legitimate medicines.

On a personal note, I’m extremely disappointed to find that a store which I used to enjoy shopping in is continuing to sell these products.

Today, I received a reply from Boots:

Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your concerns over the retail of Homeopathic and Alternative remedies.

At Boots we take our responsibilities as the leading Pharmacy-led Health & Beauty retailer in the UK very seriously and as part of this we?re [sic] committed to providing our customers with a wide range of healthcare products to suit their individual needs.  We know that many people believe in the benefits of complementary medicines and we aim to offer the products we know our customers want.

Our Pharmacists are trained healthcare professionals and are on hand to offer advice on the safe use of complementary medicines. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain issues guidance to pharmacists on the correct selling of homoeopathy, which our pharmacists adhere to. We would support the call for scientific research and evidence gathering on the efficacy of homoeopathic medicines as this would help our patients and customers make informed choices about using homoeopathic medicines

We take the concerns of all of our customers very seriously and we thank you for the time you have taken to give us this feedback.  Please be assured that I have shared your comments with our Healthcare and Pharmacy teams.

Yours sincerely

Boots Customer Care

I would hope that, in the light of the recent 10.23 demonstrations, Boots would be receiving many emails complaining about their sale of homoeopathic products, so I expect that the reply is a standardised form letter by now. What their letter says is that, even if they are aware that the products are useless and pointless, they believe people want to buy them, and so they have no problem selling them. I do have a problem with a brand that is so associated with healthcare selling products which are not only ineffective, but which could well damage people if taken instead of conventional medicine when sick.

It is my opinion that it’s not enough to merely support the call for research while also profiting from the sale of useless pills and tinctures. Hundreds of studies have already been done on a wide range of homoeopathic remedies, and the results are almost unilaterally negative. Why ignore those studies in favour of future research, when the evidence is already there? The answer: profit.

I think it’s dangerous and misleading for a healthcare professional to recommend or advise on the use of homoeopathic remedies, as it lends credibility to a completely incredulous field. The only advice that “trained healthcare professionals” should give about homoeopathic remedies is “don’t take them”.

So, with the above in mind, I replied to Boots:

Hi,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

My concern is precisely that Boots is considered a leading pharmacy, and that many people would turn to staff in store for health advice. If the advice given to them includes advice about homoeopathic remedies, then it undermines the advice that is being given.

Homoeopathic remedies contain no active ingredients whatsoever. Most remedies are sold at 30C dilution, which equates to 10 to the power of 60 dilution, or 1 part of the molecule in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 parts of water. This means, essentially, that it is physically impossible for even a single molecule of the original substance to be present in the final product. What you are selling, as medicine, is essentially sugar pills with drops of water added. When people eschew conventional medicine in favour of homoeopathic remedies, there can be disastrous consequences. I refer you, for example, to the recent case of Thomas, Manju, and Gloria Sam.Gloria Sam was an infant who suffered from severe eczema. Rather than use the conventional medicine and creams which were recommended by their healthcare professional, her parents, Thomas and Manju Sam, chose to turn to a homoeopathic healthcare professional. As a result, Gloria’s condition continued to deteriorate rapidly. By the time the child was seen by a conventional medical professional, a doctor she was so ill that they had to immediately put her on morphine simply to manage the pain. Due to systemic infections, and a total lack of legitimate care, she died after 3 days in the hospital. This is a death that could have easily been prevented had the parents followed the advice of their healthcare professional. This case is just an example of the kind of thing that will continue to happen for as long as large institutions, such as Boots, are seen to support homoeopathy as a legitimate and effective choice when it comes to dealing with health problems.

Unless your healthcare professionals are informing people that no active ingredients are present in the homoeopathic remedies, and that they will have no effect on their health, then you are not helping them to make informed choices. Making an informed choice can only happen when all of the information laid out is correct.

I implore you to reconsider your support of homoeopathic medicine, to examine the evidence which has already shown that these medicines are ineffective, and to help your customers make a truly informed choice.

Yesterday, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was found guilty of a number of misconduct charges, related to his medical research. This has caused quite a buzz, as the press and other media speculate as to whether he will be struck off as a result.

In 1998, Dr. Wakefield published a paper which speculated on a link between a rare bowel disorder, autism, and the MMR vaccination. He suggested that parents should give their children the vaccines individually (measles, mumps, and rubella), rather than as a triple vaccine. The paper also seemed to suggest a link to the MMR vaccine and to autism.

Despite the many flaws in this research (small sample size, no permission from parents, etc.) the research was published.  After its publication in The Lancet, the information was disseminated among the newspapers, gaining momentum at a furious pace. Before long, there were campaign groups, newspapers taking one side or the other, vox-pops of weeping parents and crippled children, etc.

Unfortunately, due in large part to the way the paper was reported, parents believed that they were doing the right thing in choosing to decline the MMR vaccination. They thought they were protecting their children from autism, a condition which must strike fear into the heart of any parent. What they should have been worried about was protecting their children from the crippling effects of measles, mumps, and rubella – diseases which can be fatal, or which can leave a child brain damaged and needing lifelong care. The effects can still be seen today, with many parents perpetuating the myth that the MMR will give your child autism. Unvaccinated children are contracting measles and they are infecting other unvaccinated children. In many countries, we are now seeing a rise in the number of outbreaks of measles, and deaths relating to those infections. The numbers are continuing to rise, whereas before the media circus relating to the MMR happened, numbers were at an all time low.

Now Wakefield is in the docks, and is being made to face the music for shoddy research, flouting the rules, and being irrespnsible with the lives of other people. But what of the journalists? What of those writers who read only the abstract of his paper, or worse, who read only the summary of his paper in other publications? What of the newspapaers who sold publications by splashing dangerous headlines about autism?

The sad fact is that the newspapaers, the journalists, they won’t be in the docks for their irresponsible reporting. Not many people outside of the medical and scientific worlds read journals like The Lancet, so had they been more responsible, it’s possible that the scare may not have spread so widely.

Wakefield will take a fall, and the newspapers that helped to bouy him up will now chronicle his demise, while they wait for another paper to tell them that cherries give you cancer, and three green tea enemas can cure it.

It’s easy to paint Wakefield as a scapegoat – after all, it was his paper that started it all. But he’s not alone in the blame. Sadly, there’s no way to punish those irresponsible journalists. The PCC is toothless, and has so many restrictions about taking a case that it’s barely worth the time at all. Legal action costs money, and it would be to difficult to prove damage as a result of any one article.

The lesson here is that same old tune you’ve been hearing your whole life – you can’t believe everything you read. As our information networks reach further around the globe, their scope is narrowed. One paper publishes an article, ten more simply rearrange that article and publish it as their own, and before you know it, there’s an MMR scandal all over again.The only thing that can be done is to keep checking sources, to keep checking facts, and to take everything that’s written with a pinch of salt until it’s verified.

The bottom line is this – it is safe to vaccinate your kids. It is irresponsible and dangerous not to. Read every newspaper with both eyes open.

I used to think that the above quote was a little odd. I mean, surely knowledge is a thing to be shared, and the gaining of knowledge, something to be encouraged. I think I understand it now though. Knowledge, full and complete, is a wonderful thing. A little knowledge, however, really is a dangerous thing…

As an example, I present another fine article from that favourite of mine, the Daily Mail. The article deals with a planned protest of sorts by a group called 10.23. Members of the group plan to “overdose” on homoeopathic medicines in protest at Boots’ continued endorsement and sale of homoeopathic remedies. The Daily Mail article is sadly riddled with errors, and is attributed to a generic “Daily Mail Reporter”, who appears to have as poor an understanding of the subject matter as the many people who commented on the article itself. On reading the article, it’s clear that the author did very little research before writing (hardly surprising) and instead simply threw in a few names of “homoeopathic” products that he or she knew of. However, the products that are mentioned are not homoeopathic products at all – they’re herbal products.

The problem is that homoeopathic remedies and herbal remedies are not the same thing, and to imply that they are leads to confusion and, at worst, damage. A herbal remedy consists of dried, powdered, or otherwise prepared plant, mineral, etc parts and extracts, formed into pills, powders, liquids, etc. There are many herbal remedies for sale in Boots and in other health food shops. And there have been a number of studies that have shown that some herbal remedies can have beneficial effects on the conditions that they are supposed to treat. However, like “conventional” medicine, these herbal remedies are not without their side effects. Perhaps the most well known example of this is St. John’s Wort. This, to reaffirm the point, is a herbal, not a homoeopathic, remedy. St. John’s Wort (or Hypericum perforatum) is a small yellow flowered plant that is considered a noxious and toxic weed in many countries. It has been traditionally used to treat depression. Recent clinical studies have shown that it can be effective in cases of mild to moderate depression. However, clinical studies have also shown that the side effects of St. John’s Wort are many and varied, and it can interact with a number of prescription drugs, such as contraceptive pills, antiretrovirals, immunosuppressants, etc., making them less effective. So, like many over the counter medications, it has been shown to have both benefits and side effects. And like anything that you plan to take that may potentially effect your health, you would be well advised to consult a doctor (a real doctor) before taking it.

So, why isn’t it the same as homoeopathy? Well, when you buy St. John’s Wort over the counter, as a herbal remedy, what you are buying is part of the plant, processed and made into tablets or a similar delivery method. The tablet that you receive will have a defined amount of the plant in it. The same cannot be said of homoeopathic remedies, due to the nature of their creation.

Homoepoathic remedies are often based on a theory originally put forward by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. The theory states that you should treat like with like – i.e. if you can find a compound which, when taken, causes the symptoms of malaria, then you will be able to cure malaria in an ill patient using this compound. The theory also states that the more diluted a preparation is, the more potent it is. The act of striking the preparation after each dilution (known as succussion) makes the mixture more potent. In Hahnemann’s time, knowledge of molecular chemistry was poor, so it was not unreasonable for him to assume that anything could be diluted infinitely and still contain some of the original chemical. However, the same excuse is not applicable to the people who now practice homoeopathy. Hahnemann advocated a dilution of 30C for almost everything – that is a dilution of 10 to the power of 60, or 1 part of the molecule in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 parts of water. Modern science tells us that, using Hahnemann’s “C” scale of dilutions, that no trace of the original molecule is likely to be found at anything higher than a 12C dilution. Many homoeopathic remedies use dilutions even higher than advocated by Hahnemann, such as the infamous Oscilliococcinum homoeopathic flu remedy, which is diluted at 10 to the power of 400. As it is thought that there are only 10 to the power of 80 atoms in the whole universe, Oscilliococcinum would require several more universes (10 to the power of 320 universes, in fact) to even have a single molecule of the original substance in the final dilution. With those numbers in mind, you will hopefully see that it is extremely unlikely that a finished homoeopathic product (in the form of sugar pill or fluid) will likely contain absolutely none of the original molecule that it perports to contain.

This is the crucial difference between herbal medicine and homoeopathy, and it is a difference that the author of this article, and many of the people who left comments, have missed. Herbal medicinal products may actually contain some part of the plant they come from. Homoeopathic remedies are so unlikely to contain some part of what they originally came from as to be utterly laughable.

To those commenters, and the author, who spoke of the group members overdosing on things like St. John’s Wort and belladonna, you are sadly mistaken, and your little knowledge on the subject will go a long way to fuelling the misunderstanding and mistaken beliefs surrounding alternative medicines.  If the group truly choose only homeopathic remedies to overdose on, then they are in no danger at all. They will merely be swallowing water, possibly flavoured or coloured (such as in Rescue Remedy), or sugar pills. Unless an unfortunate member manages to drown whilst swallowing the remedies, I don’t expect that any medical treatment will be necessary in the aftermath. I expect that the members of the group will have done more than enough research to be aware of the difference between the medicines, as they seem well informed.

I do hope that others reading the article, and deciding to demonstrate the same way, do some research first. To swallow several hundred tablets of 30C nux vom. will be very unlikely to cause you harm. To swallow several hundred tablets of St. John’s Wort could very well leave you quite ill.

And so we return to my original point – a little knowledge is, indeed, a dangerous thing. A little knowledge, in the case of this author, has lead to a confusion between two very different kinds of alternative medicine, and one that could lead to trouble for a lot of people. As a journalist, it’s your duty to know what you are telling people and to make sure it is accurate. “Daily Mail Reporter”, whoever you may be, I’m sorry to say that you have failed.

This week has seen some interesting news with regard to Rom Houben, a man who appears to have been suffering from Locked In Syndrome for over 20 years. A while ago, he made headlines when it seemed that he had been misdiagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, when in fact he had been minimally conscious and “locked in” all these years. While the diagnosis was made in 2006, it is only recently that a paper detailing the case was published, which is, in turn, what has driven media attention to the man.

At first glance, the story seems to be pretty miraculous. A man is left in a permanent vegetative state after an accident, and remains that way for 23 years. He is assessed for signs of brain activity again, by a new doctor (and at the behest of his family) and it is seen that there is brain activity. And now, 3 years later, he is giving interviews on tv, through the medium of Facilitated Communication. He is eloquent, optimistic, and smart. The case must shine out like a beacon to any who have previously questioned the notion of removing life support from people in long term comas or vegetative states, or to people who are perhaps now hoping that their loved one will awaken from their coma and return to the person they once were.

At first glance, I’d be almost inclined to agree, but the scientist in me wanted more than a newspaper article, so I looked a little deeper into it. I found the paper published by (among others) Stephen Laureys, who is the doctor that is being credited with discovering that  Houben was in a minimally conscious state (MCS) rather than a persistant vegetative state (VS). The paper can be viewed freely here and I’ve also grabbed the PDF, lest that link disappear in the future. I also did some investigating into Facilitated Communication, as watching some of the videos featuring Houben (and his facilitator) left me questioning the validity of the method. (One such video is featured here Houben interview)

To my mind, anyone believing that the story will signal a mass re-diagnosis of all comatose patients should read the original paper. It’s linked above, and is freely available (and I applaud the authors for allowing the paper to be open access online, it is a refreshing and welcome change from the norm). At first glance, one of the points made in the conclusion leaps out at me – “Despite the importance of diagnostic accuracy, the rate of misdiagnosis of VS has not substantially changed in the past 15 years.” While misdiagnosis of VS has always occurred, the rate of misdiagnosis has not changed. People are not being diagnosed with VS in order to be shelved, or because doctors don’t have time for them. They are being diagnosed based on a set of criteria that has proven to be reasonably reliable over time. I hope that this article does not bring renewed, dashed hope for many people.

I’ve also looked into facilitated communication, and having done so, I have my doubts about its legitimacy, and it’s efficacy. In some cases, people have moved from facilitated communication to independent communication, but these do seem to be the exception, rather than the rule. The alleged goal of facilitated communication is not to be there to facilitate for the rest of the person’s life, but to allow them to further develop so that they can communicate themselves. Where this has worked has been, for example, cases where the facilitator now need only hold a keyboard while the person uses it, or where the facilitator helped to train the person in the use of a communication device. I don’t see this in the case of Houben.

I understand that learning to use a new communication tool can take some time. I can imagine it would be very difficult. But if Houben’s FC is still communicating for him after 3 years, isn’t there a failure in technique there? After 3 years, shouldn’t he be able to use a device by himself, or at least more independently than to have a facilitator actually moving his finger? Also, as has been pointed out by several articles, it seems remarkable that a man, essentially trapped in solitary confinement for 23 years, should have no psychological problems evident. There appears to be no mental damage, as a result of the accident, or, as a result of the prolonged isolation. It seems to me that someone who has been removed from society, institutionalised, and isolated, for such a long time, really shouldn’t be so well adjusted.

Many detractors of Facilitated Communication say that the words that are spoken are really those of the facilitator, whether it be intentional or unintentional. I would have expected that selecting letters on a full qwerty keyboard, one by one, with only small hand movements to direct you, would be hard, and slow going. In the video above, and many others, the facilitator is moving his hand around with remarkable speed. If he has the muscle tone and strength to move so significantly that he can direct her at that speed, can he not now move toward independent communication?

Or is this all just giving false hope to people? Houben was found to be in a MCS by new technology. This is another matter for dispute, should it interest anyone. However, being in a minimally conscious state is not the same thing as being awake, and nor does it necessarily mean that you will have the physical ability to communicate.

I would hope, for the sake of his family, that Houben really is communicating and feeling alive after his second birth. As with many such things, I find the evidence rather thin, and until such time as I can find something more substantial, I’m forced to conclude that this story is potentially damaging to anyone in the unpleasant position of caring for a comatose loved one. I think it will serve to raise hopes only to dash them sharply again.

And I wish that this had been considered before the media declared him a miracle coma man.