Burzynski

I think it’s time for me to say something on this subject. It is after all very closely related to my current… vocation (if one can call it that, being a PhD student still!) and impacting directly on some of my friends.

One of those friends is my co-host of our long-neglected podcast, Super Duper Woo-Fighting Duo (With Capes)! – Rhys Morgan.

Edit: even BoingBoing is on it this evening!

Background

Feel free to scroll down to ‘The Threats‘ and ‘Some Interesting Correspondence‘ sections if you know all this…

The subject is one Stanislaw Burzynski, based in Houston, Texas. He offers an experimental treatment (though to call it that is probably a bit generous) to cancer patients called “Antineoplaston Therapy”. These antineoplastons are claimed to be peptides (bits of protein – though they’re generally not, technically – see comment 11 for more) found in urine. When a difference between cancer patients’ and healthy individuals’ urine peptide profile was found, an assumption was made that cancer sufferers were lacking these protein chunks and therefore replacing them should be an effective cure. A list of his patents and publications can be found here. This NYT article is extensive and demonstrates the shocking wealth accumulated:

… the gross income of Dr. Burzynski and an institute he runs was $40 million from 1988 to 1994… he took home $1 million a year.

However, the theory itself is dodgy at best and years of tests have not convinced the worldwide medical community. Yet Burzynski continues to run his clinic, charging people tens of thousands of dollars with promises of efficacy and hopes of being cured – even if the patients have been given a few months or years by doctors elsewhere.

Edit: this is shocking – records show Burzynski threw random chemotherapy cocktails at people (those saying chemo kills; well, he certainly didn’t seem to do his research on it), failed to disclose pharmacy ownership conflict of interest, did not alter treatment despite scans showing no improvement... Texas Medical Board might finally be doing their job.

Also see here for his public record – makes for a disturbing read. Plus, they also have a range of ‘healthcare products’, unsurprisingly – glorious website full of scibabble nonsense words and indeed typos.

What’s happening?

Now, more and more people are starting to criticise this man and his practice and the tactics we have seen so many times before – legal threats, bullying, hoping to silence – are coming thick and fast. There is now a petition asking the clinic to release a concise, publicly-available review of all the clinical trial data it has accumulated over the years.

The turning point was this uncritical article in the Observer about a stricken family with a little girl suffering from a serious brain cancer. The family details their emotional struggle – one which many of us will sympathise wholeheartedly with – and the resulting search for hope, their sights landing on Burzynski’s clinic.

Peter Kay offered to do some benefit gigs to help towards their $200,000 funds goal for this ‘treatment’. These were on the 24th and 25th November last week, and tonight the Comedy Store in Manchester is hosting another with various acts. I also saw a tweet reporting that BBC 6 Music had run an advert for one of the money-raising events.

Many immensely generous donations have been made. It is heartening to see human kindness at work – but so very upsetting given the circumstances.

Here are some e-mails regarding the article that were not published (or at least, not fully) by the Observer – a lot of people are concerned by their endorsement and the lack of provision to challenge what was written. Obviously this is a sensitive issue, around a grief-stricken family, but many others will continue to suffer if this is not properly addressed.

Publicity around this man and his dealings has soared today, as a result of retweets from Stephen Fry, Ben Goldacre, Dave Gorman, Dara O’Briain and continuing valuable support from others such as Simon Singh.

Another friend of mine, Kat, has written a fantastic post for the Cancer Research UK blog – this is serious stuff and those of us who have watched people deal with such a terminal illness do not want to see them swindled, spending their hard-earned savings lining fraudsters’ pockets and losing precious time with their families and loved ones.

Some people who have been directly affected have set up their own website in the hope that others won’t follow in their footsteps: http://www.burzynskiscam.com/

The threats

So, regarding the bullying I mentioned. Rhys wrote a post in mid-August detailing his views of Burzynski, backed up with accounts of past occurrences – including this case:

“Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, had defrauded the plaintiff and violated the terms of the health plan.
We agree that the defendant may not trick the plaintiff into paying for an unlawful, unapproved drug. We AFFIRM.”

and how the 30+ years of trials have yielded very little to support the claims made. Check out Quackwatch from way back in 1998 for more.

He had to take the post down at the beginning of this month but he has now published all the correspondence here – please do have a read (also on Google+, and I’m pasting it below (click ‘read more’ if you’re on the blog homepage and can’t see it) because his site keeps going down!).

His silence was broken because Andy Lewis started receiving his own threats after he wrote his criticism of the Observer article, Kay’s unquestioning support and the issue as a whole. Another here for your amusement. Also read more from The 21st Floor, David Gorski, scienceblogs (good comments), Peter Harrison and Zen Buffy – Josephine Jones is compiling a kind of I Am Spartacus! list for posts on the subject.

Some interesting correspondence

A friend sent me this link to a September 2004 letter to the editor of the academic journal Integrative Cancer Therapies (who have published quite a few of Burzynski’s papers) from a researcher by the name of Andrew Vickers. He takes issue with an article by Burzynski published in the journal in March of that year:

Burzynski SR. The present state of antineoplaston research.
Integr Cancer Ther. 2004;3(1):47-58.

I’ve downloaded and saved this paper if anyone wants a copy, get in touch on Twitter or in the comments so I can e-mail you.

The article cites 73 papers and articles, 38 of which have Burzynski as first author, and a further 10 have his name as one of the first 3 authors – probably he’s in the list somewhere with the rest – plus a couple have one Burzynski B. (presumably a family member). If you search his name in PubMed, 45 articles are returned.

—

Moving on to Andrew’s letter regarding the paper cited above, it’s reasonably short – again if you want the PDF, get in touch, but I’ll paste it here with minimal commentary at intervals.

“Editor:

I read with interest Dr Burzynski’s recent review of research on his technique for treating cancer.1 I have several serious concerns about the scientific quality of his article. The first results presented by Burzynski concern glioma. It is claimed that 7% of 62 evaluable patients had a minor response. However, no fraction of 62 rounds to 7%: 4/62 is 6.45%, 8/62 is 8%*. There is also no fraction of 62 that rounds to 36%, the proportion given for objective response.”

So we can be fairly confident that he’s fiddling numbers from the get-go? * It has been pointed out that this is a mistake: 5/62 is 8%. Presume this is just a typo on Andrew’s part – the point remains.

“Burzynski goes on to report preliminary results of clinical trials on colon cancer conducted at the University of Kurume Medical School in Japan. He claims that the “survival rate of more than 5 years” on antineoplastons was 91% compared to 39% in the chemotherapy control group. Burzynski states that “the study was randomized and compared the results of treatment in 19 patients on . . . chemotherapeutics and antineoplastons [with] 56 patients who received . . . chemotherapy alone.” Yet the reference cited (reference 68) is to a case study. Moreover, a 91% survival rate for 19 patients is impossible, as it corresponds to 17.3 patients.”

 Again some weird numbers coming out, and reference to an article claimed to be about a trial, yet is in fact a study of one case.

“Burzynski also reports a single-arm study of 16 patients with liver cancer in which it is claimed that patients had longer recurrence-free intervals on antineoplastons than off. The citations supporting the claim include a case report and a lab study. Furthermore, the figure illustrating the results shows “time to recurrence [statistic not stated] in patients given antineoplaston AS2-1 after standard chemotherapy compared to control group.” This is despite there being no control group in the study.”

Again no reference to actual trials, but to a single case and lab-based work. Plus a lack of controls (so no valid comparison/conclusion can be made).

“There are several other serious shortcomings of the article. Survival data are presented in bar charts: the techniques for presentation of survival data (such as Kaplan Meier) are well established and were developed specially to deal with issues such as censored data; bar charts are unable to incorporate these features of survival data and are therefore considered inappropriate. No number presented in the text (eg, proportion surviving 5 years) is presented with a measure of uncertainty, such as a standard error or confidence intervals.”

 No reputable clinical study would discuss survival using bar charts. Kaplan-Meier curves have been standard for years. Also he’s presented no statistics for confidence in these numbers.

“I am aware that Burzynski is presenting preliminary data, and I have made no comment or criticism concerning the failure to present inference statistics. Nonetheless, even for a preliminary report, I see no excuse for the use of idiosyncratic and highly inappropriate techniques of presentation, failure to incorporate basic statistical estimates, citation of studies in support of statements when those studies have no bearing on the referring statements, inclusion of obvious mathematical errors, and citation of data for nonexistent control groups.”

He cites Burzynski’s study, to which he is referring, at the end of the letter.

—

Burzynski then wrote a reply! In the same month as Vickers’ letter was published (emphasis mine):

Reply to Vickers 

“Editor:

After reading Andrew Vickers’s letter, one may wonder  why the Assistant Attending Research Methodologist  of the prestigious Memorial Sloan-Kettering  Cancer Center would argue about 0.5% of minor  response and statistics that were not required, while  entirely missing the big picture: a proof of concept  and data on efficacy of antineoplastons in Food and  Drug Administration–supervised clinical trials involving  more than 200 patients. Vickers’s many arguments about unimportant issues obscure the realities of the data that we have presented, which indicate remarkable results in cancers for which chemotherapy and radiation are ineffective.

Publication of my article titled “The Present State of Antineoplaston Research (1)”1 occurred at the same time (March 2004) as the printing of Vickers’s article, “Alternative Cancer Cure: Unproven or Disproven?”  in the March 2004 issue of CA: A Cancer Journal  for Clinicians. In his review article in CA Cancer J Clin, he made reference to only 2 articles on antineoplastons published since 1987. He failed to cite more than 40 of our publications and approximately 300 publications by other authors on antineoplastons and their derivatives. In his letter to the editors, Vickers criticizes reporting of results of the clinical studies conducted at our clinic and also at the University of Kurume Medical School in Japan.  The criticism of our report concerns rounding out percentages to the nearest number. That is why we reported 36% of objective responses instead of 35.5% and 7% of minor responses instead of 6.5%. In the article, I also presented the actual number of patients, allowing readers to make their own calculation.

Vickers objects to my presentation of survival data in bar charts. This objection is unjustified in the context of my review. Kaplan-Meier survival probability estimates are more appropriate for detailed reports describing individual clinical trials. In my review, which describes numerous past clinical trials, there was not enough space for these estimates. Also, one should not compare apples and oranges. We can easily produce Kaplan-Meier diagrams for our studies, but, unfortunately, they were not published for comparison studies, such as Prados et al.2 If Vickers reads our recent articles describing survival in antineoplaston clinical trials, published in peer-reviewed journals between 1999 and 2003, he will indeed find Kaplan-  Meier data. Our data on the proportion of patients surviving 5 years contain no uncertainty, since they are  not estimated but true survivals. The patients are either dead or alive after 5 years. No standard error or confidence intervals are necessary.

The final reports on the studies conducted at the University of Kurume had not yet been published at the time my manuscript was submitted to Integrative Cancer Therapies. Japanese researchers have published preliminary reports and case reports; these were listed as references. The Kurume researchers presented the summary of research data directly to me with permission for publication. I described these as “preliminary results” on page 55 without making any changes.  Those researchers are now preparing the final reports for publication.

In conclusion, I believe I have sufficiently answered  Vickers’s questions regarding the clinical trials conducted  by our clinic. Further details will be provided in a number of articles that are now in preparation for  publication.”

Make of that what you will – no further correspondence noted.

—

I’ll just paste the acknowledgements from the paper in question here as these names may be of interest, and comment that the figures are generally of very poor quality, for a 2004 paper:

The studies were sponsored by the Burzynski Research Institute and supervised by its Institutional Review Board (IRB). The membership of the IRB was in agreement with the FDA. The authors [just Burzynski, for the record] express their appreciation to Lucy Rorke, MD, professor of pathology and neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, for review of pathology slides; Dieter Schellinger, MD, professor of radiology, chief, section of neuro-radiology, Georgetown Hospital, Washington, DC; and Joshua Pleasure, MD, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, for evaluation of MRI and PET scans.

The following physicians at the Burzynski Clinic (BC) participated in the study: Robert I. Lewy, Robert Weaver, Marc Bestak, Maxwell Axler, Alonzo Peters, Benjamin Saling, Barbara Burzynski, Tomasz Janicki, Jaroslaw Paszkowiak, Vishnu Alapati, Dmitri Davydov, Vsevolod Dolgopolov, Barbara Drynia, Andrzej Himmel, Wojciech Iwanowski, Gabor Jurida, Mohammad Khan, Eva Kubove, Grace Ormstein, Joseph Nguyen, Mohammed Radmard, Basel Salhoot, Barbara Szymkowski, and Marek Walczak.

The following senior scientists (PhD), microbiologists, pharmacists, and engineers at the BRI and the BC participated in basic research: Robert Waldbillig, Majciej Klimczak, Elwira Ilkowska-Musial, Leszek Musial, Anna Baranowska, Piotr Kuligowski, Ryszard Madry, Donat Manek, Mike Mokrzycki, Andrzej Wieczorek, Anna Wisniewska, Kris Wisniewski, Irma Witkowska, Dennis Wright, and Iwona Zapedowski.

—

I’ll paste Rhys’ post below in case his site is down.

The 3rd Perspective

In the spheres of skepticism and alternative health there are two main perspectives we encounter:

The ‘good’ and the ‘bad’

1)      That of the incredulous skeptic who insists all is bullshit, gets angry at the quacks and tries to stop them peddling rubbish at gullible people.

2)      The alt med proponents; be they sellers or consumers, they aggressively try to persuade you that it works and big pharma/your doctor are lying to you and the global conspiracy has suppressed all the ‘natural cures’.

Of course there are various severities of those views, stronger and milder, but they’re the most prominent types.

The Ugly?

However, there is a point of view that receives less attention. The sufferers of chronic incurable conditions whose friends and family, often merely out of care and concern, insist on telling them about this or that treatment/remedy/ritual/product that will make them better or even cure them.

Once or twice these suggestions can be laughed off or you can humour the person, but after a while it becomes more difficult to ignore.

One of my best internet friends (we’ve never met but have talked for years) has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), a rare genetic disorder that affects connective tissue and causes frequent and painful dislocations and many other complications, depending on the exact mutation involved, that can make life very difficult.

Recently she’s expressed extreme frustration at all the people sending her articles about things that will cure or make her feel better. She suffers from other conditions as well, including Crohn’s disease, which gives the obsessive alt medders even more ammunition. I’m going to use her words (with her permission) because they convey the feeling better than my commentary would.

Here’s your anecdotal evidence

“I now have three people trying to convince me that eating right (read bizarre hippie stuff) will “cure” my EDS. Yes cure the syndrome I have, which is caused by a faulty gene I was born with.

I’ve to boil a chicken for at least 24 hours, until the collagen in its joints breaks down, because consuming that will cure me. To think I’ve wasted all this time going to doctors who’ve only studied the condition for years and know how genes work. I should have been chatting to this woman who read a page on the internet! It had nothing to do with EDS but her logic is sound.

Until this cure kicks in, I’ve to make an “elixir” of grains which have been fermented in raw milk from a pastured cow, raw honey, chillies, vinegar and mixed aromatic spices, which has been left to stand in a dark cupboard. I’ve to make it on the night of a new moon and allow it to brew until the next new moon. I then swallow a few spoonfuls several times a day. This will build up my strength, prevent pain and stop me from catching any viruses. It’s been proven to work. The guy whose website it’s on has posted several testimonies from people who tried it (the ones who didn’t die one assumes).

I’m only in pain though because I take painkillers (amazing how that works, I thought I didn’t start taking them until I was in pain!). Oh and my genetic abnormality (that I was born with) was caused by my being fed that poison called baby milk and getting the rubella vaccine (after I was born).

Another concerned friend enlightened me with the fact that if I consume large quantities of raw milk, raw butter and raw eggs, again from those “pastured” animals, along with “good meat”, more fermented grains and fermented beans, I will cure both my Crohn’s and psoriasis pretty much immediately. She has a friend who did it and cured herself and all her children. Those idiot doctors are just trying to make money so they hide the truth from us. There are several websites that prove this too.

Yet another friend knows of an homeopathic pill which will also cure my psoriasis. Yup, expensive water on sugar pills, plus fermented beans, will cure my autoimmune diseases.”

—

(To jump in here myself – my friend is obviously very sensible and intelligent, she knows all this is nonsense. But not everyone has that advantage and there are a lot of vulnerable people looking for advice and support online, including very seriously ill individuals…)

—

Dangerous advice

“A woman posted on a forum looking for advice. She has breast cancer and breastfeeds. She’s about to start chemo and radiotherapy so has to stop feeding her baby this way. Her baby refuses to take a bottle though and frequently uses the breast for comfort but won’t take a dummy. What should she do to help him adjust? Well these educated women leapt in to help:

DO NOT go for chemo or radiotherapy, it kills more people than they let you know. Instead, go to this website or that website where they have “proven” you can cure cancer with the right diet. All you need is this combination of supplements and drink lots of vegetable juice. Don’t go back to your doctor, this man has a Facebook page that explains how to cure cancer naturally.

The best one?

You have lots of time before you need to worry, don’t trust your doctor. It’s much safer to use this diet.

Apparently, just by reading some website she trundled across one day, this woman is able to asses the progression and stage of your cancer and determine how much danger you’re in. Since she obviously knows more than any oncologist (well have you ever heard of one with this amazing skill?) I think we should all listen to her. Damn the big pharmaceutical companies and their sinister plot to suppress this life-saving knowledge. All it takes is some fermented grains, the tumor will evaporate and all remaining cancerous cells will reverse-mutate into happy ones again.

Seriously there were so many people claiming this stuff. It was scary. I hope this poor woman has the sense to ignore them. How vile can you get?  They are risking the life of a woman, with very young children, a woman they don’t even know! All because of their paranoia and their hatred of doctors and drug companies.

Oh and don’t get me started on their claims about what chiropractic can do. So many, Americans especially, believe in chiropractic and homeopathy. I wonder if they have ever actually looked at how these “treatments” are supposed to work? It’s the most surreal nonsense ever. Someone did say I should go to a chiropractor for my Crohn’s once. Of course, it’s obvious, cracking my spine is sure to stop my immune system from attacking my gut.

I know people on Facebook who take their newborn babies to chiropractors. It’s madness. Why the hell would you trust some glorified massage therapist to manipulate your baby’s spine? At best it’s painful and scary for them. God knows what they could accidentally do.

Then there are my ‘real life’ friends who keep trying to convince me I should let them do Reiki on me. It’s so logical, have someone hold their hands somewhere near you while they think really hard. I bet I can stop taking my pills after just a couple of sessions.”

I’m not stupid

“I know it comes from them wanting to help but I think it’s also that they want to show how much they “know”. They’re also saying that they know much better than me, the person who has to live with these conditions, and implying that I haven’t bothered to do any research. If I had, then of course I would have come to the same conclusion as them.

If anyone dares challenge their opinions, it’s claimed that you just haven’t done enough research. Apparently doctors do not use evidence based information in their treatments. I had one person tell me that some people want to heal themselves, others just want to treat the symptoms. Basically saying that my choice of conventional medication and therapies is stupid. I actually get pitied for trusting the doctors who have specialised in my disease for most of their lives. Who have seen thousands of people like me and have been able to compare their histories, eating habits and symptoms.

It’s draining and sometimes offensive. I don’t want to upset anyone by asking them to shut up about this stuff, so I bite my tongue but it gets to me after a while. I am not an idiot and I’m not naive. I am doing what I believe is best for me and for my family. I’m sick of the attitude and frustrated that they don’t respect my choices. Especially considering the stuff they choose to believe is based on bizarre, illogical claims.

At best their repeated claims are annoying and frustrating. At worst they’re downright dangerous. I don’t have an annoying cramp or a case of the runs. I have a very serious disease which almost killed me. It will not go away and there is every chance my life will be in danger again. If they hadn’t gotten my immune system under control, it would have destroyed my bowel. Now imagine that I had been determined to not take any of these “toxic” drugs. My body could have been so badly diseased that I couldn’t recover, that’s if I didn’t starve to death.

The only reason I am able to eat now is that I take two different pills, three times every day, which stop me rejecting everything I eat and drink. Trying to digest pulses would be so dangerous for me. Yet these people insist it’s what I need to do to get better. Thank god I know enough about my body and my disease that I haven’t tried it.

What if I didn’t know that? What if that poor women with cancer isn’t smart enough to immediately dismiss everything she was told? It was all presented as fact. “

—

She also has issues with the amount of prayers people are offering, something I agree with but not everyone will and not as potentially dangerous as the kinds of things discussed here – so I’ll leave that out for now. Another popular one, especially on Facebook, at the moment is chemtrails. Sigh.

Not only risking yourself

While the stories of people choosing woo to treat their own conditions is sad in itself, worse still is people forcing it upon their children, potentially risking their lives.

—

“One of my ‘friends’ daughters developed a severe rash, really nasty. It seemed allergic. She decided not to get it treated at all. Instead she dabbed breast milk on it and left her body to fight it. She actually risked her daughter, not herself. Refused to get it checked even though it was horrendous. She posted photos of it in her blog. It spread over her entire body, which was all swollen. Her face swelled badly, closing her eyes.
She knows better than any doctor though. The breastfeeding, no-vaxing mothers all talk about how amazingly healthy their children are…”

—

In addition, not only do these attitudes endanger them and their children, but other people’s as well. Declining herd immunity means we have seen resurgences of whooping cough and measles, for example.

Yet now, people are trying to promote recovery from Andrew Wakefield‘s fraudulent claims in the form of publicly-available written accounts, our libel laws are once again an impediment – fascinating and disturbing that the solicitor who paid Wakefield is also the director of the Society of Homeopaths, considering homeopathic measles ‘vaccines’ have been under scrutiny of late (on Newsnight, for example). Just sayin’.

We’ve a very long way to go.

I consider myself a very tolerant person but it is so so hard sometimes. When I’m repeatedly confronted by this idiocy it weighs me down. The religious nonsense is very hard. Even the ones who are otherwise nice people are tainted by their faith. They’re closed-minded, judgemental, bigoted, condescending and rude. Not to mention completely irrational and illogical, willing to dismiss extremely obvious facts if they even slightly contradict the doctrine.

One Year On: Libel Reform Update

December 2nd 2010 at the Free Word Centre: an update on the progress of the Libel Reform

all-important refreshments

campaign.

Hosted by Jonathan Haewood of English Pen, John Kampfner of Index on Censorship and Tracey Brown of Sense About Science.

English pen have their photos from the evening on Flickr; I managed to avoid being in any of them this time!

From the literature distributed at the event:

The One Year On event follows weeks of further revelations of the impacts of the libel laws:

- Plastic surgeon Dr Dalia Nield was threatened with libel action by the manufacturer of a ‘Boob Job’ cream for saying she was concerned the product was potentially dangerous*

- A survey of bloggers and online forum hosts found that bloggers are particularly affected by the libel laws as they work without the support of a large company so suffer an inequality of arms, particularly where they are writing about companies, institutions and products.

- Yahoo!, AOL (UK), Mumsnet and the Internet Service Providers Association told Prime Minister David Cameron that the current laws make ISPs liable for content hosted by them and means material can get taken down in response to a threat when there may benothing defamatory about it.

* This is in reference to Rodial’s product, a cream called “Boob Job” – covered by Ben Goldacre, and we also mention it in Episode 7 of Super-Duper Woo-Fighting Duo!

Introduction

We were first assured that people’s counter-arguments have led to modification of positions and proposals within the campaign – differing interpretations have been taken on board and the aims of the campaign modified accordingly (in true skeptical fashion!).

It has sparked the first serious public discussion on libel in the UK; no insignificant achievement.

More MPs signed the libel reform EDM than any other in parliament. All parties made a commitment in their manifesto. A Libel reform bill has also come through the lords.

And, of course, Simon Singh won his appeal! Leading to the “Fair comment should be strengthened and clarified” resolution.

In addition, Jonathan has written:

In a year’s hard campaigning we’ve seen a lot of activity – but nothing has actually changed. We are now looking to the Government to produce a Bill that protects the public interest and recognises our changed media environment. We are commmitted to upholding free speech, reputation and access to justice – we just hope that the Government is too.

However, there have also been worrying trends. Scientists, publishers and bloggers are still  regularly being threatened with libel writs.

At the very least we can probably accept that everyone wants to:

- protect free speech

- recognise the importance of reputation

- maintain access to justice

—

Richard Allan

(Director of European policy, Facebook)

He states the importance of being able to talking with people as freely as possible, then mentioned the “Twitter bomb threat” (which prompted me to tut loudly; people need to stop calling it a ‘bomb hoax/threat’ because it wasn’t) – speech issues are on the agenda in both the public and political spheres.

In his view, the objective is: legal support for speech (as long as that speech isn’t illegal; i.e. recognise the existence and [lack of] implications of casual talk or ‘the Pub vs. the public) – let’s have a better environment.

They don’t want to have to respond to solicitors’ casual threats of libel. Instead:

- The complainant should go to the author first

- Obtain documents from court to say it’s a genuine complaint

Internet companies take content down first and ask questions later! (Once bitten…)

There needs to be a single publisher rule; a limitation of 1 year; long enough for someone to take action if it is in fact actionable.

Facebook is globally accessible but libel tourism isn’t acceptable.

We need to respect that people have views on things – they do and will continue to discuss them in public fora, including online.

Unless this is understood, it is simply “an accident waiting to happen” – will it take a few solicitors to pick it up and run action to have dramatic chill, before things change? Let’s get legislation now rather than fix it after the fact.

—

Emily Cleevely

(Head of Policy, Publishers’ Association)

Emily started by asserting the value of publishing and why it’s in the government’s interest to protect it, having generated £4bn revenue in the UK in 2009; up 2.6% in 2010 – in the current market. If we’re to get out of the recession, surely we should be supporting growing industries?

Is publishing the key? It also aids with social mobility e.g.  in the form public libraries.

Creativity should be protected – authors must have freedom of expression without great fear of libel action. Not just trials but also the threat of libel, the chill, that convinces too many that silence is a safer option.

Emily gave the example of Wayne Rooney’s book, which apparently had a lot of things taken out/changed. Not sure anyone was too impressed with this point, particularly Matt…

The PA will continue to be active in politics and media regarding Libel Reform.

Most interestingly, Emily gave some stats from a survey conducted in October this year regarding the effects of libel on PA members (which will be published in a January 2011 report): 100% (of the 65% total membership that participated in the study) said they had modified content or language in a book prior to publication to avoid the risks presented by current UK libel laws.

Richard Mollet, CEO of the PA, said:

The Publishers Association has been campaigning for libel reform for many years and is concerned about the chilling effect which the current law has on freedom of expression. The results from our survey demonstrate that libel law as it currently stands is a huge burden to many publishers in the UK and may act as an obstacle to growth, innovation and freedom of expression within the sector.

—

Tom McNally

(Minister of State, Minister of Justice)

[Most of the time he was speaking, I kept wondering what he was fiddling with in his jacket pocket. Anyone else??]

Having only been a minister for 6 months, McNally wanted to quote the ‘Dick’ Crossman diary (1964) on ministerial duties [roughly, as I couldn't quite write fast enough!]:

One of the curious features is that one cannot distinguish day from day or night from night

[I think that's the case with plenty of jobs, to be honest!]

He did say we “should have a Draft Bill in Spring” (which means sometime before June 1st 2011)

Going from the Lords to legislation is a slow process and the importance of “future-proofing” whatever we do was emphasised.

In my notes I then have something about ‘the next parliament March 2012′ – even after reading some Wiki on our parliament, I don’t know what he/I meant by this (please comment if your memory and political/legal understanding is better! This is not difficult to achieve, mind).

McNally implored us to continue:

Don’t stop! … This is the end of the beginning for your campaign

The Draft Bill is a rough outline of what the government will commit to. When it comes out, we may not like phrasing and bits might be missing..!

He then addressed Simon Singh:

My son is 17 and doing Maths, Physics and Chemistry in St. Albans – your ordeal was very rough but you’re a hero to young scientists and have inspired a lot of young people in science

Which, I think, we all very much agree with.

Having read Douglas Hurd‘s paper on communications, focussing on “Quality, Diversity and Choice” – he wants to ensure we have that in our media, unrestricted by the libel laws.

—

Questions

Q (DAG): Do the activists only come in after bill publication – can’t we input now? [Tom A: wait a bit!] You said ‘hopefully’ there will be a slot in 2011/2012 – does that mean there might not be one? [Tom A: No minister can commit to anything in the preceeding financial year]

Q: Have you considered vulnerable writers (like the disabled) and the use of sensitive/offensive terms – legislating on which are acceptable, and how does one defend one’s reputation? [Tom A: regarding hate crimes, the issue hasn't come into libel reform yet] – I think the general opinion here was that this was a bit of an irrelevant/off-the-mark question.

Q: (Simon) – Interview in Aus with Questions: regarding homeopathy – threat of London libel. Someone blogged anyway. People someone quoted have asked to be anonymous for fear of libel. [Tom A: Contrasting legal advice: is the Master of Rolls looking?] From the audience: “At every stage…” – some ramble that didn’t mean a lot, from where I was sitting!

Comment: (Síle Lane) – from a Sense About Science survey, of the editors of scientific journals (in all subject areas):

- 32% have been threatened with libel action

- 44% have asked authors to modify articles

- 38% have refused to publish due to fear.

Tom A: We’ll try! We can’t go into detail; we need laws to protect science discussion and criticism. Legislation needs to be right, not flawed and open to criticism. Then a comment about public opinion/support that I missed – perhaps, the public generally supports making sure scientific claims & criticisms can’t be silenced by legal threats? I don’t know if there have been any surveys on this.

Q (Evan Harris): A claimant lawyer can make their case (and have it rejected!) -  we need to create a public interest defence; incorporating a ‘threshhold’ of damage caused to reputation (in this country), given what is published abroad. [Tom A: Something about the Lester bill and 2 sides interacting, that I missed. Plus, there's another chill for people with 'media intrusion', who are met with "don't like it? See you in court"]

Response (Evan): Individuals need to be able to sue. Companies, less so. [A: this must be looked at.]

Comment (Nigel Tait – Carter Ruck (!) ): ‘Please don’t worry about us lawyers!’ – because they’ll keep making money regardless, basically. Which is true.

Q: (Tracey Brown) – Is it a good thing (economically) that London is a litigation centre? There are other ways though;  so that we would not be blocking world discussion, but leading it.

Q: (Matt Flaherty) – The recent Supreme Court case that replaced “fair comment” with “honest comment” – how big a deal is that?

- we didn’t get an answer to Matt’s question, sadly, even though it was arguably the best one (but perhaps we’re just biased ‘cos we love Matt. Still, it’s a shame no one offered a response).

Q: I want to bring up the elephant in the room, or perhaps the country; I’m sympathetic to PA and Facebook but what about people exposing military abuse; will you allow Assange to stay in the UK? – people chuckled at this a bit.

Richard makes a joke and someone says “Assange is not a subject for mirth”.

(Richard): Sorry, World insanity causes me to resort to black humour! When you hear of people ordering assassinations for something the person has said, that’s just insane.

A (Tom): I Can’t answer this! Ask the attorney general. Q: What’s your view of the leaks? Patience! – is all I’ve got in response to that, but I can’t remember if any more was said.

Comment: The burden of proof is not actually biased to the claimant (I had a semi-drunk argument/discussion about this – the unfairness of the law re: the accused who makes the libellous comment – in the old London SitP pub, then about 2 weeks later I bumped into the guy at Westminster Skeptics and he said I was right and he’d been talking rubbish. Always nice to know!).

Q: One of the main reasons for libel tourism is that our lawyers charge 40-50x fees! No one can afford this! Would the lawyers really want to remove this source of income?

A (Joanne Cash): – Yes we will go against our paychecks! “If you need any help, you know where I am!”

Comment (Emily): People ask about the value of science vs. creative works and biographies. Science must be critiqued. Perhaps there should be a seperate – legal, if I recall -category for science?

Hey, Audacity! We use that for SDWFD(wc)

Personally I don’t think I agree with that. If you start treating science as a really special case, this could potentially damage an already shaky relationship with the layperson. Though evidence-driven criticism is especially vital in science and particularly medicine, I don’t see why such criticism should be actively discouraged (with such great effect as the current libel law has) in any field.

—

Closing comments

Tracey: When we started, we heard “don’t bother” because: it’s too complicated; you’re small; the government is uninterested.

Remember this is as much about the public right to read as for people to speak. Uncertainty leads to debate and often uncovering the truth.

For example, take the case of Peter Wilmshurst as one that gives a simple perspective (we  want the public to be made aware of things that might be dangerous, rather than people deciding not to speak out to protect others, for fear of losing their house, their job, their livelihood).

When small people say things to power sometimes things happen

—

I’m sure many of us still like to think that could be true.

Libel Reform is ongoing

Hello all. It’s been a horrible week for free speech in the UK; look into Paul Chambers’ #twitterjoketrial (and #iamspartacus!) for the main example.

Sorry I do not have time to do a more personal take on this at the moment, but do read and pass this on because it’s important and I’d love you more if you did

The Mass Libel Reform Blog

Fight for Free Speech!

This  week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law. In short, the law is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics.

The English libel law is particularly dangerous for bloggers, who are generally not backed by publishers, and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global  audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach.

You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the Libel Reform Campaign. You will see that the campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it.

The good news is that the British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel, but it is essential that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they follow through on this promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition at
http://www.libelreform.org/sign

Remember, you can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world.

If you have already signed the petition, then please encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Moreover, if you have your own blog, you can join hundreds of other bloggers by posting this blog on your own site. There is a real chance that bloggers could help change the most censorious libel law in the democratic world.

We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at
http://www.libelreform.org/sign

 

Thank you!

Sceptical about Skeptics?

This week’s Westminster Skeptics was presented by Frank Swain (@sciencepunk).

I’ve square-bracketed most of my own thoughts that I’ve added in to the write-up, as I occasionally have before.

Every so often we should be self-critical

Frank began with a little disclaimer; he does love the skeptical movement and wants to see it do well. As do I.

Who are the Skeptics?

Is this even a useful question?

You probably know if you’re a part of it, voluntarily or not, using the ‘special k’ spelling or not.

We have a passion for science and critical thinking. Or just enjoy meeting like-minded people! Engagement is the next step and not by any means a compulsory one.

The most powerful thing I can do as a writer is to change someone’s mind

The power is similar to that of parents; the ability to shape someone’s way of thinking, how they form opinions.

[Or unfortunately in many cases, simply which opinions they should have; this is why I think philosophy should be more of a core school subject, since we're rarely taught how to think about things; this comes later, if at all, and I believe is one reason why so many people are sucked in by scheming con-artists and misinformation].

Skepticism now isn’t changing people’s minds

[I'm not sure I agree 100%; whenever someone new is brought into the  'skeptic world', however (im)permanently, they may or may not change their entire outlook, but even if someone used to think seeing a chiropractor would be a good idea after their car crash and now realise it probably isn't, that's something - and to me, a positive result. Also, changing people's minds isn't necessarily the main goal.

Based on a post-talk discussion we had, I'd say skepticism is fairly political. Just as political campaigns target the swing votes, so does skepticism. Few people really believe you can change the mind of a diehard fundamentalist (in either direction), so they're not the focus. It's the fence-sitters, the undecided and indeed uninformed who we hope to reach. Edit: as this Youtube video describes perfectly.]

Skepticism is a new community, for example compared to environmentalism and animal welfare. We have no infrastructure to speak of and that imposes a limit on engagement and progression possibilities.

A criticism: distance has formed in recent years. Behaviour and attitudes are a turn-off to many people who, as a result, don’t want to be associated with skepticism.

Are you talking to me?

Who do we reach? Is it just a big echo chamber?

People, for example when starting a blog, pick a topic, angle and tone of writing. This narrows the audience and there’s a danger to that; becoming simply like-minded people patting each other on the back, because it’s gratifying.

[I did give this as one reason for restarting my blog; it is nice when people agree with you! However, I also like to share things I care about precisely because not everyone does agree, which makes for interesting discussion and a chance to reflect on one's own views.

When people only agree, opinions stagnate, stubbornness and ignorance grow and the once-sensible person can end up as fundamentally rigid - and indeed wrong - as the people they vilify. I see this in my own family now and try quite hard to avoid it.]

This doesn’t really reach anyone and falls into the confirmation bias trap.

People go to their family, friends, neighbours, doctor, priests etc. for advice – not always the internet.

We trust other people … Not everything is on Google

How many people could reach, for example, this blog? Well, 7 million in the UK are apparently illiterate while 0.5 million have no internet connection. A big exclusion from the outset. Then there are other factors like language, culture and so on. There’s sometimes a common attitude: “That problem’s solved: I wrote a blog about it.”

A blog is the equivalent of a post-it on your bedroom door … It’s arrogance to think that blogposts and Twitter hashtags make problems go away

Because a campaign changes minds, whereas these activities often don’t; they demonstrate the degree of support and can help bring like-minded people together but it’s not a campaign in and of itself. It’s mostly people “agreeing with their mates”.

[However, today David_Colquhoun said while listening to the Pod Delusion recording of the talk:

Listening to @sciencepunk. He's dead wrong. We have changed things in real world

I think the truth is somewhere in between; I do think online campaigning (or however you want to classify it) has an effect; the first I took notice of was HSBC's restoration of graduate overdrafts after immense pressure that originated on, and was almost exclusively from, Facebook. The Libel Reform Campaign would not be as successful without the online efforts either.

Also I think the impact goes beyond grand outcomes, overturned convictions and the like - it's also personal. Several people to have spoken at skeptics, particularly those facing and enduring libel cases, have said that the support has kept them afloat or at least helped in hugely stressful times. I don't think that should be waived aside as unimportant.

I did say to people around our table that talking to people on Facebook, particularly when I was at university, really did change my views on a number of issues; my opinions differ quite a lot from those I held at school, which were mostly just hand-me-downs from my parents anyway. I like to think that, like a proper scientist, I really can change my mind if it's logical to do so, if the evidence suggests I should.]

Frank then lists his reasons for not granting funds to TAM, concerns over which have also been voiced very eloquently by Skeptobot.

It’s centralised (in London), expensive, does not stream its content (and DVDs will cost £16) and the JREF operates in the USA – so he cannot justify giving tax money to it.

[The self-congratulatory attitude is also the reason I'm not spending >£200 going to TAM this year, amaz!ing as I'm sure it'll be, since I've seen a few of the people before at skeptics in the pub - with a much more intimate atmosphere and glorious price tag <1% of TAM's - and it is getting a bit cult/church-y.]

Mum’s the word

Mothers worry about the health of their children constantly. It’s probably still fair to say that most haven’t been to university (though not for much longer, I expect) and tend to find having their beliefs challenged by kids quite intimidating.

My mum is my litmus test

Frank frames his questions with the most important lady in his life in mind;

How can I explain it? Would she care? Is my blog useful to her, could it change her mind and is it respectful?

[To which I might add, will she respect me for writing it? My mum reads my blog and lets me know what she thinks. Let's remember, though, that unconditional love tends to lead to bias!

My supervisor has told me the similar; try to explain in a way that your mum can understand and if you haven't done that, you haven't explained well enough. However, I don't think it applies to everything; for science writing and general engagement it does.

It depends on your target audience. It's not relevant to, say, scientific journals and as Evan Harris said after the talk, often not to influencing policy either. If you always have to explain everything from the ground-up, you'll never get anywhere; every article would be a whole text book. Context matters. I agree thatt trying to make things mum-friendly is often a good idea].

One of my favourite charts

Frank attacks the charts&graphs/data-worship culture and asks if the ‘evidence or fuck off‘ kind of attitude is really funny anymore – it’s just an aggressive tone and arguing is different from engaging.

Arguing from the basis of facts is ineffective and cowardly

Facts don’t speak for themselves … they are dry and boring

Campaign groups like PETA and Greenpeace, FOX etc. understand this but many skeptics don’t

Sometimes the scientific background is a problem. We may be correct but ineffective in using facts to argue.

Most people have used the old line “The plural of anecdote is not data” but Frank goes on to say that the plural is a convincing argument.

[I think this is just because it's the easier way to think about things. We identify more readily with personal stories than numbers, more with faces than bar charts. It's more difficult to see the big picture - it takes time and effort to understand compared to, say, looking at a picture and going on our gut feeling. That's the tabloid tactic - there's a reason appeal to emotion is classified as a logical fallacy and why many of us rail against using it. As features on my 'quotations' page:

Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it. - Henry Ford

I realise it's Frank's point that being convincing may be preferable to only being right, and fact-based arguments can be condescending, or rely heavily on argument from authority; skeptics should stop being offensive, calling people stupid etc. But I think it depends on why you're a skeptic. I'll come back to that*]

We often can’t actually prove things ourselves – Frank used the example of the Earth orbiting the Sun (he could show it with a simple experiment!) – in reality, not very many of us can.

Stories are more effective but we shouldn’t abandon facts. It’s reasonable and rational to utilise emotion and there’s no one right way, though foregone conclusions with no attempt to consider other people’s views can’t be productive.

Why is arguing from facts cowardly? You go into an argument knowing you are right and the arrogance shows

[I have to agree with James' take on this statement but I see where Frank's coming from.]

On to a controversial point now really stirring things up on Twitter:

10:23 was not engagement

Informing people doesn’t change the fact that it “works” for some people [I add the finger-quotes]. Facts are not everything; there’s philosophy, feelings, culture etc.

[I don't think that 10:23 set out to be solely an engagement activity, nor do I agree that no aspect of it was engagement. Michael Marshall, who played a big part in the campaign, said earlier today:

@SciencePunk By the way, sooo many people who responded during #ten23 didn't know there was nothing in homeopathy, were annoyed to learn it.

Studies showed most people thought it was 'herbal', hence we were engaging with those who used it without knowing about it.

10:23 aimed to inform people who were unsure or confused about the nature of homeopathy, to improve understanding and question the validity of NHS funding CAM (complimentary and alternative medicine) - not an insiginificant issue.

It seems to me that it was quite successful, though I didn't learn about it until I'd wormed my way into the skeptics. However, since then I've found myself having conversations with colleagues and friends about it, so it has reached a wider audience than SitP alone, and I'm sure others also found this.

Simon Perry echoes my point about targeting 'swing-voters' in his response.]

Dogmas of the Skeptic Society

- We all know each other! [Skeptics can be a bit incestuous, but I usually meet at least one new person at each event. It depends on your reasons for going and what kind of person you are as to what your experience will be; again I'll come back to that later**]

- People are elevated to God status and become immune to criticism (Dawkins etc.)

- Others (people and ideas) are reduced to demons

- Some things are assumed to be unworthy of debate because of knowledge and understanding not everyone has.

Frank praised the ‘communication skills’ of American evangelist Billy Graham, who has advised 12 US presidents and spoken to more than 2.2 billion people; he gives a positive message [not sure I entirely agree with that] and doesn’t tell people they’re stupid. He’s convincing and charismatic; a great communicator. Why can’t we follow this positive model? [Again, I'll come back to this*. @medtek said: My assessment of last night's #WestSkep - Agreed with some of it. Disagree with Billy Graham analogy. Felt a bit preached to, usual for SITP]

He gave examples of utterly vitriolic, ad hominem attacks from the skeptical sphere; which I (and most others) join him in condemning. It’s unproductive and certainly not what I personally condone or consider acceptable. One or two in the room did see fit to prove his point, though, by claiming it’s funny.

Regarding the recent Gillian McKeith fiasco, he questions the success of it; she’s just been chased off Twitter. She’s still got 10 books, it’s just that now her stuff doesn’t reach us. Is that the goal of many, to shield themselves from things they disagree with?

Bullying people out of the sphere is more of a ‘weed-whacker’ than ‘weed-away’ strategy; it doesn’t tackle the root of the problem.

You should empathise with people [something I totally agree with; I do believe a well-developed sense of empathy is the best way to be a 'good' person, in the general sense] and understand them. For example, parents want to protect kids and avoid danger, so their fears need to be addressed in order to convince them.

Who’s in the club and who’s put off? The format of presenting to people at SitP, for example, can be intimidating. We should invite the people who do/use the things we criticise but for all the above reasons, it’s difficult to achieve.

[Talking to a long-term attendee afterwards, this used to happen. Perhaps word has got out and people are afraid. To be honest I don't blame them; I'd never volunteer to go and speak to a room full of PETA members, for example; I'd probably get stabbed on the way out. Not that we're at all stabby, you understand.]

“Woo” is the closest thing the skeptics have to the N-word

It’s born of intolerance, prejudice and hatred, describing other people’s beliefs based on your prejudices and leads to write-offs. [We've all used it, Frank included as he admitted. There are arguments to be made regarding the value of ridicule in tackling certain ideas, but I don't think I'll go into it here. I'm thinking of things like the Mohammed cartoons/Achmed the dead terrorist].

How do we face these challenges?

- reach more people?

- improve our communications skills?

- be more inclusive?

Ask “What can I do, as a skeptic, to be a better person?”

So ended the talk, to great applause (“maybe more than Prof. Brian Cox”, Jack of Kent joked).  [Edit: I joined in vigorously myself, because it was a very good presentation and I agreed a lot, but of course not entirely.  Kash has done a good summary of some major issues. Della has also shared her thoughts., along with David from across the pond] Tom Morris shares his views on the talk here and the list of Tweets is here.

I wonder…

* Here I’ll come back to why people are ‘skeptics’ and, perhaps, why we find it difficult to change the way we communicate. Personally, something I value most above all else is truth; honesty. My view of overly-emotional, sensationalist arguments is that they’re generally dishonest. Using anecdotes may be convincing but it’s not necessarily accurate. A lot of people’s problem with snake-oil merchants is the lies, twisted-truths and sneaky tactics used to convince others. We don’t want to lower ourselves to that level. I don’t want to, anyway.

After the talk I spoke with Roger and Joe and we agreed it was important to get some perspective.

** Can’t we compare skeptics (in the pub) to other groups who get together, meet new people, have social events, make friends, have a laugh etc.? It’s a personal experience and people have varied reasons for attending. Skeptics in the Pub isn’t really a public engagement exercise (to continue a Twitter conversation I was having earlier) – otherwise it wouldn’t be in the pub. Gimpy mused on this recently.

Making use of locking myself out of the flat one evening

I don’t think any other group sits around wondering if its activities are morally justifiable; can’t see bridge clubs or trainspotters brainstorming ideas on becoming more inclusive, for example. Do we really have to apologise for wanting to make friends who share our ideals, with whom we can have fairly deep conversations and a good laugh? Not that I’m saying we shouldn’t hold each other to account – far from it. Criticise away. But keep the perspective.

Personally, I did not want to move to London, I had few friends outside work and my flat and was pretty depressed about everything. Skeptics is a niche I’ve taken to and it’s played a big part in making me feel better about myself and improving my social life. I’ve met some truly brilliant people, which I’m very grateful for, and now I love living here (yes, you’re excused to go and vomit). I’ve never really had friends who appreciated my cynical nature and it was even actively discouraged by my partner at university, sometimes friends too. All contributed to my being quite miserable, to say the least.

I agree we need to be introspective if we’re to avoid being hypocritical, but I don’t think people should criticise things like SitP for not being inclusive. It’s a grass-roots thing, anyone’s free to do any skeptic event they want – no one owns it, it’s not a brand. Let’s go to the park, to a coffee shop, do it at the créche if you’re a mum, away from bars if you’re muslim. As you want!

[Edit: on the (in)effectiveness of fact-based argument and how it may actually strengthen irrational belief, jdc325 reviews an interesting paper from Schwarz et al. on the subject - PDF link in the post]

I also highly recommend this article. To quote from it:

Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

I find this particularly fascinating because of the analogy to antibiotics. Are some of the skeptics’ tactics exerting some evolutionary pressure on the kinds of ideas we seek to counteract, the memes if you like, and strengthening their hold? Is it time to step back and let natural selection take its course?

The problem is, sometimes I feel like this wouldn’t be the right thing to do – I recently posted a Quackometer article on Facebook about a homeopathic organisation promoting their ‘malaria treatment’ in Kenya. A friend said it was

just darwinism in action, let it take its course…

To which I said

No it isn’t, it’s exploitation and manslaughter of the ignorant, desperate and impoverished. It’s not funny and it’s not people getting what they deserve.

I don’t think we can, in good conscience, leave everything behind. Nor was Frank suggesting we do. But it’s probably time to reassess the effectiveness of our methods.

Discussion

Possibly the longest Q&A I’ve ever witnessed.

Have you considered context? Is it really a ‘Goldilocks’ situation of getting it just right? There are other situations e.g. 1) Litigious people/organisations. Facing down threats of litigation to open debate. 2) Regulators (ASA/TS) – telling them there are no facts presented can lead to success. - Jack of Kent

No there isn’t a one-size-fits-all to skepticism/engagement etc. Robust defences are sometimes necessary but not ad hom insults. What do you mean by success?

Me & Lenin in St Petersburg! (Formerly Leningrad)

Do we need a bit of Leninism? [Lenin wrote Что делать? (Shto d'elat'? - What is to be done?) - naturally, I loved the Russia reference!]

We are knee-deep in ‘woo’ – the government, the Sun newspaper. Should we not make policy changes to ensure a better future, an educated populous?

Why do we assume evidence-based thinking is the best way? Why force our view on others? Exploitation is an issue.

The thing that bothers me most is the tone and the insults. Subtleties of the position are ignored.

What do we do when we find members of our own community ‘behaving badly’? We don’t like to ‘speak out against the mothership’ – but we should just point it out.

Leninism isn’t very pleasant!

We’re in danger of getting into the ‘People’s front of Judaea/Judaean People’s Front’ argument here [watch Monty Python's Life Of Brian if you don't get this! Actually, watch it anyway].

I’m religious, I know homeopaths etc. – the exclusivity and intolerance means you throw away potential ‘members’

One question I didn’t really catch the drift of (only question mark I got was at the end of “How does one engage with… everything?) but what the overall gist seemed to hint at was

Should we employ spin-doctor tactics?

Which goes back to what I was saying about dishonesty. This makes me uncomfortable.

Frank: We need to understand why people should care first.

How do we take people from being wrong to being right, without too much pain?

Be careful assuming they’re wrong in the first place! Understand!

Should skepticism be more considerate of people’s circumstances, like feminism? For example people with childcare commitments, disabilities etc.

Again I’d go back to the point about starting skeptical stuff anywhere. Sure, pubs aren’t for everyone, but they’re for a lot of people! Otherwise it wouldn’t be so popular. People are welcome to cater to other audiences should the ‘market’ exist.

If stories are better than facts, why did Gillian McKeith pretend to have a PhD and why do cosmetics employ the ‘science!!’ tactic?

Science is the benchmark of truth in society; it’s a ‘clothing’ of fact [I've discussed this weird double-standard before].

Regarding how to challenge people, I have two approaches

1) Socratic Questioning – lead people along a reasoned path while showing interest, without being confrontational.

2) Comment when people are dicks [re: skeptic ad hom attacks]! So that others see and know people disagree with it.

See this blogpost for more on his ideas.

Is skepticism really a ‘movement’? [Example slide, right - Frank showed a lot of exerpts from emails/Twitter DMs he'd received prior to the talk]

Most of us would, I expect, say no.

There are at least 3 approaches to a campaign, including changing policies, winning over the base and new people. It’s legitimate to go with policy and evidence-based argument with respect to policy-makers. - Evan Harris

Support the non-scientists!

One humanities graduate in attendance (of which there are many, I’d say at least 30% of the room!) recalls her introduction to skeptical issues by the likes of Dara O’Briain and Tim Minchin. I completely agree; comedy and other popular non-scientific areas are also valuable fora for communication.

Dean Burnett also wrote for Birmingham Skeptics on the use of the personal approach, including in comedy, and some hilarious hands-on skeptical ‘techniques’.

Background

Frank used to write a ‘zine‘ entitled War on Error, thinking that was a brilliantly clever title; but made the unfortunate discovery in 2004 that all the internet media of that name had already been taken. So, clever but not original. Thus was Sciencepunk born.

He hasn’t left scienceblogs as a part of the “Pepsigate” mass exodus

because I love the free Pepsi too much

He used to be part of Sense About Science too and created Gavin Henson’s Human Guinea Pig, which was described as “Monkey tennis TV”, apparently – I’m not even sure what that means… Oh, wiki to the rescue as usual.

—

Also in attendance was the now-famous Councillor John Dixon (who’s a thoroughly nice bloke, by the way), awaiting his disciplinary hearing in about 1 month.

Sorry it’s so long; this is one of the most thought and discussion-provoking talks I’ve seen so far! It’s still going strong in the Twittersphere. Thanks for reading!

(I might add some Youtube videos if I bother to edit out the excessive swearing!)