the quackometer

The Two Most Dangerous Words in Medicine are "Studies Show."

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Jerry Addler has published his New Year's resolution in Newsweek,

I will not report on any amazing new treatments for anything, unless they were tested in large, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials published in high-quality peer-reviewed medical journals. If that means not telling NEWSWEEK's readers about, say, a new magnetized-water cure for osteoporosis, cancer and autism—well, there are infomercials to fill that gap. The risk that I might overlook the next Lipitor is outweighed by the danger of hyping the next laetrile, the discredited 1970s-era miracle cancer drug made from apricot pits that failed to cure Steve McQueen.

Now if only all journalists kept on smoking and drinking and took up this resolution instead of a futile gesture to cut down on vices, then we may all be a little healthier.

Addler was converted by a new book (not yet in the UK) by R. Barker Bausell, a biostatistician at the , called Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine. (Oxford University Press Inc, USA).

He wrote the book to,

educate journalists and the public that "just because someone with a Ph.D. or M.D. performs a clinical trial doesn't mean that [it] possesses any credibility whatsoever … The vast majority are worse than worthless."

The problem, he says is that,

researchers, even those without a direct financial stake in the outcome of a trial, often have a psychological investment in what they're testing. Their papers get published because the editors of journals in fields like homeopathy start from the premise that the whole thing isn't a preposterous hoax, as Bausell and most mainstream doctors believe. If someone really does cure cancer—whether a drug company researcher or a Tibetan herbalist—The New England Journal of Medicine or The Journal of the American Medical Association will be happy to publish the news.

This is good news. I wish all UK Health journalists would put this new book at the top of their reading list for 2008. We just are sick to death of seeing press releases on research being presented as the next big break through. We are fed up with unreferenced news stories. And most of all, we are fed up with uncritical reporting of fashionable health nonsense just becuse its fits in with a journalists preconceived ideas about what ought to be true about the world.

PS - Note how the homeopaths have started a fightback against this article in the comments section of Addler's post. Ha Ha Ha.

Labels: journalists

3 Comments Links to this post View blog reactions

Absence of Evidence

Sunday, July 15, 2007

The absence of the Bad Science column in yesterday's Guardian has all the makings of a bigger story than had there actually been a column. Ben Goldacre, writer of the column, has been one of the few voices in the British press that has reliably and careful pointed out the evidence against the assertion that the MMR vaccine causes autism in children. Last Sunday's appalling story in the Guardian's sister paper, the Observer, and the non-appearance of Ben yesterday, cannot be a coincidence.

Last week saw two pretty awful bad science stories: the first was this unnecessary muck-raking around MMR on the eve of Andrew Wakefield's competence to practice hearing; the second, was Patrick Holford's parading of his non-science nonsense on the gullible Trevor McDonald programme. The latter was broadcast too late for inclusion in Saturday's paper. No, Ben just had to write about the MMR story that spread across the British Media like wildfire last week. I am sure it was tearing at the very heart of Ben's Bad Science existence. I can feel his pain.

So, has the Guardian gagged him? Told him not to write about it? Today's Observer offers a piss poor explanation for their story. Maybe, the Guardian wanted to let the Observer offer its own explanation for why it made the story front-page? Well, if their readers' editor comments is justification then it falls a long way short. The non-apology offers in response to the charge that it was conflating the issues of MMR safety and an autism increase that,

We didn't conflate the two issues; the issues are already conflated.

Fantastic. And I thought the more progressive papers were all about trying to disentangle the lies, half-truths, confusions and propaganda so readily dished out by most of the press. It is a great shame that the two newspapers that stand the best chance of offering rational reporting based on good science find it so hard to do so.

The Observer tries to justify its story in that it managed to get hold of leaked previews of the Cambridge results that deserved reporting. In this respect it is behaving as if it has got hold of leaked cabinet papers. It forgets that science is a process that has many checks and balances. Break that process and what you end up with is inherently unreliable - it is no longer science. Leaked results, before they have been peer-reviewed and amended are deeply provisional and may well be worthless.

What I find galling is that the original article is essentially repeating the same mistakes that led to the MMR debacle in the first place, namely:

reporting unpublished research that has not gone through a proper peer-review and scientific analysis and promoting such reports as if it was reliable and important.

feeling the need to report 'balance' by giving undue prominence to fringe views and small numbers of dissenting voices

failing to properly report careful and sound science that could settle the issues and instead continue to look for a sensationalist angle.

Newspapers appears to misunderstand that good science reporting is intrinsically different from reporting financial issues, politics, fashion and sport. Science is not democratic. It is not about the fair counterpointing of opinions. It is not 'pluralistic'. It cannot be selective. Science reporting should not focus on the motives of researchers as its primary analysis. It should not be about conspiracies and shenanigan's as a matter of course.

And the reason is that science is the the best way, indeed the only way, that we know of finding out the truth about the world. And it is a truth that is deeper than the 'truths' of politics and the love lives of celebrities. Our wishes, aspirations, prejudices and world views make no impact on scientific reality, no matter what the post-modern educations of our media masters may have told them. Does MMR cause autism? This is a question that cannot be answered by readers' polls, a show of hands and an editorial in a paper. It is a question about the nature of reality; a scientific question that can be, and has been, answered by the meticulous collection of relevant evidence.

Understanding science is about understanding the evidence: about how that evidence has been collected, analysed and criticised. It is about the best conclusions we can draw from that evidence and how we might improve on that evidence to gain deeper insights. Reporting that concentrates on fringe views, that are in contradiction to reliably established facts, might do when we discuss base-rate changes, Spice Girl reunions or the size of Tony Blair's manhood, but cannot make the mainstay of scientific reporting. The end result is just a total distortion of what science knows and just adds to public mistrust of the reliability of science.

Now, of course there are very important human interest stories in the MMR controversy. Science is a human process too. But the process of science is different from the established conclusions of science. In science there are deceptions, intrigue, anguish and politics. These issues too need reporting. The charges that Andrew Wakefield will face need covering to counter the arguments in the mad press that this is just the 'establishment' hitting back. There are thousands of confused parents and many who are convince that MMR caused their children's problems, despite their beliefs being due simplistic and faulty reasoning. There are the quacks that seek to exploit the fear of MMR and offer their own self-serving money making schemes. But the science is different from the human ping-pong. The non-MMR/Autism link is as settled as any scientific question can be now. This ought to be the starting point of the stories, not something that can be played with like antics of Paris Hilton.

So, will the Guardian let Ben write what needs to be written? What is more important, can the Guardian and the Observer cover the GMC disciplinary hearings for Andrew Wakefield in a way that can start putting the whole sorry mess to bed? We desperately need newspapers that can do this. We do not need more sensationalist rags. I shall not be buying a paper this week. A small step, I know.

These things are important. As a society, we have forgotten how bad childhood illnesses can be. We have forgotten how they were feared by our grandparents. Instead we just just get idiots in the Daily Mail saying how we should not be too worried about immunising our children, because there are no cases of measles about.

postscript:

Response now posted...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2128834,00.html

Labels: Ben Goldacre, journalists, MMR

9 Comments Links to this post View blog reactions

Teachers' Union Demand Meteorite Shields For Schools

Monday, April 23, 2007

Quackery thrives on fear. Cancer, infection and injury are rightly things to be concerned about. Despite the near doubling of our expected life span in the last hundred years or so, scientific medicine will eventually let us all down and we shall eventually succumb to the final inconvenience of death. In the meantime, the fear of suffering creates opportunities for quacks to exploit. The entrepreneurial quack will fan the flames of those fears as a sales technique. However, this is not always necessary, as the media do a pretty good job of stirring things up too as way of creating 'shock' stories.

This week we have seen pretty much all the UK newspapers report on the 'fear of Wi-Fi'. The Independent on Sunday started the ball rolling with its usual sensationalist front-page grabber. Two stories, Wi-Fi: Children at risk from 'electronic smog' and Is the Wi-Fi revolution a health time bomb? lead the way, to be quickly copied in the Daily Heil, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the BBC, and of course the Norwich Evening News.

All these stories have much in common, which is unsurprising since the later ones just copied the Independent. Basic story - Philip Parkin, General Secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers (PAT), has issued a press release after his previous one was ignored, calling for "full scientific investigation into the effects of wi-fi networks". A teacher, apparently, has complained of headaches in a classroom with WiFi. A little later, and after some time off, the headache disappeared, coincidental with the removal of the WiFi. What more proof do we need?

Philip Barking continues, "I am not saying there is a danger". But I guess it would be remiss of him if he did not take the concerns of one of his members 'seriously'.

I am concerned that so many wireless networks are being installed in schools and colleges without any understanding of the possible long-term consequences.

The proliferation of wireless networks could be having serious implications for the health of some staff and pupils without the cause being recognised.

Philip also then gets all conspiratorial on us with the classic quack line, 'There are huge commercial pressures which may be why there has not yet been any significant action.'

The newspaper stories then weigh in with even more 'evidence' . Apparently, from the independent,

Britain's top health protection watchdog is pressing for a formal investigation into the hazards of using wireless communication networks in schools amid mounting concern that they may be damaging children's health, 'The Independent on Sunday' can reveal.

Sir William Stewart, the chairman of the Health Protection Agency, wants pupils to be monitored for ill effects from the networks - known as Wi-Fi - which emit radiation and are being installed in classrooms across the nation.

Sir William - who is a former chief scientific adviser to the Government, and has chaired two official inquiries into the hazards of mobile phones - is adding his weight to growing pressure for a similar examination of Wi-Fi, which some scientists fear could cause cancer and premature senility.

Jeepers! Alarming, but fortunately not long if you bother to check the facts. Here is what Sir William Stuart actually says about WiFi,

The statements attributed to Sir William Stewart, Chairman of the Health Protection Agency (HPA), in The Independent on Sunday are not his. Sir William is being pressed by lobbyists to condemn Wi-Fi and is unprepared to do so. He has not taken a position on Wi-Fi.

Will we see a front-page retraction from the Independent of Sunday, preferably covering the same area as the original story? I doubt it.

Now, as one would expect, the HPA is monitoring research on the effects of WiFi and calling for research in particular areas - that is its legislative remit. It is not a refection on sudden and alarming concerns, but a sensible and prudent approach from a government body tasked with providing research and advice in the effects of all types of radiation. It looks like the Independent has put words in a civil servant's mouth and weasel-worded their position.

There are other possible dangers in schools that we might get worried about and for which there is insufficient research to conclude they are safe. For example,

chalk dust
boiled cabbage
leather arm patches on geography teacher's jackets

We could go on endlessly with this list thinking up things that may be dangerous and for which we have no evidence that they are safe. The fact that we cannot prove something is safe does not mean that we have to fear it. We can put limits around the risk, estimate probabilities and examine plausibilities. I am sure after a few martinis we could all dream up nightmare leather arm patch scenarios, but that does not mean that the risk to children from them is plausible.

Here is a list of things where we might be able to quantify the risks to school children,

meteor impact
choking on pen tops
cars

All of these are plausible threats and one of these is the leading cause of death and disability in school children. The risk accounts for about 170 deaths per year and 4000 serious injuries. One of the other risks does cause deaths, although fortunately rarely - the other has no recorded deaths to kids, but is plausible in its nature. No prizes to guess which is which. We are scared of risks we don't understand and complacent about risks we believe we do. Car usage goes up because we feel that driving our darlings to school is safer. But as a result, traffic goes up and causes a greater risk to ourselves.

The point I am making is that if we are to be alarmed by the Wi-Fi scare and remove this relatively inexpensive technology and replace it with very expensive re-wiring of schools, we are missing an opportunity to divert the money into preventing deaths from large risks. Improving child safety outside schools, providing cycle lanes and encouraging walking would create a more humane environment. Maybe even childhood obesity would diminish with its own associated risks. Conversely, putting meteorite shields over our schools may prevent future deaths, but at what cost?

By demanding complete elimination of a small and probably inconsequential risk, we push larger risks into other areas of our lives. I can work at home much more now because of Wi-Fi. This means I drive less and so reduce the risk to myself and others by my car not being on the road. My mobile phone also allows me to work at home - just - reception is poor. Unfounded fears about masts may mean I have to leave the house more than I would otherwise do. We are trading off real risks against implausible, potential and unrealised risks.

But how can I be so sure that the risks from Wi-Fi are so small? Well, despite Philip Barking's assertion that we have no 'understanding of the possible long-term consequences', there have been organisations looking at these issues for many years. One place we might start is the World Health Organisation. Unless you believe that the United Nations and the WHO are run by shape-shifting lizards, we might think that this was a reliable impartial place to start. It is not clear how 'huge commercial pressures' might be influencing the WHO unless you believe CISCO and Belkin are also run by the illumianti.

The WHO have been looking into the question of the health effects from mobile phones and wireless networks for a decade or more. Their conclusion is,

Some people perceive risks from RF exposure as likely and even possibly severe. Several reasons for public fear include media announcements of new and unconfirmed scientific studies, leading to a feeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may be unknown or undiscovered hazards. Other factors are aesthetic concerns and a feeling of a lack of control or input to the process of determining the location of new base stations. Experience shows that education programmes as well as effective communications and involvement of the public and other stakeholders at appropriate stages of the decision process before installing RF sources can enhance public confidence and acceptability.

Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.

What is so disappointing here is that, unless the story was just a bit of journalistic stick poking, the origin appears to be from the head of a professional teachers' trades union. One would have thought that teachers would have a better idea of relative risk, the scientific method and the negative effect of scare-stories. Maybe I might conclude that those that can, teach; those that can't, run unions.

Labels: electromagnetic quackery, journalists

6 Comments View blog reactions

Luv a Duck - it's Magnetic Holisitic Slippers!

Monday, February 12, 2007

It's that time of year again when a young male duck's thoughts turn to the browner sex. Yes, its St Valentine's Day, and gift buying is mandatory if you wish to maintain the affections of your fair-feathered ducky-love.

So what to buy? A few suggestions out there from the world of Quackland. Sarah Stacey, and her cosy tie-in with Victoria Health, had plenty of suggestions in last week's You magazine - the colour supplement of the Mail on Sunday. Let's start with the first and best...

Holistic Silk magnetic slippers, £65: these adorable brocade slippers are simply addictive; they’re not only gorgeously sexy but the magnets implanted in the inner soles had me skipping around the house at bedtime, doing all sorts of unlikely things such as the washing up and putting the rubbish out.

Now, personally, if Ms Canard Noir bought me a pair of holistic magnetic healing slippers, I too would be skipping as I put the rubbish out, but the slippers would be inside the black bin liner. There would then follow a traditional Valentine's day row about wasting money and 'you don't understand me' and tears and tantrums. Ho Hum.

I find it incredible that a grown adult could actually fall for this. Getting confused about the benefits of eating goji berries is understandable. Even herbal remedies have a chance that there might be something in them, but sticking fridge magnets in tacky slippers and then pretending you are getting a foot massage to improve circulation? And even the capability to improve the desire to wash up? I hope there is a tongue firmly lodged in cheek. Somehow, as there is a commercial interest here with the sellers, then I doubt it.

What is even more wonderful about these slippers is that Vicky Health sternly warn us not to wear these slippers if we are pregnant or have a pace-maker. Do pregnant women need to steer clear of magnets? Should we be removing that fridge magnet sexy-poem words set that is still spelling out 'clean me you slow lazy fat fruit head' on the door? Does my magnetic GB sticker on the back of my car risk harming my unborn ducklings? What about the Earth's magnetic field, which would have more effect on my inner organs that some cheap magnets stuck to the bottom of my feet? We live in a dangerous world.

Moving on. we have much more quackery to offer our loved one...

Arms of Love flower essence (also available from Vicky Health) has the power to soothe, relax and turn around failing businesses. (No not, VH, I think they are doing rather well. read the article)
An Aroma Pen that can 'lift the spirits and create feelings of love'
Love Rose tea that can 'seduce the inner him (or her)'
'Pure Alchemy Passion Body Therapy' - with libido lifting 'essential' oils. (I have always wondered just how essential these oils are.)
'Female Balancing' Nourish Chocolate, £1.99 for 50g bar: Um, woudn't a sneaky Mars bar be cheaper?
If you are feeling flush, why not treat your loved one to a trip to the 'Ayush Wellness Spa, the first Ayurvedic destination spa newly opened at the Hotel de France on the shores of St Helier in Jersey'. Here you can get a 'four-handed abbyanga massage'. Fortunately, we are told this involves two 'therapists', and is not some freaky mutant massage nightmare.

We are told that Dr Kerur, who runs the Jersey Spa, is also involved in a "study evaluating how India’s 5000 year old ‘science of life’ might be incorporated into the NHS." Great, that should improve the NHS. Would that be the 5000 year old 'science of life' that left most babies to die before before their fifth birthday and the survivors to die by their late thirties? 5000 years ago, magnets had not been invented, let alone slippers to contain them. How did they cope? Were women always 'unbalanced' without their 'Nourish Chocolate'. And as for Aroma Pens, were they lying idle just waiting for someone to invent a script to write "Roses are red..."? My guess is that any study will be much more about researching marketing techniques than science. Please prove me wrong.

There are a number of things in all this that I find rather alarming. First, supporters of alt-med are quick to chastise allopathic (i.e. real) medical practitioners for being too closely tied in with 'Big Pharma' and other forms of money grabbing, and yet this article is just a blatant plug for one or two retailers that the author has a clear relationship with. (Go visit the VH site, I won't link as it will increase its Google rating!)

Secondly, I find it distasteful that so much of quack journalism is directed at women. I don't for one moment think that women are more prone to delusional thinking than men. Maybe, its just that there is more scope for money making from toiletries and other pampering products. Men might be more prone to buying very expensive quantum-induced single-crystal copper with gold plated connectors, uni-directional hifi speaker cable - but I would not like to stereotype further.

For my part, I will be looking at treating Mrs Noir with silk slippers, bath oils, chocolates and maybe even a spa weekend, but I will not be insulting her intelligence with promises of mumbo-jumbo.

Then again, I might just get a set of speakers for her iPod. Always the best present - one you can use yourself. Am I doomed to have a row?

Labels: daily mail, journalists

0 Comments View blog reactions

easyQuack

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Le Canard Noir has a hectic international life, flitting around the world in luxury, from hotel to beach, from fine restaurants to top spas. And all I have to do is occasionally blog from wherever I can get WiFi access. Such are the benefits of being a Big Pharma shill. (Keep the cheques coming in - my stocks of champagne are getting low for Christmas).

However, yesterday was a little more mundane with a 4am foggy dash to Luton for the first easyJet flight to Edinburgh. A quick meeting there, and then back in the afternoon. So, in my caffeine starved, befuddled and yawning state, I had found myself flicking through the easyJet in-flight magazine. Something I usually avoid, but I was late and had to run past the magazine shop to board the plane. I was going to do my Xmas shopping in the duty free shop, but that will have to wait now til Saturday.

Now I was not expecting investigative journalism, insightful political analysis or even peer-reviewed papers. No, I would have been happy to read about some groovy bars in ski resorts, boutique hotels in city break destinations and even flick through the vanity surgery adverts and pictures of expensive villas in Mallorca (do I really need another one?) What I was confronted with was a shed load of quackery. Astonishing amounts for one small in-flight magazine.

Let me give you some highlights...

Top tips on avoiding a cold. Dubious vitamin C advice, superfoods (aarrrggh), and my real pet hate - drink at least 2 litres of water per day.

A new concept of 'Wine Therapy'. Apparently wine contains lots of essential 'pure essences' and 'natural ingredients'. A new spa has opened up to exploit the curative properties of wine - the Caudalie Vinotherapie Spa near Bilbao.

A review of the 'Bliss Energy Mask'. Some sort of facial stuff that has vitamin C and a 'shot of oxygen'. Marvelous.

Top tips for healthy skiing, including laying off the cheese (is that possible in the Haute Savoie?)

One of those standard 'Surviving Christmas' articles including great advice from a Boots the Chemist nutriquack and a reflexologist.

Stress relieving tips including taking herbal supplements and Bach Flower Remedies.

Hangover remedies from around the world - placing parsley on your head and eating marinated fish is the thing, apparently.

and my favourite,

The amazing benefits of inhaling copious amounts of smoke in an Estonian Smoke Sauna. Don't forget to thwack yourself with birch branches too.

So, is there any harm in this? Directly, I doubt it. At worst, a lot of the advice is pretty soulless and is just missing the point of having a good ski holiday or a weekend in a spa drinking wine. Even inhaling smoke in a sauna is unlikely to be that bad and the invigorating experience of the sauna is going to be stress relieving and fun. Indirectly though, the trotting out of old canards about drinking loads of water and the thinking that vitamins in cosmetics is a good idea, just adds to the noise of uncritical and lazy health advice in the media.

For me, what this represented was just the depressing reality of the mainstream acceptance of the views of reflexologists as being valuable, the acceptance of the pseudoscience of oxygen rich facial creams being unchallenged, and the need to subvert life affirming activities, such as skiing, spas and saunas with meaningless health advice.

It is just low cost journalism for a low cost airline. I guess with everything else on these low cost airlines, we mustn't grumble.

Labels: detox, diets, journalists, nutritionist

2 Comments View blog reactions

The Daily Mail: An Apology

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Those of you who have read my last blog entry might be under the impression that I believe the Daily Mail is a deeply ignorant and offensive paper that panders to its bigoted readers' prejudices and does nothing but promote its right wing individualistic nonsense. Furthermore, I may have left the impression that the Daily Mail is little more than a conduit for alternative medicine fraudsters who use the rag to promote their deluded and dangerous wares through a credulous and uncritical science editorial policy. I may have given the impression that I was gloating about how the paper picked up all three Quackometer Awards for Quackiest News Source, News Story and Journalist.

Well, today, the paper disproves any of these slurs by printing a rather enlightening piece about Professor Edzard Ernst, entitled, "Complementary medicines are useless and dangerous, says Britain's foremost expert".

The Professor is a real Professor, with a chair at a real, accredited higher education institution, with real academic degrees and a long list of research publications in real peer-reviewed journals. He has, however, trained in many complementary therapies, but is now embarked on a thorough evidence-based evaluation of the techniques and their claims. His summary is basically that a bit of acupuncture may work for some pain (but not through woo meridians), massage is good and some herbal stuff may be effective. Everything else is pretty much useless and even dangerous.

Not surprisingly, his approach and conclusions do not go down too well in the woo community. Evidence is to the homeopathist, reflexologist and reiki master as kryptonite is to Superman. Reason is to the crystal therapist, chiropractor and nutritionist as water is to the the Wicked Witch of the West.

So it is no surprise that Professor Ernst is attacked, or more commonly, totally ignored by CAM practitioners. If mentioned at all, the Professor's work is condemned as being irrelevant to the sorts of 'holistic' treatments that health charlatans engage in. It is a widely held belief in homeopathic circles that double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trials cannot be used to test the efficacy of their sugar pills. No substitute is offered as an alternative test measure - the homeopathist is quite happy to sit in the dark, in an anecdote rich smog and an evidence free vacuum, and use this canard to deflect away the negative results that come out of good, controlled trails. And a canard it is. As Professor Ernst is reported to say in the article, "You need to think a bit more - it's a challenge".

The sad thing is that not much thinking is really required. For a trial to be effective, all you need to do is blind both the practitioner and patient as to whether the 'real' sugar pill or a dummy pill is being taken. Let the homeopathist do whatever they like in their 'complex intervention' (long expensive chat), let them prescribe whatever combination of identical sugar pills is required to create the 'individualized treatment'. Just make sure that the dispensing of the actual pills is done through some sort of randomised, coded and blind procedure. This is surely not beyond even the wit of a homeopathist. In order to believe that such a trial would be ineffective, you would have to believe that the critical part of the homeopathy magic is in the actual physical handing over, from therapist to patient, of the content-free tablets - nothing to do with tinctures, succussions, dilutions and like-cures-like.

So, anyway. Why did the Mail publish this? If I was to get all conspiratorial, I would say that the Mail publishes such stuff knowing exactly how its readers will respond. The Mail tends to dislike experts and authorities, people who can dispute their nonsense with well reasoned debate. Maybe the Mail knows that its readers will just see Prof Edzard as just another out-of-touch, ivory tower elitist idiot. The readers 'know' that their woo-of-choice works and so the only conclusion is that this guy must be just out to spoil their fun. It is a pity that this article is not allowing comments on it at the moment as we could test out if this near the truth. Or maybe it is much simpler in that there is no real science editorial policy and that they will just publish anything that makes a good story regardless of its origin, accuracy or reliability.

Anyway, one thing I am quite proud of is that the Quackometer News Scanner did not pick up this story, despite is being riddled with alt med terms. This is what that the quackometer has to say about the piece,

0 Canards.
This web site has more quackery than my village pond. It is full of scientific jargon that is out of place and probably doesn't know the meaning of any of the terms. However, the black duck can spot a fellow sceptic!. The site is highly sceptical in language and is debunking. It also looks like this site is trying to sell stuff. Buyer Beware!

I am not going to argue.

Update - 13/12/06

Looks like my prediction is correct. The readers backlash has started in the comments section of the article.

Some highlights so far:

Individuals should be free to judge for themselves the effectiveness or non-effectivenss of any therapy. We do not want or need authorities 'protecting us' at every turn.
what we need is to preserve our freedom to choose what works for us.People have to become aware that our rights are eroding and refuse to accept it. Debate about the safety of natural medicine is ridiculous in light of the large number of people who die from drug side-effects.
Often times prescription and non-prescription medicines do more harm than good.
The popularity of homeopathy and other natural remedies is pretty strong 'evidence' in itself
I'm not quite sure what this man hopes to achieve by such arrant nonsense. Indeed it is he who is irresponsible. Why, I wonder does he feel the need to make such a controversial public announcement?
However, from my own experience, it would appear to me that there is absolutely no doubt that alternative medicine, along with the appropriate lifestyle changes, can make a major impact upon the health of those who choose to follow that path.
Why is it that Professor Ernst et al never make any mention of thousands of allopathic (scientifically formulated) drugs that poison, kill and destroy many peoples lives every day?
Wonder if something's happening in the allopathic world that the heat has to be taken off them and placed onto complementary medicine?

Blah blah blah.

Labels: daily mail, homeopathy, journalists, newspapers, pseudoscience

3 Comments Links to this post View blog reactions

The First Annual Quackometer Awards and Year Review

Friday, December 08, 2006

The Quackometer has been up and running for just about a year and has seen some serious traffic increases over the past six months. Starting off with just a few hits per day, the daily unique visits now stand in the many hundreds, with a peak recently of several thousand. Cripes! What started off as a bit of a bored joke has now grown into a proper web site.

So, a quick, tearful thanks to all the people who keep coming back. Thanks for all the correspondence, both encouraging and threatening. I hope 2007 will throw up richer, funnier and more useful functionality and content. Plus a few more innevitable threats.

So, to the main business. The quackometer scans various news sites twice a day on the look out for quack stories. I thought is would be good to review what has been found, where the stories are coming from and who is writing them. Awards will be made.

But first, an apology and admission. This is going to be very UK-centric - my time has very much concentrated on the UK press at the expense of many sources of potential quackery around the world. Maybe, I can get this working better next year for overseas news sources. I must say though, that the UK does look like its newspapers are particularly prone to printing quack nonsense. More research is needed to see if this true. Also, I must point out that the Quack News Scanner was only working from August - so not a full year yet in review.

And now for he disclaimers. This is not a scientific study! I make no bold claims to have conducted a comprehensive review of all the papers and I have not done extensive validity checking on all the spotted articles. Life is short and it is just for fun. Also, not all papers are represented. The Independent and Express are the big omissions (for technical reasons) and this is a shame since the indie spurred me on with a silly piece about electrosmog earlier in the year. Nor do I include the red-tops (bar the Mirror) partially for technical reasons, but mainly because they are different sort of beast where their readers engage with the paper in different ways than other more self-important titles. (My feeling is that papers like the Sun are not quite so credulous as one might naively suppose - I will be looking into this further). Finally, all the stories listed below, may not be quackery. As always, read and research and make up your own mind.

So, straight into the first award...

Quackiest News Source

The summary of scores for stories since the beginning of August 2006 is...

1) The Daily Mail with 38 stories and a total of 157 Canards
2) The Times with 30 stories and a total of 132 Canards
3) The Guardian with 15 stories and a total of 67 Canards
4) BBC with 8 stories and a total of 29 Canards
5) The Mirror with 6 stories and a total of 21 Canards
6) The Telegraph with 1 stories and a total of 3 Canards

(All papers include their Sunday equivalents)

So, hardly a surprise that the Mail (and Mail on Sunday) lead with 38 stories that scored over 3 Canards. The Times is not far behind. However, analysis of the data reveals a few interesting points. The Times score predominantly comes from its "Health alternatives" column. This is clearly flagging the stories as being 'alternative', or as we like to say here, 'not real'. The Mail on the other hand makes no such gesture to alerting its readers that bollocks may follow.

It is interesting to note, that the Guardian has the highest Canards per story ratio. Maybe this is because the Mail tends to let a bit of quackery slip into lots of stories rather than just concentrate on the big quack scoop. The Mirror's stories can be pretty much put down to one columnist, a Ms Gillian McKeith. No more to say there then - she has aggressive lawyers. And congratulations to the telegraph for only scoring 3 Canards for one story promoting osteopathy - but at least in an area where this technique has a chance of working.

So the winner of Quackiest News Source really has to be - The Daily Mail - Congratulations!!

A well deserved win. Its continuous commitment to publish rubbish health stories coupled with very few warnings to its readers that what is going to follow is complete nonsense mean that it was hard to beat this year. Furthermore, its commitment to give telephone numbers and web addresses of quack suppliers will undoubtedly result in many of its moderately wealthy, middle-class readers handing over their hard-earned dosh to the fraudulent and deluded. Despite the Mail's aversion to tax of all forms, this is undoubtedly the Mail's facilitated tax on the gullible.

Quackiest News Story

At the end of this blog, I have given a list of all stories the quackometer found that scored over 5 Canards.

A couple of smashing stories really stand out. Dr Danny Penman's remarkable story about the healing properties of prayer was quite special. Also, the Times mindless plug for that rather silly technique Bi-Aura stood out from the crowd. But, by a country mile, the most ridiculous and credulous story of the last four months has to go to Sarah Stacey for that outstanding piece of work Good vibrations in the Daily Mail. The Quackometer spotted it, gave it 10 Canards, and it is difficult to niggle with that analysis.

The story plugs several different 'therapies' - all for a made-up illness and, at least in the case of the QLink pendant, it is difficult to conclude anything other than it is fraudulent. The QLink is a classic piece of pseudoscience, invoking quantum theory to explain its non-existent properties. There is a cast of thousands in the story, all offering testimonials for the QLink trinket, including Dr Wendy Denning (who still cannot spell complementary), Professor Jobst and Dr Mark Atkinson. Oh, how I love titles.

The winner of Quackiest News Story is - Sarah Stacy with 'Good vibrations'.

I think Sarah would also deserve...

Quack Journalist of the Year

for her unwavering commitment to writing and promoting all manner of quackery in the Health Notes section of the You supplement of the the Mail on Sunday. She has written a string on quacktastic stories, always with a good plug for the source, most often, Victoria Health. (If you join the VH Club, you can get a free Sarah Stacey book!)

So, the Mail has done remarkably well this year. Any surprise? Not really. As was recently well put on the badscience blog, nutritionism (or nutriquackery) is a particularly right-wing pastime with an obsession for personal responsibility for your health rather than looking to the wider society for causes and solutions. Thus, it is only your own fault if you are fat and poor, unhealthy or have badly behaved and underachieving kids. Pop a supplement pill to improve kids GSCE results rather than support and send your kids to the local school. The Mail's whole point of view is based around a distrust of any authority that could challenge its small minded world view. Science and scepticism are direct challenges to the myths and delusions of its approaches to the problems of health, government, immigration and economics. No wonder quackery thrives.

Oooh. The little black duck got on his soap box for a moment. Back to a few more quick awards...

Most Blatant Piece of Dodgy Science Acting as a Marketing Press Release...

Dr David Thomas and the Mineral Depleted Food Scandal.

Jumping the Gun Award...

Gerry Potter, Professor of Medicinal Chemistry [de Montfort], and Dan Burke, Emeritus Professor of Pharmaceutical Metabolism for their work on salvestrols^TM.

Dodgiest Hawaiian Shirt...

Paul Pearsall for his work on Cellular Memory

Most Shameless High Street Quackery Supplier

Boots the Alchemist for their faithful pushing of homeopathic products to the public. Given that they publicly state, 'integrity in the community, environment, marketplace and workplace govern all our activities', pushing sugar pills as medicine is just not acceptable.

Most Distinguished and Ethical Quack...

has to be the Distinguished Provost of the Royal College of Alternative Medicine, Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi - although those are his words, not mine.

Finally, another plug for Sense About Science - a charity that I will urge you to make a small donation to. Their goal is to provide a source of contacts and information that the media can use to validate and research the science behind the headlines. I hope their work puts the quackometer out of business. It's not a homeless charity, or one for poorly puppies, but I think this is a cause well worth popping a few quid via paypal to.

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

those quack stories in full...

10 Good vibrations Daily Mail
8 Ear acupuncture is the latest celebrity fad but does it work? Daily Mail
8 The English patient The Times
7 Can you feel the force? The Times
7 Health panel: How can I cope with crippling migraines Guardian
7 Osteoporosis; human papilloma virus; boosting your immune system The Times
7 The facts about prebiotics Daily Mail
6 Anxiety; back pain; green tea The Times
6 Back-pain acupuncture 'effective' BBC
6 Carol Barnes: How alternative remedies helped me beat the menopause Daily Mail
6 Erectile dysfunction and low libido; ginseng; irritable bowel syndrome The Times
6 How toxic is your body Daily Mail
6 It works for me: McTimoney chiropractic The Times
6 Natural household cleaning products; eczema; using homeopathic arnica during childbirth The Times
6 Organic milk better for a healthy diet Daily Mail
5 A feeling for healing The Times
5 Cereal offenders Daily Mail
5 Could spiritual healing actually work Daily Mail
5 'Downward dog, Dad?' Guardian
5 Fairley and the chocolate factory The Times
5 Health shops give bad advice on depression Guardian
5 Health stores offer a cocktail of unproven depression drugs Daily Mail
5 Lesley sings the praises of osteopathy Daily Mail
5 Max H Pittler: Boosting your immunity Guardian
5 Max H Pittler: Exercise fatigue Guardian
5 Max Pittler: Natural remedy for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease The Times
5 Over-sixties advised to boost daily diet with 'good' bacteria The Times
5 Sitting straight bad for backs BBC
5 Speedy recovery Guardian
5 Warm milk and garlic It might sound vile - but itll beat the bugs Daily Mail

Labels: awards, daily mail, homeopathy, journalists, mckeith, minerals, newspapers, pseudoscience, quackometer, quacks, vitamins

0 Comments Links to this post View blog reactions

A Pantomime of Science

Thursday, December 07, 2006

A criticism often levied at the quackometer is that it is very broad brush. Fair enough. It is often quite general in what it says, but it is only a bit a web script after all. The quackometer is intended to be a spring board into the exploration of health claims. Improvements in the new year should make this easier. However, the central premise behind the quackometer is that when someone uses words like 'vibration', 'energy' or 'quantum' in the context of a health claim, then almost invariably pseudoscience is being used. And, as the black duck would say,

...it is full of scientific jargon that is out of place and probably doesn't know the meaning of any of the terms.

So, is this a reasonable statement to make? Let's explore a recent example, picking up from my recent blog entry on Professor Dame Diana Mossop.

Quick Recap: The Mossop Philosophy is that she can make stronger and more effective homeopathy/Bach remedy pills by using flowers picked under a full moon and utilising copious amounts of vodka. This captures the 'vibrational energies' of the flowers so well that even viruses can be killed, allegedly.

So let's look at some of her science explanation behind this healing practice and see if it really is science and if she understands anything about what she is writing.

To start...

Light is vital for the survival of all forms of life force. Without light life cannot be sustained. Light varies in colour, depending upon the frequency and wavelength...

The last word of the first sentence is a bit of giveaway. Omit the word 'force' and you might stand a chance of defending this sentence (almost), but by invoking a 'life force', the Dame shows that she is a true believer in the élan vital, or the life essence, or cosmic soul. The life force is supposedly the non-physical essence that turns the inanimate into the animate. And of course it is completely unscientific. There is no evidence to suggest that such a thing exists at all. Science has been doing a perfectly good, parsimonious job of explaining life through chemistry. Julian Huxley compared the belief in the élan vital to believing that trains run by an élan locomotif.

Let's do Diana a favour and drop the last word and see if we can do any better. So, is light vital for the survival of all forms of life? Quick experiment. 1) Switch off room light. 2) Wait one minute 3) If the blog stops here, then you know the Prof is right. OK. Starting now...

... Right, I am back. No ill effects noted. I do this experiment most nights, so I am not too surprised. Then again, many creatures live in dark caves or at the bottom of the sea and never see any light. Bats navigate without light. Blind people cope very well. Maybe we are missing something here. All I can say is that the Prof is not very clear here.

Next, "Without light life cannot be sustained." Does the Dame mean that life is dependent on the energy gained during photosynthesis by plants? If so, why not say that? But even that is not true with discoveries of ecosystems at the bottom of the ocean where volcanic vents provide the energy source to drive the living systems there. So again, either wrong or just plain confused.

Light varies in colour. Well ,that is a very human centric view of light. Light has 'colour' in just that tiny strip from the electromagnetic spectrum that our eyes are sensitive too. Outside of that strip we have the infrared, ultraviolet, radio, x-ray and gamma-ray regions. When we usually talk about light, it is just our (quite literally) narrow interpretation of electromagnetic radiation. That radiation is defined by its wavelength, or its frequency. Note, how Mossop says 'wavelength and frequency' betraying no knowledge of the mathematical relationship between the two. One or the other will suffice to define colour.

So, from the silly misunderstandings and howlers to the positively batshit:

When white light enters the body through the eyes it is split into the different frequencies of colour by the pineal gland which acts as a prism. This colour rainbow travels through the body, from the hot, low frequencies of infra red and red , which relate to the earth based, or chakra, parts of the body, to the cool, high frequencies of ultra violet and violet, which relate to the crown chakra of the mind and soul.

Now this gets a bit depressing. I would not mind, but supposedly serious health writers have told me to read about Mossop's work before denouncing it as quackery. Can a seriously educated person really believe that 'light enters the body through the eyes'? Did they not draw a diagram of the eye in biology classes with retinas and optic nerves? Do they think the inside of the head is glowing with light that came in through the eyes? Can they really believe that the pineal gland 'acts as a prism? I can't imagine its optical properties are any different from chopped liver. Has Mossop ever obtained a pineal gland, put it next to a glass prism and then compare and contrasted the results? I severely doubt it.

How does Mossop believe the different colours then travel through the body? Installed fibre-optic cable? Wouldn't these light beams be obvious when the body got opened up? And is she not aware that cooler objects glow red whereas hotter ones glow blue? Blue is a higher energy colour than red. Her lack of understanding of optics, physics and biology is staggering considering the gall she has in trotting out this nonsense.

The 'explanation' goes on to mention lots of stuff about vibrations and colours, all without cited evidence of course and with many more basic clangers. Read the stuff about proteins and weep.

The observation is then, that apparently educated people, who can write for newspapers and be considered health experts, can be taken in by this stuff. I would have thought that some basic high school science knowledge would be sufficient. Not all of us are fortunate enough to have a postgraduate science education. The quackometer recognises this and is really just using 'rules of thumb' to spot quacks. Can we not do this in everyday life too? Maybe people just don't believe me when I assert that using 'vibrations' in a health context is nonsense. After all, we would have to start talking real physics - not made up Mossop Physics.

Well, there are other ways of spotting quacks that are not just about use of language. The emerging badscience wiki lists a number of factors that one can look for based around the claims being made, the presented evidence and the character of the person making the claims.

Let's look at some of the badscience quackospotter checklist criteria and see how Mossop stacks up...

Claims

A wide range of ailments can be treated with the same product
Couched in vague terms, “detoxify” “re-balance”
Promise cures will be rapid, dramatic, free from side effects
Marketed to essentially healthy people
Emphasise risks of conventional medicine
Lack of direct claims of efficacy
Use of the terms "can help" or "will aid"

Well, from ridiculous claims about viruses to just general 'imbalance' phytobiophysics has a cure for you. 'Electrical rebalancing' is the vague term of choice. Having said that, the actual product selector does not list viral diseases, but just contains vague 'illnesses' such as fatigue and puberty(?). So, the claims made look like quackery. Claiming a product can treat a virus is obviously illegal unless it is a registered medicine. Quacks are often quite good at separating their wild healing fantasies from their actual product claims.

Evidence

The available evidence is - at best - contentious or controversial within the medical community.
Unpublished research
Dodgy tests (e.g. "hair analysis," etc)
Anecdotes or testimonials
Endorsement by celebrity, “scientist” or prominent CAM therapist.
That the treatment has been well recognised in other countries, or times.

The most hilarious claim made on the site is about having written seven unpublished books. Mossop uses a 'Galvanometer' to do her tests. Although I had no idea a galvanometer measured frequencies. I thought it measured electrical currents? As for anecdotes - yep, a supermodel and an athlete are used to show how damn effective these things are. No doubt Jodie March is fully trained to conduct medical trials and be careful to avoid placebo effects, wishful thinking, confirmation biases and other traps. African tribesmen, no less, taught Mossop about the healing properties of plants. No doubt the same people whose life expectancies are being severely shortened by the avoidable tragedy of HIV in Africa.

Character

Using titles that may be confused with mainstream ones, such as Dr or PhD, “Fellow of”, list of letters after name.
Dresses simple ideas up as complex / mysterious / requiring special knowledge (available to you for price of book) - baffling with bullshit rather than dazzling with clarity
Background in self help industry, or commerce, but not science.

Could Professor Dame Dianna Mossop really be trying to use her titles to make us think she is mainstream?

What is quite clear is that the Mossop Philosophy is nothing more than straightforward pseudo-science. It is a pantomime of science complete with its magical worlds, wishful thinking, stereotyped language and funny dames. But just as theatre critic would not mistake Jack-and-the-Beanstalk for real theatre, why should a health journalist mistake phytobiophysics for real medicine? A sports writer that thought quiddich needed to be covered on the back page would be thought to be insane, or had too many trebles. A financial journalist who puffed up fraudulent stocks would be imprisoned. A political hack who believed Blair about weapons of mass destruction.. Let's stop there.

The sad reality is that one way quackery thrives is by newspapers giving it uncritical column inches. It is not as simple as saying that journalists write this stuff because people want to read it, as I am sure is the case with the horoscopes. Conversations with several journalists now have convinced me that it is not just the usual cynical hack writing what the readers want to hear and buy. No, it is often the case that the health writers cannot tell their healthy arses from their diseased elbows. Their sub-editors are no better and just don't care Their readers end up confused about science, deluded by quackery and swindled by fraudsters.

It looks like there is very little understanding of common science terms from quack healer through to journalist. I feel like screaming at Diana Mossop, 'Just what is it that is vibrating in your vibrational medicine????'. The quackometer is quite justified in being broad brush about the use of jargon when confronted with such nonsense.

So, coming soon: the first annual quackometer awards, where I will announce the winners of the quackiest newspaper, quackiest article and quackiest journalist as discovered by the quackomter's automatic newspaper trawl. Can't wait.

Labels: journalists, newspapers, phytobiophysics, pseudoscience, quackometer

2 Comments Links to this post View blog reactions

The Guild of the Gullible?

Friday, August 18, 2006

I think that this may be a story of despair. It may be a story about the mountain that has to be climbed if we are to live a society where quacks find it hard to profit from their lies, misinformation and delusions. At present it is a story about how newspapers contribute significantly and fundamentally to the environment in which people are swindled out of their money by quacks and how illness and suffering may be prolonged by irrational thinking. The story is not over yet, but let me tell the first part.

The story starts with my newspaper quack story alert engine that I have been working on recently. It is beginning to settle down now, and has spotted some interesting departures from reality in our esteemed organs. One of the first stories to emerge from the scans appeared in the Sunday Mail You supplement (where else?) and scored a maximum 10 Canards. The article was entitled Good Vibrations and was a completely typical, uncritical and bonkers, piece of quack reporting on some outlandindish pseudoscientific ideas, where someone was hoping to make money out of the credulous by selling some worthless piece of Christmas cracker trash for lots of money. Blatant quack advertorial. Nothing really unusual; we've seen this sort of thing recently in the Daily Junk Mail with that sorry story about the migraine zapper.

I thought it would a shame for the first 10 Canard story to go uninvestigated by the little black duck, so off I went...

The article was as mad as a box of frogs. Completely hatstand. And well deserved of its 10 Canards. The article is full of the usual rubbish about bodies having energy fields and how illness is caused by imbalances in our 'biofield'. Furthermore, the nonsense continues with how electrical items can disturb our - damn, I'm tired of writing this rubbish, let me quote...

Holistic physician Dr Mark Atkinson explains: 'the body’s electro-magnetic field provides a template for the physical body; any imbalance in this field gets reflected by the body as a disturbance in cell structure and function, which is the precursor state to illness.'

Yep, it starts off with that giveaway word 'holistic' and then gets worse. As an aside, let's just run Dr Mark Atkinson through the Quackometer. - Ahh, 7 Canards. Thought as much.

Moving on. The article then goes on to do two things. First, it gives an endorsement for Dr Atkinson's Bi-Aura nonsense philosophy. Bi Aura appears to be similar to that fount of sanity, Reiki, but

Bi-Aura therapy uses both cosmic and earth energy to energise and balance the body.

I see. The addition of cosmic energy, over and above mundane earth energy, is bound to make Bi-Aura the energy healing methodology of choice for the more discerning individual.

Secondly, the article goes on to give another glowing testimonial for a cheap piece of tat called a QLink pendant. This trinket was introduced to the author by Dr Wendy Denning (2 Canards) and Professor Kim Jobst (7 Canards) as employing "Sympathetic Resonance Technology which, the makers claim, ‘repairs and tunes your biofield’ so it functions optimally". Marvelous. You can buy one for £70.

The QLink has cropped up on a number of quack busting sites. I won't bother to go into details here - I have more interesting things to say. If you wondering, why not try the excellent Skepticality podcast that covers this subject. There is loads more on the web. James Randi has also offered anyone (not just the makers) $1,000,000 if they show that the QLink works as claimed. Ought to be easy - spend about $100, make a million. No one has even tried yet.

But I can't help it a little more digging. Let's look at the end of the article in a bit more detail...

Dr Atkinson says: ‘it made a lot of difference to me when I was working hard at the computer, in terms of sustained energy and clarity of thinking.’

Are you sure about that Dr Atkinson? Clarity of thinking?

As with pharmaceutical drugs, there may be a placebo effect although Professor Jobst points out that the ‘remarkable’ effects seen in race horses and other animals sporting a Qlink mean there is something more, which merits serious research. One thing I know: neither technology carries a risk of side effects.

The Prof Jobst obviously deserves some more attention - but not now.

Let's just say for now that the idea that electrical 'smog' from appliances in our home can somehow disrupt 'energy fields' in our bodies is speculative at best. Also, that a small pendant could be 'treated' with the latest 'quantum mechanic' technology to remove this danger has absolutely no basis in theory or experimental validity. It's utter bunkum and it is hard to believe that the makers believe this themselves. I could say more about this - but others have done a fine job.

The thing that spurred me into writing this blog was when I had a look into the background of the author of this piece. The writer is a Sarah Stacey (2 Canards). Googling reveals that Sarah has written a number of health and beauty books, won some awards for health writing and "was elected the first Honorary Chair of the Guild of Health Writers". Now that caught my attention.

Why should that be? Well, Guilds are an ancient tradition where people with similar business interests and skills can get together, organise themselves, uphold morals, standards and conduct within the trade, and generally make sure the cheats, charlatans and the incompetent do not tar the good names of the profession. Surely, a Guild of Health Writers should be very concerned if people are writing utter nonsense under their banner? Surely a Guild would wish to ensure that high standards are upheld and that health writers do not become simple conduits of quackery? Maybe we have found allies in the quest to get good health advice to people?

Who are the Guild of Health Writers? Their web page describes them as

a group of journalists dedicated to providing accurate, broad-based information about health and related subjects to the public.

That's fantastic. Do they know that one of their members is uncritically promoting quackery to their readership? Do they realise that it is none other than their first 'Honorary Chair'? Surely, they must be concerned that their principles are not being upheld? Do they have a complaints procedure? Do they take sanctions against their members who abuse the trust the public put in them to be be accurate? Their web site is not clear on these matters. Obviously, an email was in order.

Now, I would not have written this until I got a reply back. But it has been a little while now without even an acknowledgement. I also, have found out that Sarah Stacey has been the Vice President of the Guild. If true, then I fear a rather depressing outcome. Looking into the Guild a bit reveals founding members with interests in 'integrative medicine', that favourite word combination of Prince Charles, which is just another way of saying that quackery is being slipped in the back door of real medicine.

So, I would like to open this up and ask some more general questions. I fully understand that the Guild wishes to be 'broad-based' and this may well include writing about non-conventional medical approaches, which I have no quarrels with (as long as any claims made are properly caveated). However, what I would really like to know is answers to the following questions:

Does the Guild take a stance on whether its members only write things that are properly backed up by sound evidence and if not, make it very clear that what they are writing about is controversial, speculative and unproven?
Does the Guild care if its members are just simple advertising conduits for those wishing to defraud the public, and if a member acts as such, what sanctions they would take?
How does the Guild help its members find out if medical claims can be properly backed up, such as the skill of reading a scientific paper or doing publication searches?
Do the Guild encourage its members to seek out broad training in health and science matters, such as how trials are conducted, the nature of evidence and statistics etc?

These things are important. The public get huge amounts of health information from the press. People do tend to think that reporters would not publish something if it was completely groundless. A political story that had no basis in truth would be rightly hammered and could even result in legal action. Why not health matters? I worry that so many of these journalists have English Literature degrees. Not in itself a bad thing, but we would not expect an economics journalist not to have a good foundational understanding of economics. We would not expect a political writer to have no appreciation of our constitution and political systems. Why should we not expect our health writers to be equally well informed?

The current president of the Guild is Simon Crompton. His web site is very informative, he looks like a very decent chap, has written on lots of interesting things, and does not appear to be obsessed with the darker medicinal arts. I will forward my email onto him to see if he has a view on these things.

I hope the responses to my enquiries are encouraging. As I have said, such a Guild could play a great role in keeping the health fraud industry out of the papers. I worry that, like the medieval Guilds, their original laudable aims have become corrupted, and that the Guild of Health Writers has become nothing more than a Guild of the Gullible.

Labels: daily mail, electromagnetic quackery, journalists, newspapers, qlink