Should WHSmith Stock WDDTY Magazine?

Not sure about WHS stopping selling the magazine. They will have a hard-nosed commercial attitude and are really looking at increasing their footfall and revenues. I notice from their web site that they also sell books by the Awful Poo Lady, Gillian McKeith. Trying to stop them from selling this mind rot is a bit like asking a vampire to desist from tearing the necks out of virgins.

I nipped down to my local WHS’s this morning and bought a copy of WDDTY for my own information. It is absolutely saturated with adverts making the most dubious claims. I have paraphrased some of the full page ones below together with any web links. The point is trying to get WHS’s to stop selling this drivel is going to be a non-starter, couldn’t you focus instead on targeting their advertisers with ASA/ Trading Standards complaints.

Oh well, here is a choice selection for you:

Beet It Sport, concentrated beetroot stamina shot. “100% natural ingredients increase exercise efficiency, enhance oxygen utilisation, speed muscle recovery. (Full page ad, http://www.beet-it.com/sport)

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

“Q-Link, Combat: Stress, poor performance, fuzzy thinking…the electronic devices you use and depend on each day generate electromagnetic fields. Reserach shows these EMF’s may undermine performance and well-being and have a biological effect on the body. The Q-Link CLEAR utilizes sypathetic resonance tuning which acts as a tuning fork for the body sesonating with and reinforcing your own electrical fields” (Full page ad, http://www.emf-protectio.co.uk)

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

Medical Thermal Imaging Ltd. 100% safe breast screening…thermography can detect active breast abnormality before its possible with mamography. (Full page, http://www.medicalthermalimaging.co.uk)

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

Earthing, Nature’s solution to health. How earthing can help your health and wellbeing. You can connect with the earth with bare feet or with indoor earthing sheets and mats. The earth then shares it’s antioxidant, anti-inflammatory anti aging electrons from its inexhaustible store…robust studies show significant improvements in sleep, vitality, rebalancing of key hormones…improvements in circulation and reductions in blood pressure… (Full page ad, http://www.bioenergyproducts.co.uk/sps10)

That’s a clasic site:
Here’s from the about us:
“In the age of quantum physics and considering our current understanding of the placebo effect, as well as the influence of the mind and emotions on health generally, mainstream medicine is wrong to ignore the person and to focus on medical symptoms only. The future belongs to a holistic but still down-to-earth approach to medicine and healing” Bla bla bla

The idea that mainstream medicine ignores the whole person is total rubbish. Patients routinely expect their GP to solve all of their life’s problems, even the ones that are clearly outside the medical realm, and we do our best to oblige. Mind you, no-one has convincingly explained to me how wave-particle duality ought to inform my medical practice.

All you need to do is point to a reference, preferably published in a real journal, that supports what you claim.

If your claims had merit, you would have already done so.

“or curiosity sake, do you also support those who wish to defame religions like Islam under the guise of free speech?”

Can’t speak for the poster, but I do. Well, criticizing Islam isn’t defamation if it’s true.

Every publication carries false information …. every scientific magazine, every newspaper, every comic etc etc

Janice

Name an alternative medical therapy that a finally works.

Verily the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid.

Why on earth should workable, demonstrable, verifiable EBM want to try for some sort of synthesis with unworkable, non-demonstrable and unverifiable quackery.

What next?

Cosmologists working with astrologers to determine how dark matter in Cancer affects your personality if you are born in early July.

Geologists working with young earthers to map the exact consequences of the Noachian flood.

Evolutionary scientists working with creationists to reconcile life being either several billion years old or 6000.

In each example the former have a huge canon of science on their side. The latter have zilch, nada, nothing, rambling incoherent beliefs and magic.

You are a tone troll.

I take it you meant to say lone troll? Two things, Janice is not a troll and she is not alone. Actually everything she said in her post had merit. But of course, you have to take an ad-hominem swipe. You see, the problem with you Quackbuster’s is you have closed minds and you cannot accept that there may be truth outside of your very limited paradigm. You accuse your opponents of using straw man tactics and other devices but you are more guilty of using these tactics yourself. It is very true that today’s mainstream medicine was regarded as quackery and much of it still is!! But of course, not all of it is and the same applies to other forms of medicine, so-called Alternative Medicine. Your biblical quote ironically was meant as truth. It says that this can happen and that it will happen. Whether we believe that or not is irrelevant because the spirit of verse is saying that it WILL happen. And, the same thing will happen with EBM and AM. So, by quoting it, you confirmed this.

No. I meant tone. Therefore no ad hom.

Biblical quote! Me. I thought it was from Viz.

I cannot speak for LCN’s contributors but I doubt that many of them are closed or narrow minded and in terms of a narrow paradigm I would imagine their interests range from the sub-atomic to the cosmological.

Taking your sincerity at face value perhaps you could suggest some sort of outline roadmap for reconciling the irreconcilable and arriving at some sort of synthesis. It would appear to me to be an impossible task.

It is impossible because AM has never been prepared to subject its claims to anything resembling the scientific method. How on earth can you compare (for example) the large scale Scandinavian MMR/autism study (involving hundreds of thousands of children over many years across multiple countries) with the usual AM type of study involving anecdotal evidence from a few dedicated and committed devotees.

All sceptics ask is that AM is evaluated on the same terms as EBM. They would even allow AM a “quick in” by bypassing in the molecular studies, in vitro, in vivo, first in human stages and just get on with a properly designed test.

All AM ever comes up with is excuses. “X is not amenable to scientific investigation”. It seems funny to me that the scientific method seems to work at every level from the sub-atomic to the cosmological yet somehow fails when confronted by some made up medicine dreamed up by a 19th century medical fraudster.

Your final three sentences are nonsense.

Colin

I take it you meant to say lone troll?

No. Google is your friend.

But, since you’re here I’ll ask you what I asked Janice (minus autocorrect typo);

Name an alternative medical therapy that actually works.

[i see John H posted as I was doing so. Troll question resolved.]

I wasn’t aware of the jargon, but learn something new everyday.

Tone troll

“A tone troll is an internet troll that will effectively disrupt an internet discussion, because they feel that some of the participants are being too harsh, condescending, or use foul language. They often complain loudly and target specific subjects, even though they may actually agree with their subjects’s point of view.”

No, doesn’t apply to the poster!! And it is considered an ad-hominem to call someone a troll

Well done Colin. As BSM said Google is your friend and you managed to find the Urban Dictionary.

Tone troll also means the sort of person who posts something like “why does everybody argue all the time. Why can’t we all be nice, get on with each other and respect everybody’s views and beliefs”. Therefore she IS a tone troll and therefore no ad hom.

Why not try to address the questions people put to you?

Oddly enough sceptical types also like to learn new things and I am absolutely agog at the prospect of “AM and EBM – A Modern Synthesis”

Still meta-arguing, Colin.

Once again, I offer you the chance to discuss the substantive issues;

Totally agree with Janice. Such a predictable answer from the GP which just goes to confirm why people are turning to alternative medicine as they can see through such replies as this. People are sick of the side effects of drugs – many of which end up on the market with weak and poorly designed trails which are manipulated by the drug companies. I know – I worked in them once. Since going holistic my health has improved 100% and all those people I know who did the same have also improved 100%. It’s an epidemic of people getting better with nutritional and environmental medicine. Isn’t that good news! Modern medicine is not getting people well and in many cases making them sicker. So isn’t it obvious that WDDTY will become more popular – it has some of the finest doctors in the UK on its editorial panel.

If you read the medical journals regularly from some of the top medical journals in the world you will see how a lot of what they publish is scientifically based information. Also, the ASA is there to protect the public – so let them do their job, they act independently and objectively – they have no political interests (I hope) unlike the pharma corps and supporters such as the Nightingale lot who clearly don’t gain from this book being published. As a member of the public I for one don’t want this book taken off distribution just because someone with an interest in shutting it down says it should be, especially with derogatory, highly prejudiced titles like the ones on this website; simply shutting them up when its clearly not dangerous to public health is like gagging freedom of speech. This website prizes freedom of speech otherwise derogatory and prejudicial titles like ‘quack’ would not be possible to express. You cant have it both ways.

Andy Lewis

I was not aware of this publication.

Thank you for bringing it up here. This raises many interesting issues. It should be up to readers to decide what is good for them.

The article on sleep and sleeping pill is interesting.

Hi Elaine.

Can you say what it was about the documentation of the articles in WDDTY that most impressed you?

Thanks.

In what way could this piece undermine people’s relationship with their doctors, or promote quackery? And how do you infer such intent?

You could start with the title.

Exactly, the very title suggests there is a wealth of important health information that doctors withhold from you and that, by implication, they cannot be trusted to act as your primary care provider and to look after your best interests.

What WDDTY does is promote superstitious and pseudoscientific health beliefs that will inevitably harm people. That is what people are concerned about.

Yes, those are fair points.

Thinking a bit more, I said they don’t have to make moral judgements They don’t. As you point out, however, they patently choose to do so on some occasions. At the very least it seems they apply rather erratic rules as to when to apply that judgement.

“No one has the right to pass off falsehoods as truth, especially when those falsehoods can have serious negative consequences if believed.”

So that’s all the world’s many and varied religions screwed then.

Hopefully 🙂

It stops oncologists saying they can treat cancer. And who do you think the patient is referred to after seeing their gp? Who do you think is best placed to make a decision on possible treatments for different people. The gp? The patient? An oncologist? And the comment is right that if types of treatment have helped cancer and there are recorded cases of this happening, without the back up of gold standard rct, and you prevent a cancer sufferer from finding possible treatments and researching that treatment or trying it then you have indeed denied informed consent.

I think the key words are “demonstratable merit” not wacky views.

How is “merit” demonstrated? Your answer cannot include the word “patients’ own stories” or “testimonials”, so I’m interested to hear what you suggest.

Bsm are you saying all treatments available either privately or on the nhs are backed with solid evidence? If only rct backed treatments are to be the only treatment available then many procedures would be pulled and new ideas would never see the light of day. Is surgery not dictated by the skill and experience of the surgeon? The specialist in the subject. Then why is andy so against oncologists having certain views on treatments for cancer.

Liam,

I simply asked how “merit” is demonstrated. You have not answered that.

Look, Liam, perhaps we can make this specific rather than general.

“Q-Link, Combat: Stress, poor performance, fuzzy thinking…the electronic devices you use and depend on each day generate electromagnetic fields. Reserach shows these EMF’s may undermine performance and well-being and have a biological effect on the body. The Q-Link CLEAR utilizes sypathetic resonance tuning which acts as a tuning fork for the body sesonating with and reinforcing your own electrical fields”

Does the Q-Link have “proven and demonstrable merit”?
How has that merit been proven and demonstrated?

Please check my last few posts, ive been specific. BSM and comment if you like.

Liam, at the risk of this descending into tedious meta-discussion, I can find no specific example from you of non-conventional treatments that are of “proven and demonstrable merit”. Cite them again and let’s discuss them.

In the meantime, present you defence of the Q-Link, as advertised in WDDTY. You seem not to want to do that.

I thought that WDDTY were winning this one with all the publicity and no doubt extra sales.
Then WDDTY fall into the trap and make a threat to libel Simon Singh.

Andy Lewis

You should read this and check your statements.

http://medicineiskillingyou.blogspot.in/2012/01/medical-conspiracy-to-contain-and.html

Andy Lewis

…….The level of misinformation within there would suggest this is not a priority.

I am in total agreement. Starting from Quackometer?

So no actual evidence then. How disappointing. So you make statements and blog assumption based on your own beliefs as to what damage this magazine is doing to the general public. You sound like a quack. Giving medical advice about something you have no evidence to back up your argument.

Nice try reversing the whole “burden of proof” thing.

Dear Andy

I have worked my way through most of the posts in this blog. What seems clear to me is that “The Quackometer” Blog is populated mostly by people who are single-minded in supporting and protecting the allopathic medical model. I have no problem with this, with one proviso – to enable the allopathic medical model to exist as the sole approach to medical treatment, it must demonstrate total mastery in the prevention and treatment of disease.

The last figure I read for the number of people who avoidably die in hospital each year in the UK was I recall 25,000. The numbers of people who die when taking (correctly prescribed) medications each year is many tens of thousands. When we talk of harm, we must deal with the harm on both sides of the argument.

The content of the posts in much of this blog seems to be that if a company producing an alternative product cannot produce the scientific studies to prove their claims, then the product is inherently risking the lives of patients who could receive the total/proper/correct solution that the allopathic medical model provides. [Incidentally, I have some involvement in drugs trials – I know exactly what these trials cost to deliver. The reality is that the demand for alternative producers to prove their claims in the same way that international pharmaceutical companies do would be to create an effective ban on any alternative product – a ban imposed before anyone knows if these products are proven to be effective or not. Surely this is not a scientific approach to the issue of alternative treatment? or is science to be reserved only for those companies that can afford it?]

This is where I perceive the Quackometer Blog’s argument disintegrates. The allopathic medical model does not have anywhere near mastery in the prevention and treatment of disease. In many areas it is failing despite the astonishing level of investment that takes place in it every year. The search for alternatives is a critical one given the number of areas where allopathy has no answers of only limited answers. It is more than possible that the nature of the allopathic approach means that it will continue to struggle with the treatment of many diseases.

The choice being offered to people is not between an allopathic model that has the answer and an alternative model that does not. It is a choice between an allopathic model that has strengths and weaknesses and alternative therapies that also have strengths and weaknesses. As such, the criticism of alternative approaches is unbalanced. Perhaps a column discussing the areas in which allopathic medicine despite being the dominant model for 100 years is failing to make progress would be enlightening for all who write here.

In my experience, the people who involve themselves in alternative treatment of disease have either failed to find resolution using the allopathic model or want from their own volition to pursue an alternative model of treatment and are quite capable of doing their own research into claims that are being made. I see no reason for limiting their freedom to do so.

I often work with doctors and their complaint is not that their patients are incapable of learning about and understanding their illnesses, but rather that their patients come with stacks of information that they wish to discuss in a 10-minute appointment that is not fit for the purpose. The image of the weak-willed and gullible patient rushing off to WHS to be misled by WDDTY seems a little exaggerated to say the least.

So I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the following points:

1) how do you explain the unacceptably high death rates from the engagement of ordinary people with the allopathic treatment of disease? (Remember these are people dying not from disease but from their treatment.) Would the Blog do more good focussing on seeking to prevent these tragically unnecessary deaths?

2) how should a person who has not been cured using allopathic medicines gain access to new ideas and approaches being suggested by alternative treatments if this magazine is to be banned?

3) how should the funding of healthcare be altered to allow alternative companies to carry out more research into their products? (and if not, can the demand for such trial results be sustained?) Is there not an argument for more research into alternative approaches that have a body of patient and practitioner feedback as to their effectiveness being given research funding?

4) what is the scientific basis for the argument made here that to provide information about alternative products is to risk the relationship between the patient and his/her doctor?

Finally, to seek the removal of a publication because it does not accord with the views of the people on this blog IS an issue of free speech – I cannot see how it can be anything else. I see that one blogger suggests its an issue of ‘responsible speech’ and that the claimed irresponsibility of WDDTY should be enough to have it removed from sale.

In a society that proclaims to uphold freedom of expression, I would need to see clear evidence that this magazine is doing demonstrable harm. Without such evidence, the idea of banning its publication is both irresponsible and deeply offensive to anyone who upholds the right to freedom of expression.

All the best

Lynden

Lynden – there is no such thing as the ‘allopathic medical model’. It is the invention of homeopaths. Therefore the whole premise of your argument is flawed from the first paragraph.

Perhaps you would like to define ‘allopathic’? See if you can do it. Remember in your answer that it is the 21st Century.

Dear Andy

I raise important issues because I want to hear your opinion – I do not spend my time writing responses to blogs unless I consider the issues to be important. You reply by dismissing my entire argument based on my use of the word ‘allopathy’.

This is a word defined in the OED as ‘the treatment of disease by conventional means’. I am not sure of why you object to the use of this word to describe conventional medicine – but I am quite happy for you to substitute into my post ‘conventional medicine’ or the ‘conventional medical model’ (as appropriate) if this enables you to engage with the issues I raise.

To dismiss the points I raise because you object to the use of a OED defined word places you in a poor light. Perhaps you would accord me the respect that I accord you by engaging with the points I raise – or if you wish, to clearly say that you do not wish to engage with these points, with a clear reason as to why not.

Many thanks

Lynden

Lynden. I consulted my shorter oxford and it defines allopathy as “the treatment of disease by inducing the opposite condition. Opp. Homeopathy”. Did you look up your definition in the OED or were you just making it up?

Allopathy is defined as the opposite of homeopathy. A word coined by Hahnemann. As the doctrine of homeopathy is false, so is the concept of allopathy. There is no doctor alive that practices according to a doctrine of allopathy. As such, your statements remain nonsensical.

I will be happy to answer any coherent questions you may have.

Actually, my OED (11th concise edition, 2004) doesn’t quite define “allopathy” it like that. It says, “the treatment of disease by conventional means, i.e. with drugs having opposite effects to the symptoms”. This is Hahnemann’s definition of 18th century medicine. Modern medcine doesn’t do this.

Dear Mojo

As I have already said, I have no particular need to use the word ‘allopathy’ to make the points I would like to discuss.

I am happy to also invite you to substitute ‘conventional medicine’ or ‘conventional medical model’ into my post (if you find those words more acceptable) and to actually engage with the issues I have raised.

Regards

Lynden

I am sorry Lynden, but your whole statement is full of errors and false assumptions. Take this one:

“to enable the allopathic medical model to exist as the sole approach to medical treatment, it must demonstrate total mastery in the prevention and treatment of disease”

Even if we substitute the word allopathy for a meaningful one, like “scientific”, you are quite clearly wrong. Why does medicine need to demonstrate ‘total mastery’? It does not claim to. Doctors know of the huge limitations of what they do. That does not mean any old discredited idea, like homeopathy, gets a free look in.

Thanks for your reply Andy – I attempted to respond to your earlier post but got a “404 site not found” message.

I need to head out this afternoon, but will happily reply to this and any further posts later on.

All the best

Lynden

Dear Andy

I am being asked by you and others to clarify my use of language and I am happy to do so.

When I talk of the ‘convention medical model’, I imagine the situation where a client goes to his doctor complaining of a chest infection. The doctor takes a history (if he has time) and listens to the client’s chest. He diagnoses a bacterial infection.

The doctor’s approach (guided by his understanding of disease and its action in the body) is to prescribe probably an antibiotic to attempt to kill off the infection. When I use the word ‘model’ I refer to his medical education and the presuppositions about the treatment of disease that are inherent in that education and guide his actions as he diagnoses and prescribes. He has learnt and no doubt has experience of using particular drugs to treat particular infections. We hope the treatment is effective and that the infection recedes.

Skepticat challenges my use of the word ‘model’ because he says it implies that there are other models available, which he says ‘are being challenged here’ – by which I interpret him to mean that no other approach is efficacious and therefore valid. I will return to this below, but let me explain my understanding of some of the other models that this client may choose to explore instead: (and as I hope you are aware, I have no particular axe to grind as to which of these alternative models a client may choose to explore.)

The client may go to a Traditional Chinese Medical herbalist whose first thought will be (I imagine) “Why did this infection take hold in the lungs of this client.” He will use his examination to check how the ‘chi’ – the life force as he would term it – is flowing through the organs and would seek to provide a herbal remedy that would, for example, increase the flow of blood into the lungs with other herbs to have an antibacterial effect. The model in this kind of medicine is to help the body fight the infection by supporting the function of the lungs rather than simply attacking the pathogen alone.

A naturopath may approach the infection by seeking to flood the body with anti-oxidants (perhaps this is the Vit C controversy in action) to fortify the cell membranes around the infected tissues and so help the patient’s own immune system to fight the disease more effectively than would otherwise be possible.

And of course, we mustn’t forget your beloved homeopaths who would seek to find a remedy that would trigger an immune response in a patient, so that the patient’s immune system is kick-started into an effective response.

These three models of treating the client share little or nothing at all with the conventional medical model. As I understand your position and that of Skepticat, these alternative approaches cannot use the word ‘medical’ at all because the only genuine/true/effective/acceptable ‘medical’ model is the GP with his drug prescriptions.

But if we remove the word ‘medical’ and insert some other more neutral work, let’s say ‘approach’ as in ‘alternative approach’ , you have not solved any question or won any argument about the treatment of disease – you have simply renamed it. The issue remains, all that we have achieved is moving to another position in the language. These other models exist, they are fundamentally different to the GP’s model, they do not conform to the conventional understanding of disease.

Your argument (for that is what it is) is these alternative models for approaching the treatment of the infection are invalid/ineffective/corrupt – “quackery”. I suspect, if you are honest, you would ban them all outright from tomorrow morning if you had the chance. But you are clear in your desire to ban a magazine that promotes such alternatives and points the finger at some of the suspect/corrupt practices of the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry. Whether the magazine needs to improve its advertising is an issue that can be addressed, but in essence, you don’t like the fact that it dares to criticise the medical model that you believe is the only model that is valid.

Let’s go back to our patient with the chest infection. It turns out that the bacterial infection that he has does not respond to antibiotics or any other treatment that the doctor can offer (i.e. it is drug resistant). If you have already banned all the other alternatives then what does this man do? If you have simply banned the magazine, where does this man find ideas and information to attempt to find relief from his infection? (Do you think the Internet is a better source of information on alternative approaches?)

You have, with your fundamentalist duality of right/wrong, medical/quackery, acceptable/unacceptable, either taken away this man’s right to take responsibility for his own health or you have limited his access to any information that does not meet your narrowly defined version of acceptability and your vehemently held beliefs about its status.

To someone like me, who believes that people have the right to make choices for themselves and often have an instinctive sense of what is right for themselves, the attitude of superiority inherent in your call for the banning of this magazine is a deeply disturbing and dangerous precedent for the cause of individual freedoms and for freedom of self-expression. I have no problem with you critiquing this magazine (it may help if you were more measured and thoughtful in your approach), but calling for a ban because WDDTY doesn’t happen to agree with you and promotes alternatives is simply wrong.

I see you use the word “scientific” and term it ‘meaningful’. The definition of this word has been fought over for 100 years and is being actively fought over today. You I notice do not define it, but I am sure that the only other expression of the word you recognise is “unscientific”. The rhetoric is clear – term what you believe in “scientific” and brand everything else “unscientific” and therefore as “quackery”. The irony is that many people continue to use and benefit from these alternative treatment approaches, whether you term it scientific or not.

You have taken a heavy responsibility upon yourself. You would deny our man with his chest infection the opportunity to choose his own healing process, even when the only modality you recognise has failed to help him.

Presumably you would do this in the name of “science” and the consequences for him would be a price worth paying for the removal of any alternative to your own view of the world.

Having taken part in some communication with you, I am now sure that this ban you are calling for and the reasons you give to support it are based solely in your own fundamentalist beliefs rather than as a carefully thought through and balanced approach to the realities of illness and disease.

In my opinion, every person has the right to respond to their illness in the manner that they choose – with the proviso that they do not endanger others as they do so – and can take responsibility for the risks inherent in the different modes of treatment that are practised – conventional or alternative.

Regards

Lynden

Lynden – let’s get a few things out of the way. I am not trying to ‘silence’ wddty. I do think though that retailers are irresponsible for stocking it. That is because it is just full of misinformation. Most of what it says is either unproven, a distortion or wrong. Such information does not help people make better health care choices. If taken on board, it inhibits good decision making. Should a patient have a long term complaint that is not being resolved by medicine, then misinformation is not going to help them.

Such a person is of course free to chose their own ‘healing processes’. But no matter how much is printed in wddty, there is no such thing as chi, naturopathy is nonsense, homeopathy is pseudoscientific and unicorns don’t exist.

Tell me Lynden. What responsibility do you think does wddty have to ensure what it prints is accurate, evidence-based and complete?

Dear Andy

I completely agree that everyone has a responsibility to be as accurate and complete as possible. It is what I get up every morning in my professional life to do and I think the world will be a better place for it if we seek to encourage this in all human activity.

That is why I am supportive of reasoned and informed criticism of WDDTY and anyone else who puts themselves forward as an authority. I will be as critical of shoddy reportage in WDDTY as I would be of a pharmaceutical company that withholds study results that do not support its drug application. That is fair comment and when people fall short then it is fine to be critical.

But those standards also must apply to the critic – the critic needs to be fair and informed. The critic has his/her responsibility to understand that there isn’t one coherent narrative that explains everything. The nature of knowledge is that it is paradoxical and chaotic, because the basis of our understanding is so incomplete. So while I support your desire for a quality of knowledge, you also have a responsibility to engage constructively through your personal experience with these other treatment models, so that your criticism can be informed.

I have spent the last ten years of my life working to understand all of the available models. When you watch someone being destroyed by a disease and who cannot be helped by conventional means, then the choice is either to cast around in desperation for any straw of a chance or it is to find and crunch the data – not as an intellectual exercise, but as a practical exploration. The reason I found this blog is that I have an interest in High-Dosage Vitamin C therapy. I have spent four years exploring it. I know a lot of what it does, but there is so much to learn and understand. My direct experience is that it should not so easily be dismissed. There is potential in it.

There are certainly some charlatans out there – I have met a few in the alternative word during this exploration, and some of them also wore white coats and worked in hospitals – but there are also intelligent and committed people, those who work in the alternative models you dismiss without a shred of respect. Some of these people are discovering and exploring interesting and challenging ideas.

When you consider that Mach opposed Einstein on atomic theory because he hadn’t yet proved that atoms exist, it is easy with hindsight to think Mach was closed-minded fool, but in fact he was pursuing a very narrow definition of what science is and what is acceptable within its boundaries.

I cannot support the way that you dismiss that which you seem only to explore from an intellectually superior position of its ‘not medicine’. In many ways, you are the precise reflection of the team at WDDTY. Your dismissal of other approaches as though you really know what is happening out there in the world is disheartening. I respect your right to critique, but not your right to dismiss. And certainly not your right to suppress or urge others to do so in response to your critique.

You use the term “evidence based”. We both know that conventional medicine is struggling to produce the evidence base to explain what it does. Doctors often know what works from their experience – and sometimes they have it wrong – but usually their clinical experience is as good as any study.

When you demand an evidence base from alternative practitioners who do not have the resources or access to them – not least because of the activities of those who oppose what they do – the demand is simply unjust. The years of experience of treating people with their approaches gives them a wealth of knowledge and expertise. You write this off as though it is irrelevant. You condemn them as dishonest because they exist outside the system you support. You need to get out more and see what is going on.

I have talked with a researcher about studies into homeopathy (by the way, I am not a particular fan of this model, though I do not dismiss it for the reasons most commonly expressed). He was talking about how difficult it is to apply any kind of methodology to homeopathy, as no set of symptoms will be treated in the same way. The reason is that each person is seen as unique in his/her energy field.

To the medical mind that is a nonsense. But if you understand their model in their own terms you will see there is a rationale to their approach – even though their focus is totally different to a medical approach. Does that make them necessarily corrupt?

You are willing to dismiss and condemn – to criticise brutally. I do not. In my opinion, there is nothing more important than people being able to make choices for themselves – it is the basis of a well-lived life. I encourage you to be more circumspect, to be more curious, to gain more insight. Dismissing people with rhetorical flourishes is so simple – any fool can do it. Anyone can bang a drum – but the real challenge is to understand what all the noise is actually about.

We need to find new ways that ordinary people can live more healthy and dynamic lives. Simply treating illness is not enough. At some point fairly soon Andy, I will share some ideas with you about how some of the noise can be diminished, so that we can actually start listening and learning from each other and maybe creating something more powerful than exists at present – whether in medical or alternative circles. Isn’t this what the true goal is?

All the best – I have learned a lot by blogging with you – many thanks

Lynden

This discussion now continues at the bottom of the comments thread.

My Responses in Italics

Dear Andy

I completely agree that everyone has a responsibility to be as accurate and complete as possible. It is what I get up every morning in my professional life to do and I think the world will be a better place for it if we seek to encourage this in all human activity.

Great.

That is why I am supportive of reasoned and informed criticism of WDDTY and anyone else who puts themselves forward as an authority. I will be as critical of shoddy reportage in WDDTY as I would be of a pharmaceutical company that withholds study results that do not support its drug application. That is fair comment and when people fall short then it is fine to be critical.

We only then need to agree on what is shoddy reporting.

But those standards also must apply to the critic – the critic needs to be fair and informed. The critic has his/her responsibility to understand that there isn’t one coherent narrative that explains everything. The nature of knowledge is that it is paradoxical and chaotic, because the basis of our understanding is so incomplete. So while I support your desire for a quality of knowledge, you also have a responsibility to engage constructively through your personal experience with these other treatment models, so that your criticism can be informed.

I do not claim that there is “one coherent narrative” to everything also science gives us the best narrative we have to explain the world. Know of any better competing narratives? I would also argue that I do engage constructively. I would strongly argue that supporters of various alt meds are the once who are incapable of engaging as their minds are shut to the possibility that they are mistaken.

I have spent the last ten years of my life working to understand all of the available models. When you watch someone being destroyed by a disease and who cannot be helped by conventional means, then the choice is either to cast around in desperation for any straw of a chance or it is to find and crunch the data – not as an intellectual exercise, but as a practical exploration. The reason I found this blog is that I have an interest in High-Dosage Vitamin C therapy. I have spent four years exploring it. I know a lot of what it does, but there is so much to learn and understand. My direct experience is that it should not so easily be dismissed. There is potential in it.

Are you sure you are not just falling into the alluring trap of feeling that Vitamin C must be good for us in high doses?

There are certainly some charlatans out there – I have met a few in the alternative word during this exploration, and some of them also wore white coats and worked in hospitals – but there are also intelligent and committed people, those who work in the alternative models you dismiss without a shred of respect. Some of these people are discovering and exploring interesting and challenging ideas.

How do you tell the charlatans from the intelligent and committed people? In my experience, the best charlatans appear as intelligent and committed people and have probably even fooled themselves.

When you consider that Mach opposed Einstein on atomic theory because he hadn’t yet proved that atoms exist, it is easy with hindsight to think Mach was closed-minded fool, but in fact he was pursuing a very narrow definition of what science is and what is acceptable within its boundaries.

Minds were changed by evidence. That is the only thing that matters.

I cannot support the way that you dismiss that which you seem only to explore from an intellectually superior position of its ‘not medicine’. In many ways, you are the precise reflection of the team at WDDTY. Your dismissal of other approaches as though you really know what is happening out there in the world is disheartening. I respect your right to critique, but not your right to dismiss. And certainly not your right to suppress or urge others to do so in response to your critique.

What I do with WDDTY is point out how they are highly selective in their appraisal of evidence, partisan to the reading of the evidence and far too accepting of unevidenced and irrational alternative ideas. When they are consistent in this approach I feel I am perfectly entitled to dismiss them.

You use the term “evidence based”. We both know that conventional medicine is struggling to produce the evidence base to explain what it does. Doctors often know what works from their experience – and sometimes they have it wrong – but usually their clinical experience is as good as any study.

Absolute nonsense. Clinical experience is no substitute for robust evidence from trials. This is the central mistake that all believers in superstitious medicines make. That one can KNOW the truth though some direct experience of reality.

When you demand an evidence base from alternative practitioners who do not have the resources or access to them – not least because of the activities of those who oppose what they do – the demand is simply unjust. The years of experience of treating people with their approaches gives them a wealth of knowledge and expertise. You write this off as though it is irrelevant. You condemn them as dishonest because they exist outside the system you support. You need to get out more and see what is going on.

Again nonsense. Homeopathy is a multi-billion euro industry. Boiron in France makes hundreds of millions alone. Vitamins and supplements form a $30 Billion dollar industry in the USA alone. Experience is no substitute foe evidence. Every systematic medical mistake comes about because of ‘experience’.

I have talked with a researcher about studies into homeopathy (by the way, I am not a particular fan of this model, though I do not dismiss it for the reasons most commonly expressed). He was talking about how difficult it is to apply any kind of methodology to homeopathy, as no set of symptoms will be treated in the same way. The reason is that each person is seen as unique in his/her energy field.

You researcher friend was just repeating the same old tired nonsense. Homeopathy can easily be tested. It is just that homeopaths do not like the results so they claim they are somehow special. And as for ‘energy field’. What is your best evidence that such a field exists?

To the medical mind that is a nonsense. But if you understand their model in their own terms you will see there is a rationale to their approach – even though their focus is totally different to a medical approach. Does that make them necessarily corrupt?

That is because it is nonsense. I do understand their model. It is delusional wishful thinking.

You are willing to dismiss and condemn – to criticise brutally. I do not. In my opinion, there is nothing more important than people being able to make choices for themselves – it is the basis of a well-lived life. I encourage you to be more circumspect, to be more curious, to gain more insight. Dismissing people with rhetorical flourishes is so simple – any fool can do it. Anyone can bang a drum – but the real challenge is to understand what all the noise is actually about.

Well maybe you ought to be more critical of nonsense and not just accept any old garbage that alt med people come out with. I would suggest that I do understand the world of alt med better than anyone actually practicing it. That is because I am not deluded about chi, meridian, magic unicorns, lay lines and fairies.

We need to find new ways that ordinary people can live more healthy and dynamic lives. Simply treating illness is not enough. At some point fairly soon Andy, I will share some ideas with you about how some of the noise can be diminished, so that we can actually start listening and learning from each other and maybe creating something more powerful than exists at present – whether in medical or alternative circles. Isn’t this what the true goal is?

Good. Please be prepared to back up any assertion with robust evidence.

All the best – I have learned a lot by blogging with you – many thanks

Lynden

Lynden, I think Andy dismissed your entire argument not so much on the word ‘allopathy’ but on what you mean by it, whatever you call it. It is the concept of an “allopathic medical model” – and the implication that there are other models – that are being challenged here and that is why your argument fails at the first hurdle. Your premise, as AL stated, is flawed.

It is helpful, when presenting an argument, to clarify contentious terms. Why not help us by describing your understanding of the “allopathic medical model”?

Lynden Alexander said something…

Oh dear.

Jeezus Lynden

I thought I was verbose but you make me look like a model of succinctness.

Regarding all of the points you raised my diagnosis is that you are (a) a clever tone troll (of sorts) and (b) a grand master of advanced PRATTery.

Shocking! The responses to Lynden’s posts are evasive and often childish and pathetic. I thought I had seen it all already but, I am speechless!!

Do you forget that people will visit your site and read your comments? Give the Quackometer enough rope…

Andy said:

Homeopathy can easily be tested.

Indeed. Even the Homeopathic Research Institute think so. They are currently trying to raise a mere £15,000 to conduct a trial: A protocol for a trial of homeopathic treatment for irritable bowel syndrome.

The protocol may well be designed to give them the results they are looking for, but it’ll be interesting to see if and when they conduct it.

Of course, this gives a lie to the usual complaint that good trials cost thousands/millions/billions – not that this is a good trial, of course.

Anyway, their fundraising has been going for several months and only 17 people have donated a total of less than £1,500. Homeopaths frequently crave scientific respectability, yet seem reluctant to put their hands in their pockets for even this modest sum.

Dear Lynden

From the other side of the world, bravo!! An eloquent riposte to the incredible volume of bigoted bullshit posted on this blog. I owe my life to so called “alternative” (nutritional) therapy and my open minded GP is delighted. There is good and bad in all medical procedures and therapies, but we should never lose sight of the fact that what is now accepted, conventional medicine was once “alternative” and experimental. Our minds should always remain open to new ideas and the right to freedom of expression over this particular issue is far too important to be suppressed.

Liam. Once again. I think the onus is always on wddty to supply the evidence. I am sure you agree that supplying misleading health information can harm. It is not up to me to audit what they do. They have a responsibility to not publish absolute bullshit – would you like to defend their output?

Andy I disagree, you have thrown a whole load of accusations at wddty. You started with “An almighty battle between quacks and sceptics appears to be underway.
Last month, saw the publication of a new magazine, What Doctors Don’t Tell You.”
Now this is publishing bullshit and is nothing short of scaremongering. WDDTY as been around since 1989.
You also state that “The website and magazine advertises many problematic health products that could harm people if used in place of real medicine.” but again you cannot provide any evidence to back up this accusation. Its not even an anecdote its what YOU think. How very scientific and sceptical (what happened to the K?) WDDTY has been going for 23 years yet you cannot provide one piece of evidence that this publication is putting people at risk. You then have your following who wait expectantly for you to throw them a morsel to then complain and call the magazine “worthless”.
I have given you an example of information found in the magazine that is far from worthless.
“Many doctors used outmoded types of surgery for hernias, hand over this complicated operation to inexperienced juniors or experiment with new, untried techniques.

The statistics are worrying. It’s four times more dangerous to have a hernia operation than to go without one if you’re over 65, according to the Harvard School of Public Health (New Eng J of Med, 6 December 1973). Death rates vary 14 fold between health districts, and up to 20 per cent of operations have to be repeated within five years. To make matters worse, this recurrence rate rises to 30 per cent following a second operation and by as much as 50 per cent after the third.”

and are you telling me this piece is worthless.
“Endometriosis—the cause of many a painful period—might be triggered by a common sunscreen chemical, according to new evidence from America.
Scientists have long suspected that chemical toxins could be a contributing cause of endometriosis, which can lead to infertility and depression, but this is the first time that the research has focused on sunscreen chemicals—specifically, the benzophenone (BP) type of ingredients that are widely used in a variety of personal-care products to protect the skin and hair from the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays.”

And with your experience as a research scientist (sic) I suppose this is utter nonsense.
Personal care products could be an unsuspected cause of diabetes in women. Chemicals in moisturizers, nail polish, soaps, hair sprays and perfumes increase the risk by up to 70 per cent.
The most dangerous chemicals are the phthalates, which have already been banned in the manufacture of toys and baby products across Europe and the US. However, they are still permitted in personal care products and cosmetics.

Really? Been around since 1989 but cites statistics from 1973 – cherry anyone?

You may be right that at some point in the past WDDTY was able to offer accessible, professional and objective overview of treatment options. How sad then that it has since retreated into fantasy and is no longer capable of providing the same service to its current readers.

Sorry Matt but I don’t agree, I just did this search this morning so this and much more information is available to old new and future readers. I haven’t seen this new magazine, but to label everything done by WDDTY as “worthless” or the “start of a battle” is rubbish. And Andy should know better.

We are talking about the WDDTY magazines printed in Sept and Oct 2012. Not articles in the archive from the last century.

My point is that rather than produce accessible and objective assessments of NEWLY EMERGING treatments options that GPs may not be aware of and the NHS may not yet have implemented, these mags are producing sensationalist and misleading articles and posting adverts for ineffective or actively harmful goods and services. What on earth does anything written a life time ago have to do with that?

Colin

There are a good many things we’d like to do but time, resources and our experience and expertise constrain what we are able to do. Just like everyone else, we do what we can.

The majority of misleading healthcare claims made to the public are about so-called ‘alternative therapies’ – it is, of course, illegal in the UK for drug companies to advertise prescription medicines to the general public and since they generally comply with that, there’s little to do there.

So, what is it you do to challenge pharmaceutical companies?

Your idea that ALL alternative medicine is quackery is totally skewed!!

One example, please, of any altie therapy that is not quackery.

Over to you.

Are you saying that there was no medicine before the pharmaceutical companies existed? There was no such thing as “alternative” medicine until recently. Medicine came from nature. Hippocrates said “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food”. Drugs are extracted from nature unless totally synthetic. Have you studied alternative therapies, to make you an authority on them all? No-one has! I personally cannot prove one way or the other whether each therapy is effective or not. Can you?

Colin

I asked for one example. You have not provided one. Please, do so.

Thanks

You are kidding right? When you ask for just one example, that is meant to be a challenge? I can name many non “quack” therapies….. acupuncture, herbalism, nutrition. Do you truly believe that food and herbs cant heal? Acupuncture is used by surgeons as well as by the NHS these days. Tell the Chinese their medicine has not worked for the past millennia and the Indian their Ayurvedic medicine. Science is catching on gradually. Tai Chi is incredibly effective……. i personally have been healed using “alternative” methods. My doctor doesn’t believe it but that doesn’t make any less real.

Choose one. Nutrition doesn’t count for fairly obvious reasons.

Acupuncture or herbalism. Which is it to be?

Anyone else for popcorn?

P.S. it is a strawman of your own making that anyone says that “ALL” alternative medicine is quackery. So far, you seem not to want to test any of it against objective evidence and rational argument.

Let me ask you the question at the other end of the range. Do you maintain that NONE of alternative medicine is quackery?

Then the follow-up. If you will not assert that NONE is quackery then tell us how you tell where the boundary lies.

Come on, Colin. Give it a go

To be honest, I really can’t be bothered to play your game. I made the point I intended to and I am happy to leave it at that. I can guess your mindset and that you have a determination to debunk everything you don’t like. It’s a game to you and it’s fun. I respect that. But, for me, there are far more important things to worry about. All of us are entitled to our own viewpoints but none of us are entitled to bully those who have a different point of view. And that includes the right to publish a magazine without a vocal minority demanding it be shut down. If you don’t like it don’t read it. Simple!

Folds

Fair enough, Colin, you ‘know’ what you believe. You insist on your right to have your beliefs taken at face value based on your anecdotal experience, but “can’t be bothered” to test the validity of those beliefs against logical argument and objective evidence.

It’s a tactic we see frequently in advocates of various SCAM therapies. A two-word phrase represents an adequate summary of it: running away.

Ahh, the ‘please talk about something else’ gambit.

Not at all

Your quoted words are a non sequitur in relation to my question.

Colin, please understand that you are treading a very well-trodden path of SCAM defenders. You spend a lot of time telling us that you’re not going to tell us anything. It would take a fraction of the effort to actually engage positively with the discussion. It is a matter of some interest as to why SCAM-fans do this. I think it’s because you’re too scared to challenge your own thinking.

Anyway, answer the question, please.

Hmmmm, I answered both your questions so how can my quote be a non-sequitur?? Are you studied in the fields of acupuncture or herbalism? Or a qualified doctor maybe? If not, what is the point in discussing these subjects with you in anything but a general way? No-one can convincingly write off a subject like herbalism because even if you can prove that one particular herb is ineffective in one particular condition you still can’t prove that all herbs are ineffective in all conditions. After all, it is medicine derived from plants. Will you be explaining to me that nature cannot heal, ever? And by the way, I am not a SCAM fan or defender but that was just a little insult from you. There are fraudsters, for sure, but that is the case in every field of endeavour.

Hmmmm, I answered both your questions so how can my quote be a non-sequitur??

Because your answer was not logically connected to the question.

The rest of your post continues to reply to a strawman of your own creation. You asserted that “Your idea that ALL alternative medicine is quackery”. None of us has actually said that. Nonetheless, I have offered you the opportunity to come up with one clear example where it is not.

You suggested nutrition, which is not alternative medicine.
You suggested acupuncture and herbalism. I asked you to pick one to explore further. You have not explicitly done so, but your subsequent posts suggest that you only want to talk about herbalism. Is herbalism what you choose?

Will you be explaining to me that nature cannot heal, ever?

No.It is exactly why useless therapies and products can appear to work.

And by the way, I am not a SCAM fan or defender…

I am never one to refrain from pointing out the bleedin’ obvious when the bleedin’ obvious is being denied. Your posts are clearly intended to defend SCAM from the point of view of a Tru Bleever. Nuff sed.

There are fraudsters, for sure, but that is the case in every field of endeavour.

And in the case of SCAM, how are we to know who these are? Are radionics devices valuable products or a non-functional artefacts?
[Be aware that there is a very long list of items that can be inserted into that sentence instead of “radionics devices”. Let us not be obliged to work our way down that list. Explain how you ‘know’ what works and what does not.]

P.S. It may well appear to you that I am interested only in taking tiny baby steps in the logical progression of this discussion, but long experience has revealed that SCAMsters are very keen to take huge leaps to unsubstantiated conclusions or off at irrelevant tangents. I’ve been debating SCAMsters for about 10-years so I have seen your approach on many previous occasions. Hey, ho.

P.P.S.

Are you studied in the fields of acupuncture or herbalism? Or a qualified doctor maybe? If not, what is the point in discussing these subjects with you in anything but a general way?

You portray yourself as a humble consumer of these products and services, so if those are your criteria for entry to this discussion then you disqualify yourself. You are fortunate that I do not judge arguments by their presenters’ levels of qualification but by their intrinsic quality, so we can carry on untroubled by the matter of any certificates.

Snap!

Not sure I understand you MSB. Liam has now commented on the Q-Link. Well, he hasn’t. What he has done is engage in a lame Gish Gallop while carefully avoiding giving us his own opinion. Funny, that.

It’s a frequent pattern. Trying to get a Tru Bleever to criticise any other Tru Bleever products is like trying to get a limpet to tap-dance.

P.S. I am reminded that the world of equine back-crackers is often regarded as hilarious by those of us living in the sane world and one reason is that we look at the little human and their tiny hands and we look at the half-ton of muscle and bone with the spine buried under inches of flesh and snigger at the sheer foolishness of applying little slaps and taps to the skin. In contrast, with chiropractic in people, I could at least acknowledge that practitioner and subject were evenly matched. However, given the existence of craniosacral therapy that depends on tickling the cranial bones perhaps I should not be surprised that chiro can itself be reduce to flashy but feeble hand-waving.

Badly Shaved Monkey

….I knew full well how acupuncture was done. I was simply highlighting one particular aspect of it that might have some validity. I reiterate the word might.

This is interesting. When the specialist approached your wife with needles, he used her as a dart board? Pushing needles at all available body spaces or was he selective in his approach? Chose points that required the needles to be inserted as a reason linked to her condition?

There are over 2000 remedies in homeopathy. What do you read against Sangunaria?

You might be stupid, but are quite intellegent when it comes to self preservation-the basic logic of life.

Oops, cross-posted with BSM….or are we the same person trying to throw you off the scent. What d’ya reckon, Jen?

I don’t see anything ungrateful here.
Acupuncture is based on the belief that an ailment (any ailment, actually) is caused by your “qi” not being able to “flow” right. In order to remedy that, acupuncturists stick needles into special places (on the “meridians” along which the “qi” is supposed to flow) that don’t have anything to do with your problems – if you come for lower back pain you may well get needles stuck into your arm, leg and foot for example. Doesn’t sound very plausible, and studies have shown that it doesn’t matter where you stick the needles (or if indeed you stick them anywhere at all), so the theory behind it is obviously wrong – it’s not the needles (nor the “meridians”, nor the “qi”) but the patient’s expectations that make the acupuncture patient feel better.
BSM’s wife on the other hand got needled in the very place that hurt – sounds like it could actually work, and indeed it seems to have done something for BSM’s wife. Still, BSM cannot rule out that it was his wife’s expectations that made her feel better rather than the needles, so it’s perfectly reasonable to reserve judgement until studies have been conducted to see if this is more than a placebo therapy. Time will tell if “dry needling” works – and if it does that still won’t make “classical acupuncture” work, nor homeopathy or any other form of CAM.

Vicky

Your other name is Badly Shaved Monkey.

Let him respond for a message under his name.

I forgot. The pack hunts as one.

LOL, no, my one and only name is Vicky. Sorry, but I won’t let you tell me which comments I can answer to – if you don’t want me to answer, just don’t post dumb comments!

Your other name is Badly Shaved Monkey.

You are the only one here who feels the need to post under multiple identities.

It is a huge blow for your campaign that Drs are not complaining en masse about WDDTY. That is why WDDTY will carry on and that is why you are trying to deflect this. I couldnt care less what you believe in and am not trying to convince you of anything.
Looks like another failed sceptic campaign just after your backfired homepathic regulation failed campaign. Keep on going BSM you are doing me a favour.

I think you are mistaken to take a perceived lack of outrage from doctors as some kind of tacit approval of WDDTY. Its also a bit premature to start declaring this so called campaign to be a ‘failure’.

WDDTY was never going to get ‘banned’ despite the emotive language Lynne McTaggert used and wrongly equating this with being an attack on free speech. Thus far people have only pointed out errors WDDTY contains to publishers and distributors and asked that the publication meets advertising Codes.

IMO it will only take a raft of ASA adjudications against WDDTY showing a large number of its adverts to be misleading to generate enough pressure to convince large distributors like Tescos that the magazine is a hot potato.

Regardless of their bullish reponse, if say 26 complaints were upheld against one publication this would put WDDTY onto the top of the ASA enforcement pile and they would then be left with a choice of either engaging with the ASA, or testing the idea that the ASA has no power whatsoever.

Despite Lynne McTaggert’s claims that WDDTY doesnt need advertising to survive the October Edition contains 18 full page. I don’t believe her.

Many of these are highly dubious and would have been excluded from any reputable publication and anything which reduces the number of advertiser in future will finaically impact WDDTY.

I’ll be interested in how this one pans out, because their business model looks to me like over time it could get steadily eroded away until WDDTY is commerically unviable.

Tick, tock.

*Gets out the organic popcorn*

It is not beneath your dignity to join in a little campaign here and there is it? How do you find the time? Nothing wrong with that. No the reason Drs are not campaigning against WDDTY is because
1 Giving publicity to WDDTY will only increase exposure and sales
2 Quite a few Drs would go along with some of it. Far more than the very few prepared to come out against it like yourself. Even the 80th most important Tweeter in the universe cant get more than a handful of Drs on board over this.

Interesting analogy about Harry Potter. No magician (or anyone ele) as far as i know has ever said that Miss Rowlings books can cause physical harm. Here we are talking about a magazine which according to Andy causes harm. Preventative medicine is very important intodays EBM eg vaccination. So if it is so obvious that WDDTY is causing harm then why are not Drs preventing it.

“2 Quite a few Drs would go along with some of it. Far more than the very few prepared to come out against it like yourself.”

The evidence for this assertion being?

Dr Richard Rawlins

The book is called Medical Conspiracy In America and is available for free online.

This information in the book is much more damaging than what Andy Lewis is crying about here.

Why not read some pages that you don’t agree and put a rejoinder here: that is if you really like to balance information.

MSB: he meant to say “sock” puppets…follow the thread..it was funny.
and for heaven’s sake, advertising a grounding mat to make better contact with mother earth, or a QLink (scientifically proven, apparently) to harmonise the meridians or whatever it does, is NOT putting people at risk.. lighten up!

Jenny

We put it under Freudian slip.

I have written to Tesco https://www.tescohelp.com/tesco/forms/cs_form.html making the following points.

1 I agree that Tesco should stock this magazine.
2 If the Dr organisations ask Tesco to stop stocking it then that is very different from a small group of politically isolated scientists making demands.
3 89% of the UK public trust their Dr (Mori poll June 2011). This still leaves a few million who have an opinion. It is a magazine for a minority interest group just like most magazines.
4 No one has to buy it.
5 Those who do buy it must expect a certain content and certain advertising to appear bearing in mind the title.

As an aside I think that it is really important that Andy, Alan and friends continue to have setbacks when they try to control peoples choices. Good luck though with their work to action more status and resources for atheists and scientists in society- I dont see a contradiction here.
This is where I think efforts should be directed not at nannying people.

Did you use the traditional green ink?

Your (and every other WDDTY suporter’s) main argument is that some people believe this and want to read a magazine that confirms what they believe – that’s a lousy argument for stocking a magazine that doesn’t provide accurate information. There are all kinds of “interest groups”, would you feel comfortable supporting any journal you know misrepresents studies because someone wants to read it?

A misogynist mag claiming studies have shown women’s only talent is having children and cleaning the house?

A racist mag claiming studies have shown race X is genetically superior and therefore designed to rule over other races?

There are undoubtedly people who think that’s the truth and who would pay money to read a magazine that confirms their beliefs.

Mojo

…..You’ve now added a conspiracy theory to quackery…

At times you come across as an intellegent person. At other times totally dumb.

The ” The Medical conspiracy in America” and the role of American Medical Association is NOT written by me. It is again a conventional doctor.

Why would he conspire against the conventional medical system?

You read the paper?

Mojo

…..You’ve now added a conspiracy theory to quackery…

At times you come across as an intellegent person. At other times totally dumb.

The ” The Medical conspiracy in America” and the role of American Medical Association is NOT written by me. It is again a conventional doctor.

Why would he conspire against the conventional medical system?

Um, there is probably no way to unpick the confusion behind that post in a manner that you can understand and it’s really not worth the effort. But, on the other hand, Mojo can be amazingly patient.

Badly Shaved Monkey

Strategy of the pack attack.

At times you come across as an intellegent person. At other times totally dumb.

The impression you give is far more consistent.

Mojo

You mean the term “intellegent” for you was an error?

Your inability to comprehend that my statement “the impression you give is far more consistent” is about you, not me, gives an impression of you that is entirely consistent with the impression that people who have read your previous posts will already have.

“There are certain magazines targeted at those into the esoteric, UFOs, aliens and conspiracy theory where there are adverts proclaiming all sorts of health claims that cannot be substanciated”

Then it should be pretty easy for you to provide an example of an advert making false claim that the ASA didn’t adjudicate on for just those reasons. Lets see it!

“The attitude of most Drs seems to be ambivalent towards WDDTY…”

Second time you’ve made this claim and second time I’ll ask becuase you didn’t reply. How do you know this for a fact?

“…the ASA consider that the magazine is tartgeted at a certain group. Regarding WDDTY – The title says it all. Anyone buying such a magazine has made a choice.”

I disagree entirely. Advertising in WDDTY is either factual, or it is not. It is not factual depending on who reads it and what their prior beliefs are about healthcare.

Does Q-link suddenly become less of a con if you believe in CAM? Of course not.

Mojo

I think you have cleqarly misunderstood the regualtions you link to. Try section 14.37. Readers of WDDTY are actually deemed “vulnerable” under the “credibility” definition of the regulations.

As such they are meant to be afforded additional protection from misinformation, not less. Where people are targetted due to their predisposition to beleive claims the bar is set higher so that peopel cannot take advantage of this to flog them stuff with psuedoscientific nonsense, or with piublication of preliminary trials.

WDDTY is to my mind a charlatans publication. It promotes some things on the basis of preliminary studies which are yet to include human tests or tests for side efects, then completely misrepresents the side efects of others. The only basis for the differeing treatment one is complimentary one is actual medicine. There is scientific rigour or consistency in the approach and the readership are exploited for their willingness to believe.

Yes, that’s precisely the point I was trying to make – that the bar should be set lower as regards what is considered misleading, not what is considered acceptable.

The same sort of argument has been tried with the ASA, by the way, when an advertiser argued that its target audience “were a tiny subsection of the general population, who shared a culture that sat outside of the mainstream and accepted non-scientific phenomena and explanations”, that “such consumers tended to have an interest in complementary health, were of a mindset that recognised mind–body interactions and a holistic approach to individuals, and were interested in building a relationship with their practitioner” and that “they did not believe such consumers, at whom the website was targeted, would be misled by the ad”. they specifically reference the OFT guidelines. it didn’t work.

I suggest you contact the mischievous ‘scepticletterwriter’ who has made multiple complaints against adverts in certain magazines clearly marketed at an esoteric audiance. These magazines are still running the same adverts. WDDTY continues to be supplied despite Dr McCartneys letter in the BMJ. Where is all the media outcry? Anyway you stick to your opinion whilst WDDTU continues to be sold. That is fine by me.
A Q-Link advert in a magazine clearly targeted at those beliieving in conspiracy, UFOs , suppressed technology etc may be interpreted differently from an advert in the wide circulation Daily Blah.
I am afraid you may have to live with the fact that people like you wont be able to ban people like me from buying a lucky cornish pixie for example from Old Moores Almanack for £20. If all my health problems dont go away as claimed in the advert in this esoteric mag then dont you worry. Get on with your life.

Seriously, targeting adverts at a group of consumers who are likely to believe the claims makes those claims more potentially misleading, not less.

Read the OFT guidelines I have linked to, which clearly indicate that whether claims are considered misleading should be judged according to how likely the target audience is to believe them. Read the ASA adjudication I linked to, where the advertiser tried the argument you are advancing and the complaints were upheld.

Analogies with allowing WDDTY and allowing racists magazines are ridiculous.The attitude of most Drs seems to be ambivalent towards WDDTY whilst they would not tolerate a racist magazine for 1 day.

Not at all, and I didn’t ask if “Drs would allow a racist mag” but if you would allow any mag simply because there’s a market for it. Your options are either yes (which would be quite astounding) or no (in which case you’d have to give me a better argument for tolerating WDDTY than “people want to read what they write”).

I repeat again. If you want WDDTU off the shelves then get Drs to act- They do feature in the title of the mag after all. Try getting 100s of letter off as well. Dont forget my letter counts just as much as yours.

Such a powerful group such as Drs could get WDDTY off the shelves in days. If you cant do this then you may have to just take a deep breath.

Yes or No?

I dont always live in a binary world of yes or no. I live in a world where there can be grey areas. Not everything is either black or white. Limits have to be set as to what is reasonable. We can both agree that a racist mag is not reasonable. I think that WDDTY mag is in a grey area for sure but I think that current content is reasonable.

But this is a binary question, you either believe that “it has a market” is the only requirement or you don’t. While you’re unwilling to provide a yes/no answer, I’ll assume that – since you won’t support a racist mag – your answer is no.
So we come to the next question: how wrong do you allow a mag to be before you say it shouldn’t be circulated (or at least not sold at Waitrose, Sainsbury’s and WHSmith)? Is misrepresenting statistics enough?

The evidence suggests otherwise.

🙂

Vicky, what evidence do you wish to see from me? I am not a herbalist or a practitioner of acupuncture but I have had genuine success using herbs and I know highly qualified and experienced people in these fields. I weigh up the evidence and come to my own conclusions. It is best to debate with the experts in their fields. I am not one of them but I have personally been healed of a disease my doctor said was incurable, and for me that is evidence of efficacy. I read widely on many subjects and have some knowledge but I am definitely not an expert. I have a friend who is very highly qualified in acupuncture from China and believe me it is not something you can write off just like that. True, there are many charlatans out there, and most are very obvious to spot, and I am as aware of this as you are. But I would never take a stance against CAM medicine as a whole, no way. I really find it hard to fathom how you can write off whole therapeutic disciplines just like that. All of Chinese medicine is wrong? Indian too? Herbalism? That doesn’t make sense to me. Besides, the title of this discussion is “Should WH Smith’s stock WDDTY magazine?” My answer is an emphatic Yes!! I didn’t come here to discuss the technical details of any particular therapy. I also have a strong conviction about freedom of speech, even if something is demonstrably false, because once you encroach on the rights of one person to speak freely we are headed down a very slippery slope and one day none of us will be free to say anything. So please allow people to read this magazine if they choose. We are grown-ups and can make our own decisions Vicky

Colin, you’re doing it again, tediously talking about what you might talk about instead of saying anything meaningful or constructive.

what evidence do you wish to see from me?

As a minimum, the evidence that convinced you.

I am not a herbalist or a practitioner of acupuncture but I have had genuine success using herbs

Define “genuine success”.

and I know highly qualified and experienced people in these fields.

SCAM qualifications are worthless. Taught and regulated by a circle-jerk of practitioners.

I weigh up the evidence and come to my own conclusions.

You’ve already said that but come up with no evidence.

It is best to debate with the experts in their fields.

Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt.

They do not perform any better than you. You claim to have weighed the evidence and come to valid conclusions. It’s you here discussing this not Dana Ullman or Andrew Weil. You say you’re a grown-up capable of making good decisions, but you are very reluctant to test their quality.

I am not one of them but I have personally been healed of a disease my doctor said was incurable,

It’s always funny that the one thing that people opposed to conventional medicine still take at face value is the incurable or terminal diagnosis their doctors gave them. The easiest way to engender a miracle cure for an incurable disease is to get the diagnosis and/or prognosis wrong.

You have chosen to publish under what looks like your real name, so it’s up to you whether you want to tell us what that disease was, but unless you do your assertion is vacuous.

Perhaps you might reflect on the fact that on internet forums pseudonyms can permit greater personal honesty.

and for me that is evidence of efficacy.

You are wrong, but have consistently refused to engage with this problem.

I read widely on many subjects and have some knowledge but I am definitely not an expert.

See above.

I have a friend who is very highly qualified in acupuncture from China and believe me it is not something you can write off just like that.

So far you have not wanted to get into any specific particulars. Can acupuncture relieve pain acutely and/or chronically? Can it effectively treat asthma?

True, there are many charlatans out there, and most are very obvious to spot, and I am as aware of this as you are.

Are you? I have asked you more than once to give us your criteria for distinguishing quackery from the effective alternative medicine that you insist exists.

But I would never take a stance against CAM medicine as a whole, no way.

That’s fairly obvious. What you have failed to do is show how you would take a stance against any SCAM medicine.

I really find it hard to fathom how you can write off whole therapeutic disciplines just like that.

You clearly do. I offered radionics as an example. Can you really not write that off?

All of Chinese medicine is wrong? Indian too? Herbalism?

You have not yet produced a single counter-example. So, although I reiterate that rejection of all SCAM is a strawman of your own invention you have done nothing to refute it except to argue by repeated assertion.

That doesn’t make sense to me.

Again, this is obvious.

Besides, the title of this discussion is “Should WH Smith’s stock WDDTY magazine?” My answer is an emphatic Yes!!

You seem to have an unquenchable desire for unchallenged misinformation so this is unsurprising.

I didn’t come here to discuss the technical details of any particular therapy.

It certainly looks that way. It’s been an effective tactic for protecting your beliefs from challenge.

I also have a strong conviction about freedom of speech, even if something is demonstrably false, because once you encroach on the rights of one person to speak freely we are headed down a very slippery slope and one day none of us will be free to say anything. So please allow people to read this magazine if they choose.

I probably agree with this. Unfortunately that freedom is too often untempered by effective enforcement action against fraudulent marketing claims.

We are grown-ups and can make our own decisions Vicky

As a grown-up you do have the right to make your own decisions unless you have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act or similar administrative measures have been put in place due to mental incapacity to manage your medical care.

However, if you boast of those decisions in a public forum, you have no right to expect that other people will refrain from using their rights to free speech to challenge them.

But, more importantly, you have exactly zero right for those decisions to be correct. The Universe shows no special willingness to bend reality in favour of your fantastical beliefs.

“SCAM qualifications are worthless. Taught and regulated by a circle-jerk of practitioners.
You can lead the quack to logic, but you can’t make him think.
you beginning to smell of mill-pond and duckweed.
bullshitters, liars or simply deluded
……ad nauseum”

Maybe ten more years will teach you to show some respect to the people you wish to debate with. That “circle-jerk of practitioners” have trained many years to be able to obtain their licenses to practice in their respective fields. I suspect there is a reason people do not want to interact with you. Think about it

Maybe ten more years will teach you to show some respect to the people you wish to debate with. That “circle-jerk of practitioners” have trained many years to be able to obtain their licenses to practice in their respective fields. I suspect there is a reason people do not want to interact with you. Think about it

I have thought about it and frequently think about it.

But look at the facts. Here you are again complaining about the terms of the debate instead of engaging with te actual arguments.

I’m sorry you neither find the jokes funny nor want to look behind them to the underlying serious points.

I have offered you numerous specific points of argument and debate. You have chosen instead to carefully tease out individual humorous lines at which to baulk.

Richard Dawkins said [with apologies for any slight paraphrasing], “Offence is what people take when they can’t take argument.”

Colin

Time and again, we see the posting careers of SCAMsters come to an abrupt halt on blogs like this one when they are faced with a simple question that leaves no scope for bullshit and prevarication, but which cuts to the heart of their nonsensical opinions. Is that to be your fate? I ask again;

How many years of training in astrology does it take to make astrology true?

P.S.

That “circle-jerk of practitioners” have trained many years to be able to obtain their licenses to practice in their respective fields

Studying nonsense for years does not cause it to cease to be nonsense.

Here is another absolutely specific question for you to answer: How many years of training in astrology does it take to make astrology true?

I’m glad you ask Colin.
I’d like to see double blind, placebo controlled trials. If the therapy outperforms the placebo, further research is warranted (as being slightly better than placebo is just not enough). If not it has to be discarded – this is what happens in medicine.
Is all of CAM wrong? I don’t know, but it’s not enough to hope that some of what they do might actually help. Removing the gallbladder can be a useful therapy – for recurring problems with gallstones, for example. Would you therefore support it if a surgeon started treating people for other, unrelated conditions, citing the success he’s had with gallstones? I bet you wouldn’t (I know that I certainly wouldn’t).

You’re asking how I can “write off whole disciplines” – how can you support them if they fail to provide solid evidence time and again?
“Experience” is just not enough. Experience told bader surgeons that bloodletting “worked”, but nowadays we know that people who got better did not because of, but despite the bloodletting. The same holds true for mercury, which was a “tried” treatment for venereal disease, the “best available”.
So, do you have sources that show these “therapeutic disciplines” actually work? Are their practices limited to the areas where they’ve been shown to work? If the answer was yes, and these were the areas WDDTY reported on, I wouldn’t mind WH Smith stocking it. The answer is no, though. Free speach doesn’t cover deliberate lying Colin.

If you have spent 10 years doing this you must enjoy it. Hats off to you.

Well, you have spent 1 week and 12 posts here saying not very much, except it worked for me and I’m not here to defend alternative medicine.

As I have already said, it’s a well-trodden path.

Shall we move on?

Badly Shaved Monkey said:

Shall we move on?

You’re such an optimist.

Colin

Welcome back.

If you recall, I asked you the following;

How many years of training in astrology does it take to make astrology true?

I note that you have chosen again to ignore that question despite it addressing the core of what you have been saying here.

The silence that ends these discussions tends to come from SCAMsters who run ASA rather than pursue logical discussion.

P.S. you are confusing ad hominem argument with insults. I get very bored of evasion and deception from SCAMsters wrapped up in a blanket of wooly thinking.

Thanks for your warm welcome back, true name not known 😉

Hmmmmm, I have ignored your question about astrology because astrology, in my opinion, is total nonsense. You asked the question in response to my assertion that alternative practitioners have many years of training and are therefore not “circle jerks”. I don’t believe it addresses the core of what I am saying. And I am not confusing ad hominem with insults because you use a little of both in your responses. There are several occasions I can point to where “skeptics” have run away also.

Hey cool bit of useless autocorrect;

“run ASA rather”

Should have been “run away rather”.

By the way, Colin, you might want to read what I wrote more closely. I told Ssarah that if she practised conventional medicine in a non-holistic way then she would be a bad nurse practising bad medicine. I do hope that you do not disagree with that sentiment.

It would help you you addressed the pints actually being made rather than a strawman version that results from your own sloppy reading.

I would say a good nurse practising bad medicine, as admitted by herself. But it seems efforts are being made to investigate more holistic methods of treatment on the NHS. i don’t believe conventional medicine is holistic on most occasions but that is exactly what she said. And I do agree with you that medicine should be holistic.

Excellent. There are done things we can agree on.

Now, moving along;

How many years of training in astrology does it take to make astrology true?

Note, I am not saying conventional medicine is bad per se. It may have appeared that I said that. Both conventional and alternative variations have good and bad practices. But, on balance, alternative is more holistic based medicine. I am open enough to accept both systems have their advantages and flaws but will never write off whole disciplines…..

…. unless they are proven to be ineffective of course!

But, on balance, alternative is more holistic based medicine.

No, it isn’t. “Alternative medicines” typically limit themselves to considering only what is specific to themselves, and to providing only those treatments specific to themsleves. If it is homoeopathy, it just considers the patient’s symptoms and doesn’t concern itself with causes, and the treatment is limited to homoeopathic remedies (for example, in the Newsnight report on homoeopaths and malaria, virtually none of the homoeopaths suggested mosquito nets or other preventative measures); if it is chiropractic it looks for the imaginary ‘subluxations’ and (surprise) the treatment is chiropractic manipulation.

This approach is not holistic. It is the very opposite of holism.

…unless they are proven to be ineffective of course!

You’re getting the cart before the horse here. You cannot prove that a treatment is ineffective. For a treatment to be considered effective, it must be demonstrated to be effective. It is not enough that they have not been proven to be ineffective.

For an effective treatment you will see trials (and systematic reviews) that demonstrate a statistically significant effect. An effect can be proven.

For an ineffective treatment you will see trials that fail to demonstrate a significant effect. While this strongly suggests that the threatment is ineffective, it doesn’t actually prove it. Hence you see (for example) homoeopaths claiming that the majority of trials of homoeopathy, because they have failed to demonstrate a statistically significant effect, are “not statistically conclusive” rather than negative. But this is exactly what you would expect to see for an ineffective treatment.

Are you asking me to write a thesis to PROVE that a particular model works effectively? Or are you asking me to name one that has been proven to be ineffective?

“Proving a negative is always tricky, but name a modality for which you think it has been done.”

Pretty simple to understand, I would have thought.

Point taken……

But can you name one?

There have been many studies on alternative therapies, including your beloved gold standard double blind trials and many have proven efficacy. Unfortunately they do not always get high exposure in the media. You need to discuss with experts but you sometimes miss out on the opportunity to gain valuable insight from people in the fields we are talking about. For instance, Sarah is a research nurse on cancer drug trials but you dismissed her without the chance of a productive discussion. You had the opportunity to ask her about the findings from the research.

But can you name one?

Colin

You can be forgiven for seriously under-estimating how much people like Alan , Mojo, Andy, Blue Wode, Scepticat, Acleron, Deetee, myself and others know about the SCAM literature. However, maybe you or Ssarah have some high quality trial data that we have not found in the last 10 years of looking. What we have found is a growing body of trial data that do not support the central claims of the major (and many minor) SCAM modalities. I think we’re pretty secure in our conclusions. So far you have nothing but secondhand testimonials and you do not seem to grasp why such evidence carries almost zero weight.

As Alan has suggested give us one well-conducted trial that shows efficacy for a SCAM modality.

P.S. Ssarah is welcome to return and tell us what she advises about routine vaccination. I dismissed her because she expressed views that implied a habit of pernicious and unethical behaviour. Imagine being her boss running oncology trials and finding that she was dropping little acid comments into the ears of your patients and promoting the dubious merits of SCAM therapies. I think her self-reported behaviour was appalling.

I am not quite sure what you are implying here. It seems to me that Sarah was talking to the patients within the remit of the trial and not perniciously steering them to the “Dark Side”.

@badly shaved monkey…
How dare you imply that that is what a research nurse does!!! Goodness me, you should change your name to Badly S**t Monkey!!!! dude get a life will you!

I’m not implying anything. I’m drawing directly from Ssarah’s own description.

As a Research nurse working on clinical cancer drug trials I have approached many patients who are open to the role that alternative medicine can play as an adjunct to conventional medicine

She approached them.

But, she’s not here. Please address what Alan, Mojo and I have raised with you.

Your implication was that she was perniciously and unethically influencing the patients outside the confines of the trial. This is not what she said!!

That’s it exactly, she was acting as a research nurse in the trial…..

Perhaps she will clarify her own words, but I read her statement to mean that patients were enrolled in conventional trials and she approached them to encourage them to try magic beans as an adjunct. I think that is the clear meaning of her words.

Anyway, she’s not here and unless she returns let’s move on.

Colin, over to you…

Quantum physics may prove a mechanism.

How? It is usually only used as an excuse for homoeopathy’s failure in controlled trials, via a misunderstanding of the observer effect and the uncertainty principle.

“Quantum physics” will not get you around the limitations of chemistry, because “quantum physics” is how chemistry works.

Anyway, revenons à nos moutons. Can you provide an example of an alternative modality that has, in your opinion, been proven not to work?

Science may discover a mechanism to prove or disprove homeopathy in the future.

There’s no point in speculating about mechanisms, because there is no good evidence that there is any actual effect to explain. Systematic reviews published over the last two decades have (with one exception, which has since been effectively retracted) consistently failed to demonstrate that there is any effect.

You can write as much as you like On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat, but you won’t succeed in clothing him.

Oh, Colin, you grasp the wrong end of the stick with that death-grip of yours.

No, the issue is not that WDDTY would necessarily cover the DHMO campaign. The issue is that various defenders of WDDTY have airily asserted that the numpties who read that magazine have the wit to discern valid critiques of medicine from batshit nonsense. We question whether a magazine should be permitted to promulgate batshit nonsense that may harm people. For myself, if you track back, I think I have said (and if I haven’t, I am now) I somewhat lean to permitting a defence of free-speech for the purveyors of batshit nonsense, though this is not a settled view and I am open to persuasion by the thoughtful arguments presented by LCN.

Perhaps you would like to explain to ACF the fundamental concept that toxicity depends on dosage not on sympathetic magic.

And for the record, I am not as interested in the DHMO issue as another problem entirely; contamination of our water supply with hydroxylic acid.

BSM, you are generalising about the readership of WDDTY.

Most people use discernment whenever they read any material.

Sorry, Colin, what is the colour of that pot you are holding? It’s very similar to that black kettle.

Again, you rely again on the entire readership of WDDTY having the discerning eye to distinguish valid alternative views of medicine and health, which the magazine may or may not contain, from utter lunacy. Various examples of the latter have been cited, therefore you cannot logically maintain that they do no exist. ACF has arrived here as exactly that black swan reader who disproves at a stroke your contention that all of WDDTY ‘s readers are highly discerning white swans.

Well, that’s kinda QED, old son. You lose. What’s supposed to happen now is that the honest participant in a debate likes this acknowledges their defeat, revises their opinion to take it into account and we all get on with our lives. But, I’ve never seen it happen on all the many occasions that I have run SCAMsters round this sort of wheel. Hey, ho.

As to the topic of ACF’s specific species of belfry-dwelling nocturnal mammal, I do not pretend to be a toxicologist but I am fully conversant with the basic principles of a dose-response curve. I am content to leave it to the experts to define acceptable upper limits for exposure for the many toxins that fill our world and I accept that you don’t get owt for nowt. I further accept that we risk obsessing over hazards that we may fancy we have control over and wish to reduce those to zero while blithely ignoring many others. One thing remains true; life is a terminal disease. I have no particular desire in getting into the detail of the specific exposure limits for mercury or fluoride. I wish fluoridated water had been around when I was young so could have avoided all the mercury amalgam fillings I acquired by choosing to consume sugary products regardless of the damage they did to my teeth. If forced to choose fluoride-free water and no chocolate or fluoride in the water and chocolate, I’ll take the latter every time , thanks.

ACF has been rightly mocked not for saying mercury is a toxin, but for showing no comprehension that it is the dose that matters. He seems to think a homeopathic 30C dilution can be deadly. If he wants to have a nuanced discussion about detailed exposure limits then he can do that. It requires a rational and careful enumeration of current policy, evidence to challenge it and a sensible counter-proposal. Instead, he has posted ranting lunatic drivel.

It’s essentially an A vs A + B trial, but with an extra arm. However that extra arm isn’t a homeopathic placebo (as you say, sugar pills), so it looks to me like it’s designed to show what they want it to show.

Not sure of the ethics of doing a straight homeopathy v placebo trial on IBS for six months where the prior plausibility of one of the ‘treatments’ is zero.

Yes, it’s a really really stupid design. It’s fair enough to be Usual Care + X, because I don’t think you could reasonably withdraw all real treatment and certainly not plan to do so and expect people to stick with the trial for 6 months. But obviously what they should trial is Usual Care + (Verum or Blank). Then the difference would reveal the difference between Verum and Blank. In their design there is no meaningful description of different outcomes between the arms. I mean that literally; you simply cannot formulate a sentence in normal English that pins down the exact meaning of the three pairs of possible comparisons.

The ethical basis of clinical research is the friend of H~Y.

A simple test would be to give 500 chest infectees amoxicillin and 500 chest infectees some form of H~Y remedy (phlegm 10C, gob, hawked up greenies, antimatter, mutts nuts, whatever, the cosmos is the only limitation to their imagination) and see what the results are. Never happen as the second lot will mostly end up with pneumonia (which will teach the bastards not to smoke).

I suppose you could do it ethically with colds, not that they will ever bother. Why should they when they can sell the stuff anyway and save the money.

I thought it was a firm and thrusting answer.

I note, Colin, that once again you responded only to the joke and not to the substantive question that I asked you.

Which parts of my discussion of causality do you have a problem with?

I wonder why.

BSM, You should have noted that it wasn’t you I quoted! Besides that, you are all generally selective about what points you respond to and evasive about others. And you cannot deny, though you probably will try, that some responses are extremely puerile and michievously ape-like!!