The Quackometer

The Daily Mail brings us the story of Sarah Dacre who suffers terribly from a range of symptoms including "hair loss, sickness, high blood-pressure, digestive and memory problems, severe headaches and dizziness. " Sarah believes the symptoms are caused by the effects of the 'electrosmog' in our environment, the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) given out by mobile phones and Wi-Fi networks. She is so troubled by these devices that she resorts to wearing a metallic shield over her head. She covers her rooms with tin foil and avoids electrical equipment at all costs.

Sarah is not the only person in this position. More and more people report suffering as a result of electrosmog. The comment section in the Mail article testifies to this. Support groups have been set up and campaigning groups, such a Powerwatch, are on the case. Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch is a regular commentator on the effects of EMR. The newspapers are full of alarming reports about the problem and Alistair is there to offer his views.

As you might expect, some people are eager to cash in on the problem, selling useless devices to cure the problem, such as the QLink, and alternative 'gurus' like Patrick Holford selling devices to detect EMR. This could all be quackery as no-one really understands the nature of the illness yet. It may be one illness really caused by EMR exposure, but it could also be a group of unrelated problems where people just believe that it is the EMR causing their symptoms.

People do get upset though if you call an illness psychosomatic. They equate the word with 'not real' and see it as a threat. That could not be further from the truth. No-one is doubting that the eletrosensitives are suffering and need help, it is just that we do not need take their explanation of their illness at face value. Part of the problem is that lots is known about EMR and its effects on matter and people, and it is difficult to think up plausible explanations that could account for the wide range of symptoms and types of exposure being reported. Conversely it is quite easy to see how people could falsely believe that EMR was the cause - and be quite passionate about it.

People like explanations in their life. If you are suffering from debilitating symptoms and your doctor, or even your high street quack of choice, has no explanation, then it is easy to see how you might latch onto a ready-made explanation. We are very good at deceiving ourselves, and in particular applying post hoc logic to explain events. "I felt terrible today. It was the neighbours with their Wi-Fi on", "Big headache came on after all those mobiles around me in town". And so on. This self-deception may well be part of the psychosomatic illness.

Now, helping these people will depend very much on understanding the nature of the problem. Are they really being hurt by mobiles? Or, is a more subtle psychological problem at the root? Is there another problem that is being masked by their insistence on being electrosenstive? These are answerable questions where we can use science, experiment and observation to help come to some conclusions.

However, for many of the campaigners and the sufferers, there is already and answer - and it is mobile phones, it is WiFi, it is kettles and computers and modern life. No debate.

Powerwatch are already convinced it is EMR that causes these symptoms and they campaign and advise in accordance with that belief. The problem is, that if they are wrong, then they will not help their supporters get better and they will expose them to the quacks that wish to exploit the situation. If the illness is psychosomatic in nature, then it is likely that some form of talking therapy may be more beneficial than calling on governments to ban mobile phone masts and Wi-Fi hotspots.

The Powerwatch position can be seen on its 'Dispelling the Wireless Myths' page. It tackles the supposed myth that 'People only got affected when the scare stories started, it must be psychosomatic'. The page counters this myth by saying,

this is a quickly dispelled myth (often also referred to as a 'nocebo' effect -- basically a negative 'placebo' effect). A quick look at some of the science:

and then goes on to list four papers that we are supposed to take as evidence that the psychosomatic answer is wrong. The trouble is that all four papers appear to have nothing to do with determining if electrosensitivity is caused by EMR or if it is psychosomatic. There are papers on fruit fly eggs, sperm mobility, test-tube cells and stork nesting habits. But none on looking at humans and their exposure to EMR.

This is strange because there are plenty of papers written on the subject. So why do not Alasdair Philips and his team mention them? In fact there are well over thirty published studies looking into this question. The studies typically ask electrosensitive volunteers to record their symptoms in the presence of suspect devices like mobile phones. The trick is though that the researchers and the subjects are not told if the devices are really on or not, i.e. the trial is blinded. The thirty or so studies all do things a bit differently, but around this general theme.

Now of the studies, only seven so far have shown there is a difference between on and off, that is, that the mobile phone had some sort of affect. However, five of these positive results could not be repeated by the same researchers and the other two are thought to be statistical flukes. In other words, the vast majority of the experiments have shown that electrosensitivity has not been demonstrated to be due to exposure to EMR emitting devices.

A systematic review of most of the studies that have been done concluded,

The symptoms described by “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to EMF can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” is unrelated to the presence of EMF, although more research into this phenomenon is required.

Why does Powerwatch not discuss this? Its a shame. If the people who care and campaign most on behalf of electrosensitive people are selective in their evidence, blind to alternatives and hold strong convictions, then people like Sarah Dacre in the Mail article may go on suffering. Rather than wearing that chain mail hood, perhaps Sarah may benefit from some other sort of therapy.

One thing I do on stories like this, is look for possible conflicting interests that may sway judgments. More often than not, it turns up interesting little facts that need a bit of thinking about.

In this case, I noted that Powerwatch recommend various products to help people like Sarah shield their house from EMR. Powerwatch provide a link to EMFields, a company that supplies all sorts of anti-EMR products. EMFields, also kindly provides a link to 'consumer interest group Powerwatch that give good, practical advice'.

Now, doing a whois look up on both 'consumer interest group' Powerwatch and commercial trading business EMFields, shows that both domains are registered to an Alasdair Philips of Ely. Are they by chance related?

Labels: daily mail, electromagnetic quackery

 

or, The Role of Mineral Hair Analysis in the Sale of Food Supplements

initially posted on Holford Watch.

Patrick Holford has set up a charity. Not poorly, fluffy kittens or unwanted donkeys, but a charity dedicated to helping kids do better at schools with better 'nutrition'. The charity is called Food for the Brain. Being against such a venture would appear to be like being against sunshine or trying to ban Christmas, but I have some genuine concerns about the nature of this charity and will be writing more soon, but for now, I would like to concentrate on one rather strange aspect of it.

The charity sets out to 'promote awareness of the link between learning, behaviour, mental health and nutrition.' Great. But this is no Jamie-Oliver-Throw-Out-The-Turkey-Twizzlers-And-Eat-Seared-Carpaccio-of-Beef style campaign. No, this looks like ION for kids - ideas from Patrick Holford's Institute of Optimum Nutrition being sold to parents who quite rightly want to do the best for their children.

So, we see the usual ION themes - 'optimum' nutritional plans, 'optimum' health, food supplement regimes, questionable 'allergy and intolerance' testing and, what I want to cover today, hair mineral analysis.

The Food for the Brain web site discusses supplements for your kids in some detail and states that the charity uses hair mineral analysis as a diagnostic tool to see what supplements children may need in their school projects. For the schools, Patrick recommends Higher Nature's Dinochews supplements, an organisation that Patrick Holford, funnily enough, formulates products for and lends his name to. There is also a link to a site called MineralCheck that appears to give independent advice about minerals and hair analysis. (More on this later!)

The idea that our diets may be deficient in minerals, even if we are eating a balanced diet, is popular in nutritionist circles. There are ideas out there in nutri-land that our soils may be depleted from nasty intensive farming and that we should be taking the right supplements to top up. However, scientific sources for this are hard to come by and invariably appear to originate from the suppliers of mineral supplements, as I have previously discussed.

Now, as an idea, diagnosing exposures to heavy metals and attempting to diagnose nutritional mineral deficiencies through analysing hair samples, has been around for some time. The only problem is that it looks like it does not work and has been shown to be flaky in a number of reviews.

Stephen Barret, one of the first reviewers to look at the subject concludes,

Hair analysis is worthless for assessing the body's nutritional status or serving as a basis for dietary or supplement recommendations. Should you encounter a practitioner who claims otherwise, run for the nearest exit!

Why would a charity, wanting to improve the nutritional status of kids, recommend to put them through doubtful diagnostic techniques? Before we come to any conclusions, let's look at why hair mineral analysis probably does not work. It might involve a little science. Forgive me, I think it is worth it.

So, according to MineralCheck, Hair Mineral Analysis (HMA) claims to be able to determine if you have an 'imbalance' in minerals. You get a report back telling you about:

• Your body's level of nutrient minerals and toxic metals Mineral ratios
• A list of recommended foods - and those to avoid
• Food allergy indicators
• Body chemistry balance analysis Suplement [sic] recommendations

Email the company and they tell you the following...

The cost of the test is £49 and the laboratory will test for 29 nutritional minerals including calcium, copper, zinc, sodium, potassium, magnesium etc) and 8 toxic minerals (including lead, aluminium, mercury and cadmium). The results are presented as a graph with a report attached explaining them and making diet and where appropriate supplement recommendations. Your sample can be sent by post and the report is returned by post.

All very impressive from a few strands of hair. The problem is that these sorts of analytical techniques are very hard. You are trying to find the levels of trace amounts of large numbers of metals in biological samples and then relate that analysis to an understanding of human physiological function and health. This is the stuff that a hundred PhDs are made off. Careers are devoted to such techniques. Let us walk through some of the questions that would have to be well answered by sound science if we are to get close to the MineralCheck promise...

1. How does the mineral concentration in hair relate to whole body concentration?
   We are not actually interested in hair concentrations as such, but the levels in tissues that need the minerals, such as the blood and other organs. Does hair take up minerals in direct relation to body concentration? It need not. We need to know the answer to this question for each element being analysed.
2. What individual variation is there in hair growth and mineral levels?
   How does age, ethnicity, sex, activity levels and health affect the result? Again, we need to understand this for each element being tested.
3. What levels in hair are normal and what ranges are acceptable?
   And how does this vary across different geographies with different diets and lifestyles?
4. How can we relate these levels to health issues?
   Even if a mineral level is outside the normal range, this does not mean that there is a problem. Mineral levels may be biologically unimportant within a wide range.
5. How best should we collect samples?
   Does using steel scissors introduce contaminants? What about any sample packaging used? Is 'home' sampling OK, or do you need controlled lab conditions?
6. How much hair do we need to get a reliable, repeatable result?
   One strand, a bunch, how long should the hair be?
7. Do we need to prepare the sample to remove environmental contaminants?
   Shampoos, car fumes, cigarette smoke and general dirt will be on the hair. Can this be easily removed? Is it absorbed into the body of the hair? Do hair treatments, such as bleaching and colouring, affect the result and how?
8. What analytical technique is best?
   Most techniques are poor at measuring wide ranges of elements, but are good at targeted elements. Do we need several techniques or the same technique optimised in many ways?
9. How do we ensure the right levels of accuracy and precision at an affordable level to the testing laboratory and their customers?
   It is no good having a whizzy technique if it costs millions.
10. How do we get good calibration samples?
    In order to get good results, you need good standard samples to compare against. How can a laboratory obtain known and certified reference materials for each mineral being tested at concentrations similar to that being tested? What analytical technique should be used to certify the references?
11. How should Hair Mineral Analysis laboratories undertake external quality assurance?
    Good laboratories validate themselves against other independent laboratories to make sure they are not systematically getting this wrong. Who will do this?
12. What do bald people do?

Now, the problem is that there are few answers to these questions and much work to be done. It could be one day that we answer these question in sufficient detail to have hair analysis as a useful diagnostic tool. But we are not there yet, and one of the reasons is that other more direct techniques, such as blood or urine analysis, are better tools to put our research energy into.

Given the poor state of the science of hair mineral analysis, one might expect that laboratories offering this service might lead to shabby, inconsistent and meaningless results. And that is what is found. Several studies have looked into the quality of results obtained from commercial laboratories. One 1985 study entitled, "Commercial hair analysis. Science or scam?" concluded,

The reported levels of most minerals varied considerably between identical samples sent to the same laboratory and from laboratory to laboratory. The laboratories also disagreed about what was "normal" or "usual" for many of the minerals. Most reports contained computerized interpretations that were voluminous, bizarre, and potentially frightening to patients.

Six laboratories recommended food supplements, but the types and amounts varied widely from report to report and from laboratory to laboratory. Literature from most of the laboratories suggested that their reports were useful in managing a wide variety of diseases and supposed nutrient imbalances. However, commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal.

As this was 20 years ago, we ought to be cautious, but luckily a similar study has been done more recently to see if things have improved. It concluded,

...Variations also were found in laboratory sample preparation methods and calibration standards. Laboratory designations of normal reference ranges varied greatly, resulting in conflicting classifications (high, normal, or low) of nearly all analyzed minerals. Laboratories also provided conflicting dietary and nutritional supplement recommendations based on their results.

CONCLUSIONS: Hair mineral analysis from these laboratories was unreliable, and we recommend that health care practitioners refrain from using such analyses to assess individual nutritional status or suspected environmental exposures. Problems with the regulation and certification of these laboratories also should be addressed.

It is no surprise then that QuackWatch calls this technique a 'Cardinal Sign of Quackery'. Even worse, the American Medical Association issues a policy on the technique which states,

The AMA opposes chemical analysis of the hair as a determinant of the need for medical therapy and supports informing the American public and appropriate governmental agencies of this unproven practice and its potential for health care fraud.

So, why do people including MineralCheck continue to carry out such analyses? It is difficult to conclude anything other than it is very lucrative and a good way of pursuading people to buy supplements. Whilst blood analysis needs qualified practitioners to take and analyse the sample under medical conditions within a strict legal, ethical, and scientific framework, hair analysis requires none of this. Its much easier, and importantly, much cheaper; posting off a hair sample and getting a computer read-out back. Follow that up with recommendations to buy £50 worth of supplements per month, an order form, and a recommendation to repeat the test in a few months time and you are quids in.

Worryingly, there is a danger that, as the technique looks near useless as a diagnostic tool and the recommendations that come from it arbitrary, there is not only the risk that customers will waste their money, but that harm may come too from needless and drastic changes in diet and excessive supplements.

And, as promised, what do we know about the background of the web site MineralCheck? They don't say much on their pages - no names, no company information, an anonymous email address, but they do give a telephone number. A quick Google reveals that this telephone number is also used by a Mrs Karen Watkins BA(Hons), Dip.I.O.N, MTTS. It turns out that as well as doing Hair Mineral Analysis, Karen is also Principle of Education at Patrick Holford's Institute of Optimum Nutrition.

My advice for any school or parent involved with programmes to improve kids nutrition, and is using Food For the Brain for help, should be to question Patrick, the Charity Trustees and the Scientific Advisers to the Charity very hard about the value that Hair Mineral Analysis is bringing to the children. If you get evasive answers, particularly questioning the qualifications of those who doubt the advice from Food for the Brain, I suggest you follow Stephen Barret's advice and 'run for the nearest exit!'

Labels: minerals, Patrick Holford

 

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,

1. chalk dust
2. boiled cabbage
3. 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,

1. meteor impact
2. choking on pen tops
3. 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

 

Once upon a time, back in the olden days, that is, before 1996 or thereabouts, your typical quack was faced with a big problem. Just as with producing software, the manufacturing stage of the quack business is straightforward. The software firm used to 'record' software onto 'floppy disks' and the quack could press 'nutrient pills' in huge numbers, or fill bottles or make pills with 'homeopathic water' straight from the tap. All at low cost and only requiring a few people.

Then came the hard part - getting your message out and distributing your product. The pre-1996 quack was forced to travel the length and breadth of the country, with their wares in a wagon, stand on a soapbox and yell at any crowd that would listen. Either that, or set up shops like 'Holland and Barret'. The problem here is that the business does not scale easily. If you want to sell more and make more money, then you have to set up your soapbox in more places but there are only so many hours in a day, or find other sellers just as charismatic as you, but with no desire to rip you off. If you want to build shops then you need someone to lend you money - and you are a quack, after all. Software and quackery in the times of yesteryear had the same problem: production easy - marketing and sales hard.

The Intraweb changed all of that. Suddenly, even the tiniest software house, such as the nascent Google, could get its message out cheaply and distribute its product for nothing. Rapidly scaling a business was possible in ways never before conceived. Google went from nothing to a multi-billion dollar business in the blink of an eye.

Now, Google has done more than promote its own business on the web - it has promoted everyone else's business too, indiscriminately. And so the quack has a new channel to market other than a tee-pee in Glastonbury's Healing Fields or a bit of shabby shelf space next to the cardboard-flavoured vegan scotch eggs in the Health Food Shop. Suddenly, quackery can become a multi-million pound business - and all run from your purple-wallpapered bedroom.

And before I criticise Google, I just want to say that the Quackometer would not be possible without their wonderful technologies. To be able to search vast stores of knowledge, aggregate disparate data-sources and allow millions access to the most obscure writing, and all in under a second, is truly a miracle. The Quackmeter uses Google to see if someone might be a quack, allow filtered searches of the web to be done, and provide quick access from any web page to the quackometer.

And nor am I going to criticise Google for allowing anyone to find out about homeopathy, blood letting and leaches if that is what they want. Free speech and access to information are the protection of our liberties. However, the keen-eyed among you will notice that my feeble attempts to earn money from this site, from clicks on the Google adds that appear, is a total failure. The only adverts that appear are for quacks selling stuff. My gentle blog readers and kind quackometer users are far too intelligent to fall for the scams of pill pushers and Reiki healers. So the adverts must go, under the forthcoming site revamp. To keep them here would only allow opportunities for click-fraud.

But, on further delving, I wonder if those ads should ever have appeared at all? Google is quite clear on this matter in its terms and conditions for advertising. As part of its 'Do No Evil' mantra, as well as not allowing adverts for racist organisations, guns and ammunition, prostitution and hacking tips, Google makes it quite clear that Miracle Cures are banned.

Miracle Cures
Advertising is not permitted for the promotion of miracle cures, such as 'Cure cancer overnight!'

Now, call me cynical, but healing anything by channeling 'cosmic Reiki energy' would be miraculous if it worked, treating any disease with plain water, as the homeopathist would have it, would be a marvel and a wonderment. But all these things appear on my pages as adverts. So, naturally, I email Google and ask them how they police this and what can be done about it.

The response I got back was as follows:

We've received your feedback and will make sure to share your observations with the appropriate people here at Google. In order to maintain a high quality of service for our advertisers, we are always interested in making improvements to the program. We appreciate hearing feedback from our advertisers and encourage you to continue letting us know how we can improve the Google AdWords experience.

Google believes strongly in freedom of expression and therefore offers broad access to content across the web without censoring search results. At the same time, Google may refuse any ads or terminate any ad campaign at any time, for any reason, as noted in our program Terms and Conditions.

Google AdWords reserves the right to refuse to run certain ads or categories of ads on a case-by-case basis. Please note that the decisions we make concerning advertising in no way affect the search results we deliver.

...which isn't too helpful. That was a month ago. Whoever the email was passed onto was more concerned with hunting for nudist beaches on Google Earth, or scanning in books in order to violate copyright, than answering my problem. This is obviously a cut-and-paste job and looks like is part of the normal fend-off when people complain about search results they get offended by. But all I am asking them is how they uphold, if they do, their own code of practice.

I wasn't expecting much. But somehow searching for 'ammo for sale' manages to produce no adverts. Why is it so difficult to do the same for 'homeopathic cancer cure'? That search produces all sorts of quacky fraudulent miracle peddlers in blatant contravention of Google's own policy.

Maybe the difference is, that despite what some would have us believe, guns really do kill people and often quickly, efficiently and in large, localised numbers, as we have been so horribly reminded by today's news from Virginia Tech. Quackery kills in slower, less noticable and more distributed ways. Giving false hopes, distorted views of medicine, and fraudulent cures can kill, prolongs unneccesary suffering and removes money from those who may need it. It isn't going to make the headlines and there is tacit acceptance amongst many of much of this 'personal choice'.

Somehow, I will just have to keep pressing away at this. I have no figures, but I would bet that Google has allowed a massive rise in small quackery businesses and contributed to their success. AdWords cost less than soapboxes and reaches more people. Surely, that is an evil that Google need not do?

Labels: Google

 

Just to let you know that I am proud to be able to contibute a little to a new blog, "Holford Watch", a site about 'top media nutritionist' Patrick Holford. This site aims to provide a counterpoint to much of what "Britain’s best-selling author and leading spokesman on nutrition and mental health issues" has to say as there are very many people who would consider that much of what he says is mistaken, or even at times, dangerous.

Hop on over to Holford Watch and enjoy.

Labels: Patrick Holford

 

Le Canard Noir is in development with a new range of complementary and alternative clothing. A sneak peak is now available for a new 'homoeopathic cleaning only' range of t-shirts. Clean your clothes in a more gentle and more holistic manner allowing your clothes to take advantage of their own inbuilt cleaning capability and treat emotional stains as well as physical dirt.


The care label looks like this...

Labels: homeopathy