The Best Books of 2008

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

This year has seen a fantastic number of books about quackery, scepticism, complementary and alternative medicine and its effects on society. As part of my review of the year, I thought I would look back at some of the best new books.

The year started of really rather well with the publishing of Rose Shapiro's Suckers: How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All. It is the book that rather set the tone for all others. And it is probably the book I wish I had written or even been good enough to have written.
 
Shapiro tells us that there are two definitions of the word 'sucker' that she had in mind: one who lives at the expense of others, and a gullible or easily deceived person. The theme of this book is that society as a whole is being deceived and is casually accepting of nonsense and fraud in healthcare. She tells us the Alternative Medicine market is worth £4.5 billion in the UK. But it is not just financial damage that is being done, but great intellectual damage.
 
Suckers has great chapters showing how chiropractors have got away with the biggest fraud of being so closely accepted into the mainstream and the evils of how cancer patients are preyed upon by quacks. What is worse is how our government supports so much of this fraud and how our institutions appear to be so blind to the danger.
 
Shapiro writes with a passion driven by the anger and dismay of witnessing lives being shortened, unaccountable charlatans and our intellectual culture undermined by leaches on our fallibility. If this was the only book written this year, it would have been enough. The book deserves to be sent to very MP, every NHS administrator and every school. 


Damian Thompson has a broader remit in his book as he looks at the growing emergence of what he calls 'counterknowledge' in society. It is not just the sphere of medicine that is suffering from suckers who seek to profit from unproven and spurious theories. Thompson draws in the counterknowledge of the creationist movement and, in particular, says we should be shifting our focus from the American version of this to one much closer to home in the form of Islamic creationism, most prominently voiced  in Europe by the Turk, Adnan Oktar. He decries the publishing industry for its venal publishing of the works of pseudo-historians in the wake of the da Vinci code.
 
But Counterknowledge also tackles quackery and alternative medicine too. Thompson devotes  a chapter to the 'Counterknowledge Industry' and shows how the misrepresentation of knowledge can afford great profits. He discusses Patrick Holford's The Optimum Nutrition Bible and his other business interests and how he has infiltrated mainstream academia with his brand of nutritionism. (He also quotes me at some length, which was a surprise.)
 
In common with several of these books, it discusses how the result of this casual acceptance of nonsense is not just wasted cash for middle class Europeans, but often wasted lives in Africa. South Africa has suffered enormously with hundreds of thousand of HIV people dying unnecessarily because of government acceptance of counterknowledge.
 
Healing, Hype or Harm? is a collection of essays collated by Edzard Ernst. Many of the essayists in this book will be familiar to you. What comes across to me again, is the passion of the writers. Quacks like to dismiss so called 'Quackbusters' as mere shills of pharmaceutical companies. This is of course a lie and an absurdity. We see here people deeply concerned about the infiltration of quackery into the healthcare system and how it is undermining important advances in medicine and society.
 
We can read Les Rose on the importance of evidence in healthcare. When health and lives are at risk, why do we so easily accept anecdote as evidence when we never would in a court of law?

Michael Fitzpatrick explores how alternative medicine has hijacked the concepts of compassion in healthcare and then uses this to its advantages. He argues for the reclamation of compassion as an important part of moving forward. David Colquhoun looks at how Universities have bowed under the commercial pressures to teach quackery as if it were science.
 
Not all the essays here sing from the same hymn sheet. Bruce Charlton argues for a sort of medical apartheid where  healing and curing are seen as separate are are not integratable. He argues that alternative medicine is from a medical perspective worthless but that this does not mean that people cannot get value from them. Charlton calls for a separation between the 'New Age' medicine and 'orthodox medicine' and to allow alternative medicine to tackle more spiritual needs. My problem with this is that my guess is most doctors would be happy with this, but the quacks will not feel constrained to just being spiritual in nature. Whilst homeopaths claim to be able to prevent malaria with sugar pills and iridologists claim to be able to diagnose disease by looking in your eyes, then their side of this truce will remain broken.
 
In other essays we see John Garrow ask why we do not see more  CAM in court, Edzard Ernst looks at the ethics of CAM, Terry Polevoy on the support insurance companies give to chiropractors and James Randi on the daftness and flummery of quackery.

In perhaps the most moving essay we read Michael Baum looking at the concepts of holism in medicine and  the vapidness of CAMs view of holism. He looks at the examples of young women with breast cancer and how their complete lives play crucial roles in deciding what are the best courses of treatment. Baum does this in a way that no quack could ever come close to and tells us how, "alternative versions of holism are arid and closed belief systems, locked in a time warp, incapable of making progress yet quick to deny progress in the fields of scientific medicine'.

Next we had the long awaited Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. Readers of his column in the Guardian and his blog will be familiar with the themes. However, we can now read Goldacre without the limitations of a word length in a newspaper column. As such, we can explore in full why MMR was a hoax and why Gillian McKeith is an absurdity. Homeopathy is used as an exemplar for the teaching of evidence based medicine and Patrick Holford (again) gets a thorough systematic review of his claims by his 'crazed stalker'.
 
Goldacre has created many enemies in his column - mostly, homeopaths, nutritionists and anti-vax protesters. If any of them were intellectually honest enough to read this book, they may well be in for a shock. Although on the surface the book is telling us why various forms of quackery are nonsense, it has a far more important theme - how pharmaceutical companies can deceive us about real medicine. Indeed, we are regularly told how quacks and Big Pharma use exactly the same tricks to convince us their treatments are real. Finding out what is real is the important step and the book guides us through the process. Goldacre is often portrayed by his detractors as a shill for commercial pharmaceutical companies. This book shows the shallowness of this claim. In the chapter Is Mainstream Medicine Evil? we are talked through the process of how drugs hit the market and how this can go wrong - sometimes through the deliberate corruption of evidence by the drug companies.
 
Throughout, Goldacre carefully explains the importance of evidence, how to interpret it and how this process can go wrong, to the benefit of quacks and drug companies, and the harm of us as individuals. But, for me, what came through was his deep seated and proud nerdiness of enjoying science, and his lament that the media either ignore science or deliberately corrupted it to create sellable stories and controversy.


Perhaps, one of the most important chapters in Goldacre's book was one that was left out. As it was going to press, the Guardian and Goldacre were being sued by arch-quack Matthias Rath for an article that pointed out his role in exploiting people with HIV  in South Africa. For legal reasons, the chapter in Bad Science could not appear. (I understand this will be corrected in the forthcoming paperback version.)
 
There were no such restrictions on Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again: The Sceptic's Guide to Life where he devotes most of a chapter to the evils of Dr Rath. Whereas Goldacre looked at the dangers of nonsense more from a personal and UK point of view, Wilson takes on a more global and political perspective. He tells us how the whole areas of Russian science was hijacked by fake experts during the Soviet era who were more adept at playing political games than honestly seeking truth. Lysenko was the master at this as he held back Russian and Chinese biology and agriculture for decades as ideology became more important than evidence. The consequences of this were the death of millions through starvation.
 
Rath is portrayed as a modern Lysenko as his ideas have enraptured South African politicians. Again hundreds of thousand have died as a result of ideological AIDS denialist nonsense.
 
Wilson offers a partial solution to some of the problem by suggesting that the regulation of politicians is too light and that we should be holding them to account through the law not just the ballot box. The self regulation of politicians fails. Lying to us should be punishable in court. In the UK, this suggestion was put forward to MPs, most of whom thought is somehow naive. Only 37 out of 646 MPs backed a proposed law saying that it would be an offense for a politician to knowingly lie or deceive.

Heavy weight science writer Simon Singh wades in next in a partnership with Britain's only professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. In Trick or Treatment: Alternative Medicine on Trial, Singh and Ernst take a systematic approach to evaluating the evidence for a wide range of alternative medicines. In doing so, they again show us how evidence works, why it is important and why we can reliably know whether a treatment works or not. The result is a near rejection of almost all forms of alternative medicine. They take pains to point out when the evidence suggests that some things do work, but I am sure that the surprising thing for many people new to this sort of book is just how little alternative medicine comes through unscathed.
 
Acupuncture is widely accepted as a treatment that does work. However, after reviewing its history and evidence one is left with the impression that it is little more than a scam. Homeopathy is easily dismissed. Although the authors go through rather useful review and history of all the meta-analyses on the subject - something homeopaths never do. Chiropractic is exposed as nonsense - and at times, dangerous nonsense that should be avoided at all costs. Common herbal remedies are tabulated and their evidence base rated. (Most are poor or medium.) Finally, the pair review reasons why alternative medicine might be so popular despite its appalling evidence base and point out who the real villains and culprits are in this state of affairs.

Between them, these books paint a consistent picture of a society that is enamoured with nonsense and how this can cause both personal harm and even catastrophic disaster to societies. However, if we are to overturn the tide of nonsense, it will not be sufficient to replace the day time television quacks with new authorities such as Singh, Ernst and Goldacre. The impact of nonsense and quackery on society will only really diminish when more people understand how their beliefs are manipulated and distorted by the tricks and canards of charlatans.
 
Although, we live in a scientific age, and almost all our children are taught science at school, few appear to come out of education with a deep understanding of how science works and how to recognise good arguments based on evidence. My final book is by the Philosopher Julian Baggini and is probably the one I might recommend giving to your family quack if you wanted to attempt to change their mind about things. In The Duck that Won the Lottery (And 99 Other Bad Arguments), Baggini dissects 100 logical fallacies and how they have manifested themselves in the media recently.  

This book would also be a good mental workout for the dedicated sceptic. The joy of this book for me was that each logical fallacy is presented in an accessible style but then pushed to see if it always applies. Is it always wrong to pursue ad hominem attacks? What about arguments from authority? At the end of each chapter Baggini poses a question or two in order to test the limits of the applicability of arguments. Good fun and not academic - and also, I must say, I disagree with some of the arguments. But I guess that is the point. Being a sceptic can never be formulaic. We cannot just simply repeat logical rules to expose truth and falsehood. We must always be alert and always thinking. That is the true nature of science and that is what separates it from the dogmas and ideologies of alternative medicine.
 
All these books are available to buy from the new Quackometer Bookstore. I set up the bookstore to make recommendations of further reading on the subject of quackery. It is run by Amazon and a small percentage of any purchases you make will come to me and help set off the few costs I bear on this site. Click on one of the book images to be taken to the bookstore.
 
Happy New Year.

*******************************************************************************

Update: Competition!

I have a spare copy of Suckers and Bad Science. Who should I send them too and why? Who do you think is most deserbing and/or in desperate need of each? Pleave leave answers below...


Labels: , , , , ,

 

 

9 Comments Links to this post View blog reactions


The Depths of Ms McKeith's Anti-Science

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

It's been a bad week for Gillian. The anti-quackery blogging brigade have been partaking in bouts of the great British pastime of uncontrolled Schadenfreude (why did we leave it to the Germans to coin that term?) after the Advertising Standards Authority stopped Gillian McKeith as advertising herself as 'Dr Gillian'. The Guardian printed a huge article by Ben Goldacre about how she is a 'Menace to Science' and how her particular brand of nutrionism is deeply anti-science and harmful.

Is there anything else left to say on the subject? One thing that Ben and Gillian's defenders have in common is their belief that, in many ways, it is immaterial by what title she calls herself. Obviously, her use of the title offends the many hardworking PhDs who have sweated and slaved to use their title in order to try to secure upgrades at airport check-ins. But if her advice leads to people eating more sensible diets then surely 'all's well that end's well'? That would be fine. But Gillian just speaks nonsense at people. Her thoughts on chlorophyll and food colour have been well addressed as non-scientific silliness. If people take her seriously, then how do they know what is good advice and what is rubbish? Therein lies the problem.

My contribution to the debate is going to be to show just how deep her embrace of anti-science is. I don't think even Ben has described just how far she is prepared to go. She does not just embrace the language of science in a pseudoscientific way, but is also quite prepared to get into bed with a deep anti-science agri-woo in order to sell her products. Let's just look at one of her products for sale on her web site: Veggie Vitality, available in 200ml quantities for £1.79. Her description reads...

My Veggie Vitality is produced to BioDynamic and Organic principles. BioDynamic is the highest standard for food excellence in the World today. These dedicated farmers grow their vegetables holistically according to the rhythms of the earth, sun, moon and stars. Using mineral-rich composted soil, natural homeopathics, soft music, happy conversation and meditation for the enjoyment of the crops, BioDynamicfarmers garner the perfect vibrational energy to help me create the most delicious vegetable juice ever made.
In itself, this description is pretty scary - holistic, organic, homeopathic, happy conversations - but the really kooky stuff is a little under the covers. Apparently, this drink is made to BioDynamic standards, which is supposed to be some sort of pinnacle of food excellence. Let's look at what this actually means.

Biodynamics is a farming method that was the precursor of the now popular organic food movement. Supporters of Biodynamics still stick to the founding fathers' original ideals of how farming should be done. If you are easily frightened, do not read on. This stuff is off with the fairies.

First the easy bit. Biodymanics believes that you should re-use stuff from the farm as fertilizer and not import chemicals and so on. Treating pests should also be done with readily available and local materials. There ends the fairly sane stuff.

Using any old horse shit as fertilizer is not good enough though. You have to 'activate' it using a number of formulated preparations. Let me describe a few to you...


  • Filling a cow horn with crushed quartz and burying it in the field you wish to help.
  • Yarrow flowers are stuffed into the bladder of a Red Deer and then buried over-winter before digging up in Spring
  • Oak bark is stuffed into the skull of a dead cat, or other domestic animal, and then also buried in peat
  • Chamomile flowers are stuffed into cattle intestines and buried in Autumn.

Once retrieved, the resultant gunge is used in teaspoon sized quantities on the whole dung heap to add special 'life-forces'. Other flower preparations, similar to Dame Mossop's Phytobiophysics, in near homeopathic concentrations, can also be used for the same effect.


It gets better. If you have an infestation of field mice, then catch a few, ceremoniously burn the little buggers, and then sprinkle the ashes around, but do this only when Venus is in Scorpio. (I am serious.)


What is quite clear is that Gillian's 'highest standard for food excellence' is little more than a mystical collection of nostalgic wishful thinking, voodoo, astrology and quackery. Her carrot and cucumber juice has to be that expensive as the farm workers are spending significant amounts of their time killing cats, stuffing stinging nettles into cow's squelchy bits, digging holes in peat bogs to bury this stuff, consulting astrological charts, succussing homeopathic preparations, and not forgetting to run around catching mice and the burning them at the stake. And she wants to be called Doctor.


Unless you wear purple a lot, I doubt I have to convince you that Biodynamics is at the nuttier end of the organic food movement (but not that far off in my opinion). Nonetheless, the issues that the organic farmers are trying to address, such as land use and animal care, are serious and need good answers. However, they do not get these answers by clinging to magical thinking. How do we make best use of our land, without cutting down more forest, and still produce the yields to feed everyone? How do we ensure our crops reliably grow every year so that disease, climate change and flooding do not produce regular shortages? How do we ensure that our soils can grow the yield of crops we need, year on year? How do we make sure that crop growing is energy effiecient and that the food on our table is not producing ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gasses in the field-to-table process?


Whilst mincing around with astrological charts, skulls and quartz crystals is going to be fun at Glastonbury Festival this year (my prediction - the Police will headline), it is not going to produce a reliable and sufficient amount of food, year on year, in the challenging times ahead. Only science can tell us the right and wrong paths to take. Superstition, nonsense and wishful thinking will only cloud our judgements and add to the confusion. Only serious enquiry and hard choices will steer us around the problems. Does GM have a role? How do we protect seed stocks? What energy sources should we use? These are serious questions that will affect the health of millions, if not billions, of people over the coming decades. This is for real and is a long way removed from the middle-class shit-poking, superfood obsessing, bullying and nonsense-promotion of the TV and Sunday Supplement nutriquacks.


Ms McKeith's anti-science is not helping us on this most critical journey.


Labels: , , , , ,

 

 

8 Comments View blog reactions


Quack Word #16: 'Nutritionist'

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

A regular comment to me is to ask "why have I got it in for Nutritionists?" Surely, these are dedicated health professionals who do wonders for peoples' health by improving their diets and making sure people take the right supplements, if required. Well maybe. The problem is that so many nutritionists are not doing this and often resort to pseudoscience and quackery. This week's Quack Word blog entry will argue that the Quackometer is quite right (most of the time) in scoring highly a web page with the word 'nutritionist' in it.

So, a quick definition of 'nutritionist'. Whilst one should always take wikipedea articles with a sceptical eye, their definition of nutritionist is a good starting point:

A nutritionist is a person who advises people on dietary matters relating to health, well-being and optimal nutrition. Nutritionists should not be confused with dietitians. Dietitians are health care professionals who have received specialised formal accredited tertiary education and training, and undertake internship in hospitals, and who are required to adhere to their regulatory body's code of conduct. They are also the only non-medically-trained health-care professionals permitted to practise clinically in hospitals or health-care facilities. Many "nutritionists" appear on television, in newspapers and magazines, and write bestselling nutritional books.

So, there is our first major cause for concern, anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. Call your self a dietitian without a formally recognised qualification and you would be breaking the law. But, if you just want to write in a Sunday supplement or set up a health food web site selling vitamins, by all means, call yourself a nutritionist.

The wikipedia goes on:
Self-identified nutritionists have varying levels of education, and can be someone with little education up to someone who may have the equivalent of a master's degree in Physiology or Biology.
I have discussed before how some high profile UK nutritionists have little formal education, like to flaunt their unconventionally acquired titles and awards, and glow under self-styled accolades, such as 'world's foremost nutritionist'.
Now, there are varying trade associations that do seek to represent nutritionists in the UK. Membership is not compulsory and of course, they cannot stop someone calling themselves a nutritionist if they act in a way thought to be harmful or dishonest. Some appear to have little interest either in monitoring the behaviour of their membership as was well documented by Ben Goldacre of the Guardian when investigating The Nutrition Society.

But, surely this is all a side issue - getting people to eat healthily is what counts? Well yes, but I will argue that the advice of so many of the Sunday supplement writers can actually be counterproductive. Let me list some ways in which nutritionists go astray...
  • It's not just about eating healthily. Bad diet is promoted as being the root cause of almost all diseases and conditions. Eating in a certain way can restore the 'balance'.

  • It is not possible to get all your vitamins and minerals from food today because of modern farming methods. The nutriquack can sell you the right supplements.

  • Organic is healthier.

  • Claiming that a simple change of diet or popping a vitamin cure complex social issues, like omega-3 fish oil pills helping poorly performing kids in schools,

  • Promoting radical diets which usually involve cutting out entire food groups.

  • Promoting the health benefits of consuming huge volumes of vitamins.

  • Advocating 'superfoods' that allegedly have remarkable health benefits.

  • Obsessions with discredited and weird diagnostic techniques, such as examining stools.

  • They use pseudoscience to sound knowledgeable. Talk of 'detoxification' is common.

  • Selling weird made up foods with remarkable properties such as this nonsense salt seller and shrouding it in ridiculous claims.

All these things have in common is their overstatements and lack of evidence. Making health claims in this way is quackery. From now on, I will call such people the nutriquacks.

I think the problem of the nutriquack arises from the simple fact that good nutritional advice (for most people) is quite simple - eat a balanced, varied diet with a low amount of fat and lots of green stuff. You are not going to make a fortune with that mantra - even though getting people to follow it is quite hard sometimes. By making the whole thing appear more complicated though, the nutriquack is creating a market for their services. You cannot get enough antioxidants - my superfood berries (available on my website) will do it for you though! Register with my site, complete my questionnaire and I will personally compose your optimum nutrition plan and supplement mix. And so on.

What is happening is that nutriquacks are fetishising food and bamboozling people. Rather than enjoying food for its own sake, many people are led down the path of analysing everything they put in their mouth, jumping to conclusions about why they might be overweight or unwell and fruitlessly giving money away to people who do not deserve it. The real heroes of healthy eating for me are those people who try to instill a love of good food into people. Chefs and writers who try to excite about the benefits of buying good ingredients, how to source fresh ingredients inexpensively, how to be creative in the kitchen without needing top-chef skills and basically try to impart a joy about food. That is surely the route to people having a good, healthy relationship with their food and so end up getting a more rounded, varied and balanced diet. People like Jamie Oliver, Nigel Slater and Nigella Lawson spring to mind, but there are many more. These people do not resort to pseudoscience in order to justify what they do.

When science does make some well researched discoveries about the food we eat, this is often drowned out in the swamp of nutriquack baloney. It is often impossible to tell good science from nonsense in the popular press and TV. All this does is make people despair of the 'scientists' with their constantly contradictory advice and silly discoveries. It undermines a reliable source of knowledge for society that genuinely could help improve peoples' lives.

Nutriquacks operate in a legal void. Selling food is not illegal after all and vitamins and minerals are just food. However, make medical claims and use ingredients that might be medicinal in nature and you might end up in hot water. At least this is a curb on the excesses of nutriquacks, although it is seldom invoked.

However, such is the fate of arch-nutriquack 'Dr' Gillian McKeith. Today, the MHRA (the British organisation that is supposed to control the use of medicines) has ordered that McKeith stop selling illegal products. McKeith has been capitalising on her TV fame by selling all sorts of expensive and silly 'superfoods' to her fans. At last, the law has caught up with her, at least in a little way and she will have to re-think how she goes about her business now.


Labels: , , , , , , ,

 

 

2 Comments View blog reactions


Quack Word #3: 'Doctor'

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

UPDATE 12/2/07

Congratulations to Ben Goldacre and the crew at Bad Science for getting Dr Gillian McKeith banned from using the title 'Dr'. In today's Guardian she is fully exposed as a Menace to Science. The Advertising Standards Authority have agreed that her use of that cheaply acquired title is thoroughly misleading.

One down...

************************************************************

Yes, I know. This is surprising quack word, but let me explain.

I'm not really writing about the word 'Doctor' but about titles and qualifications in general. More specifically, it is about using titles and qualifications, however acquired, to provide a sense of authority to healing claims when sound evidence is lacking.

'Trust me, I'm a Doctor.'

Quacks lack evidence for the effectiveness of their treatments or theories and so rely on a number of other techniques to convince you of their worth, including testimonials, anecdotes and baffling pseudoscience. However, one of the surest giveaways of quackery is the flaunting of titles and qualifications. The quack will proudly put 'Dr' before their name and 'PhD' afterwards. Normally, one or other of 'Dr' and 'PhD' will do. This is an 'appeal to authority'. It is solely there to impress. The quack is setting themselves up as a respected authority on a subject and so there is no need to look any further at any real arguments or evidence in favour of what they are saying.

Now of course, evidence-based medicine, and science in general, is full of Doctors, PhDs, Professors and diplomas. The difference is that, in general, these titles are not always flaunted. Look at any scientific paper in a prestigious journal like Nature and you will see just names and no titles. The authority of the paper comes from the strength of the argument and the rigours of the experiment, not the qualifications of the authors.

Qualifications do count, of course. They are part of the apprenticeship of science. But once the years have past, they become increasingly irrelevant. Look at how doctors tend to revert back to Mr/Ms etc as they become more experienced and advanced in their careers. Their reputation for excellent work is what matters, not their past exam success.

If you are still not sure, why not try a little experiment for yourself? Next time you are in a book shop, go and visit the popular science section. It is probably quite small, near the back and you may need a shop assistant to help you. Now look at the books and see how many titles you can spot on the covers. Names like Richard Dawkins, Steven J Gould, Hawkins, Dennett, Penrose and Pinker ought to leap out. All luminaries in their fields, but not a qualification in sight. If you look inside at the brief biography, you may spot the odd professorship mentioned alongside their stated appreciation of their family. Their titles, qualifications and awards are insignificant in the face of their arguments. If you do find a title, it is likely to be of a little known author.

Now go back towards the front of the shop until you end up in the 'Mind, Body, Health and Spirit' section. This won't be hard to find. It will be three to four times the size of the science section. In a bad bookshop, the science books might be mixed up with it. However, the actual useful contribution to human knowledge on those shelves will fit in a small shoe box. A waste of trees. Now look for qualifications. It won't take you long. They will be printed in huge, silver, embossed letters on the spine and cover. Looking at the Amazon best sellers at the moment we see names like Dr Gillian McKeith Phd, Doreen Virtue PhD, Jeffrey E. Young PhD and Dr Wayne Dyer. If the author hasn't got a title themselves, then they will get a forward written by someone who has and that will appear in big letters. Those embossed letters count for everything. Noel Edmonds is missing a trick here.

But surely these people must know what they are talking about? You can't just lie about your qualifications?

Well, you don't need to lie, but there are a number of ways of getting round the three to fours years of library work, fine tuning of experiments, paper writing, seminar giving, thesis writing, thesis re-writing, and tortuous examinations - all on a pittance of pay - that are the staple of postgraduate degrees, if you want to start earning big quack bucks fast.

Let us count the ways...

1. Swap Subjects
You could have mistakenly done all the hard work above only to find out that being a geologist does not make as much money a selling bucket loads of useless vitamin pills. I've written about this before. Even though you are now a nutritional 'expert' there is no need to make it clear that your PhD was in geology, economics or bongo playing. Flaunt those letters after your name!

2. Join a 'New University'
The massive expansion in higher education in the UK, and probably elsewhere in the world, has resulted in a deluge of former polytechnics, colleges and furniture shops now calling themselves universities. Even better is that, in the mad dash to attract students and, hence attract funding, the hard subjects of physics and chemistry have been dropped due to the difficulty of persuading students to take them. Far better to offer courses in homeopathy, nutrition and Madonna. Set yourself up as Professor of Reiki Studies and bingo, you're off.

3. Do a Cheap Correspondence Course through an Unaccredited American College.
This might involve a little work and at least cost you a fair amount of postage, but at least you will be able to defend yourself in a court of law that you are entitled to the letters after your name. Sometimes called the "looneyversities", these institutions often dole out pretty useless awards for little more than a fee. Proper academic standards are rarely upheld and are not subject to academic review by the usual authorities.

Paul McKenna PhD sued a journalist for saying his doctorate was not real. I quote from the Guardian:


Central to the case is an article published in October 2003 headlined "It's a load of doc and bull", in which Lewis-Smith wrote that McKenna's first PhD, awarded by La Salle university in Louisiana, was a sham. "I discovered that anyone could be fully doctored by La Salle within months (no previous qualifications needed)," he wrote, just so long as they could answer the following question correctly: 'Do you have $2,615, sir?'" This followed a number of articles dating from 1997 in which, among ther things, the columnist calls McKenna a "non-doctor", a "dildo" and compares him to Dr Crippen, the notorious murderer executed in 1910 for killing his wife.

In fact, La Salle university was not as it seemed: in late 1996 the former president, Thomas Kirk, admitted to the FBI that it was not officially accredited; the following year he was jailed for five years for fraud. McKenna told the court he knew nothing of the fraud when he enrolled for a doctorate in hypnosis in June or July 2005. While he admitted the revelation had "devalued" the qualification, he insisted he did not believe it rendered it "bogus"

The judge found in favour of Dr McKenna noting that "Mr McKenna was not, in my judgment, dishonest and, for that matter, whatever one may think of the academic quality of his work, or of the degree granted by La Salle, it would not be accurate to describe it as "bogus". So there. The title 'Doctor' is not protected, meaning anyone can pretty much call themselves this. The quality of any degree behind the title is irrelevant.

Perhaps, the most celebrated case in the UK is that of Dr Gillian McKeith PhD. Her credentials have been scrutinised by a number of observers, including the Sunday Mail with an article entitled Is Channel 4's latest food guru Dr Gillian really a Quack and a danger to our health? Perhaps the funniest analysis was done by Ben Goldacre in the Guardian who looked into her professional memberships that included the American Association of Nutritional Consultants (AANC). Dr Goldacre applied for the same membership for his recently deceased cat, Henrietta. It cost him just $60.

The qualifications of Dr Gillian have been well explored and I will give a reference shortly. It is fair to say though that she does have qualifications that everyone respects. They are in languages, business and marketing. All things she does very well and her education has obviously paid off.

Dr Gillian McKeith PhD is not afraid of legal challenges either, although sometimes they take a more 'out-of-court' route. If you Google "Dr Gillian McKeith PhD" you will find the following wording on the first page:


In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.


Fortunately for posterity, I know the page concerned. You can find it here. This page is essential reading for all Gillian fans.

4. Start your own Institution or University and award Yourself Titles and Awards
Arguably the hardest work, but it can have big payoffs. The main one being that you can charge other people to get similar awards.

This is most often done in the US. The Beatles guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, set up his own university so that lots of 'research' could be done on Transendential Meditation.

The UK has its own examples, including Patrick Holford BSc, DipION, FBant. Patrick is one of those people who you will have found in the Healthy Living section of the bookshop, in between 'Angel Healing' and 'The Photographic Kama Sutra'. Patrick styles himself as the "leading spokesman on nutrition, food, environmental and health issues".

Once again, Patrick's BSc was in psychology, not nutrition. His significant qualification in health matters is the DipION awarded by the Institution of Optimum Nutrition which was set up as a 'charitable and independent educational trust ' by none other than Patrick Holford himself. Hire a few rooms in some managed office space in Richmond, London and you can have an International Headquarters. Even better, get one of those new universities (say Luton) to accredit your course and you can expect a stream of fresh new students. Nevermind that the most recent official quality review of Luton (now Bedfordshire) concluded:

As a result of its investigations, the audit team's view of the University is that: limited confidence can be placed in the soundness of the University's current and likely future management of the quality of its academic programmes and the academic standards of its awards.

This has not gone too unnoticed. The Sunday Telegraph posted an article entitled "Is this the worst university in Britain?".

The Institute's philosophy is one of nutritional therapy, treating disease through what you eat, as highlighted by the quote on the front page of its web site:

"The Doctor of the future will no longer treat the human frame with drugs, but rather will cure and prevent disease with nutrition"
Thomas Edison, c 1870
So Thomas Edison not only invented the light-bulb but was a pioneering nutritionist. It's a shame that the rest of science has not yet caught up with his thinking and adopted this in the way we have adopted the lightbulb. Maybe it is because the lightbulb is based on sound science and is useful?

Does any of this matter? Well, people do take Mr Holford seriously. He has been associated with comments that Vitamin C is better than AZT in the treatment of AIDS, where the evidence for that has been very poor. This is burning issue in South Africa now where the Health Minister believes you can treat HIV with potatoes. Someone is dying there every two minutes of HIV and AIDS. Also, the general public take him seriously. He last came to my attention when researching the QLink trinket that is sold as a way to stop 'harmful' EMF disrupting your life energy thingumajigs. He sells them on his website and provides this most fantastic endorsement:


There are many gadgets out there promising to protect you from electromagnetic radiation and give your energy a boost. I've investigated many and did not find any stacked up. The one exception is Q Link. The scientific proof is deeply impressive and that's why I wear one. I recommend you do the same.
So, all the other EMF pendants are quackery and nonsense, Patrick, except the ones you sell?Presumably, Patrick will be setting up an Institute of Optimum Quantum Physics as well now.

So why do the likes of Dr Gillian and Patrick see qualifications as so important to them? The key here is to see that they are both nutritionists and both sell food supplements of one form or another. The problem in selling these things is convincing people they need them; basic nutrition for most people is not hard. It's common sense - eat a balanced and varied diet, eat your greens and don't overindulge too often. Not much of a market for superfoods and vital supplements there. If, however, you make all this sound very complex, stress the importance of eating at an 'optimum', throw in some pseudoscience to make it sound like you know this stuff deeply, flaunt your qualifications and make it all sound too hard for the individual to keep track off, then you just might create a market for your overpriced alfalfa extract.

Dr Canard Noir Bsc(Hons.), PhD

Labels: , , , ,

 

 

15 Comments View blog reactions


About Me

The Quackometer has been developed by Andy Lewis. If you wish to get in contact then please read the FAQ and then email me. Details in the About section.

Subscribe

Get email alerts when the blog is updated.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Tools

Get the QuackSafeTM Surfing 4 in 1 Toolbar. Access the quackometer from any web page.

 

Subscribe to the Quackometer Blog by Email

Find out more

Visit the Quackometer Amazon Store. Buy books there and help support the quackometer