Last year I wrote a post on my blog about the victim-blaming rape culture we live in, in which the primary focus is still on telling women to alter their behaviour in order to avoid rape, when what we need to be doing is addressing the rapists and condemning them (which, thankfully, at least some places are doing, with apparently positive results)
“Oh but everyone knows rape is wrong, what’s the point in that? Nothing wrong with giving people some well-intentioned advice about staying safe.”
No, sod off. Clearly everyone does not know it’s wrong. That alone is clear, since if you leave the word ‘rape’ itself out of questionnaires and phrase them carefully, a shocking majority of people will admit to thinking force is justifiable in certain circumstances.
Recently we had an outcry directed at ITV and Eamonn Holmes specifically for his callous comment to a high-profile rape survivor, who aided her assailant’s conviction by deliberately leaving genetic material for later forensic detection.
For some reason he decided it would be a good idea to tell this woman that she should just take taxis in future. Right, thanks. Because no rapists are ever found driving licensed cabs.
With this in mind, some female friends and I, in a pre-Christmas 2011 exercise, received the following e-mail from Transport for London:
—
Dear Ms Baker,
I am writing to remind you that unbooked minicabs picked up off the street are dangerous and put you at risk of sexual assault. The safest way to get a minicab home is to:
Book it – by phone, email or in a minicab office to guarantee your trip is carried out by a licensed, insured driver and vehicle
Check it’s yours – ask the driver to confirm your name and destination before you get in the car, and check the driver’s photo ID
Sit in the back – and carry your mobile in case of an emergency
Our Cabwise text service makes it easier to find and book a licensed minicab or taxi near you.
For further details please visit tfl.gov.uk/cabwise
Yours sincerely,
Steve Burton
Director of Community Safety, Enforcement and Policing
—
Well, gosh, thank you, Steve, for your care and concern. Apparently getting in random cars isn’t a good idea any more, because you’re likely to get raped. It’s not like we haven’t been hearing the don’t-trust-strangers message since we were children, is it?
Interestingly, this mail only went to female users of TfL. There was no suggestion to men not to let their friends – male or female – take unbooked cabs. There was no suggestion that men taking them might also be putting themselves at risk of violence (sexual or otherwise).
You can put a hundred women in outfits of differing styles, in varying degrees of drunkenness, with or without friends and with different personalities into the same kind of situations over and over. But it’s not victims who cause attacks, it’s the attacker. It is their presence, not a woman who’s drunk or wearing a short skirt, that results in the crime. She can go about her business in the majority of situations, but only when she comes into contact with a rapist is that violation going to occur.
Someone recently commented on my post:
Applying the same logic to other crimes highlights the absurdity of it all “sorry I just couldn’t help myself, he just looked so stabby in that flimsy t-shirt that I just couldn’t help plunging the knife into him, why did he have to wear that t-shirt?!” etc.
If there really is evidence that unlicensed cabs are the problem here – harbouring a particularly high number of (known or suspected??) rapists, then how about tackling that issue, instead of targeting the victims and innocent among us? We all keep ourselves safe as best we can. No one wants to be the victim of an assault.
This kind of communication holds within it the suggestion that the problem is in fact women – our actions and behaviour – if only we changed that (silly women, just be more sensible!) then maybe everything would be OK. Well no, it wouldn’t.
Target the criminals, please, and leave the rest of us to go about our business – stop making us think we could and should have done something different to help ourselves avoid whatever horrible things might befall us.
Our culture finds it perfectly acceptable to shift the blame onto the victims of certain crimes – particularly sexual assaults – and it is this that we should be recognising and addressing. Constantly telling women to be careful achieves nothing except belittling victims, discouraging people from coming forward and generally normalising the idea that sometimes it’s OK to do what you want because there are certain excuses that are acceptable.
A 1984 study looked into the justifications used by a cohort of convicted rapists. The general themes included:
- women as seductresses (she’s asking for it really – tacit consent)
- women mean “yes” when they say “no” (again, she does want it despite what she says)
- most women eventually relax and enjoy it (we all want to be dominated!)
- nice girls don’t get raped (her past could be justification for your crime)
- guilt in a minor wrongdoing (people don’t self-identify as rapists, though they will often admit to something less serious).
Men should be more offended by the suggestions so often trotted out about them being unable to control themselves. Here in our society, this often translates into friends covering for friends they may suspect, while elsewhere it manifests as laws requiring women hide themselves from view almost entirely, to avoid provoking the menfolk.
Don’t patronise us, Tfl, and don’t blame us for the failings of law keepers and our rape-sympathetic culture.
Time for an update on the Science and Art of Medicine – Living Medical Traditions exhibit in the Science Museum, London!
If you’re not familiar with the backstory, do checkouttheseposts or listen to my report in the Pod Delusion live 2nd birthday episode – go, make some tea and a sandwich while it’s on or something
Briefly, we’ve been trying to improve the Science Museum’s alternative medicine exhibit as there were some serious problems with it. It largely came across as promoting alternative treatments, even advertising practitioners and generally being worryingly uncritical, with no reference to the results of reliable studies (i.e. that most of the ‘treatments’ are no better than placebo and many carry serious risks) – and indeed no mention of the wonderous placebo effect at all.
I’ve highlighted some of the original displays and issues in this photo gallery, now with some new photos – though a lot of them are appallingly blurry, apologies – in this new set.
Important statement
We are extremely glad that the Science Museum has chosen to listen to these complaints and do something about them. To take a second look at something (that people have worked hard on and are likely proud of) with an objective eye, receive criticisms, consider them and make some changes – that is admirable, it’s scientific and what we might expect from such a great institution.
I think in summary, some very important changes have been made, which is excellent. But more could (and should) be done as it’s still far from the resource it could be (I’ll come back to this at the end*).
Proposed Changes
Last year the museum proposed some changes, based on discussions with Simon Singh and the rest of us. They decided the main sections to focus on were homeopathy and acupuncture – while I agree these were the ‘main offenders’, the whole gallery exudes quite a credulous vibe, but I am completely accepting that a total overhaul would take a lot of time and money so let’s look at these two sections for now.
Homeopathy
From the correspondence:
As you know, we are already proposing to make some changes, on the advice of trustees, to make it quite clear that we are describing specifically the Indian context. In general, as far as I can see, you share the sense of what changes out to be made. You have nonetheless expressed two concerns that we should like to address. We will therefore follow your suggestion and add a parenthetical observation:
Homeopaths believe that ‘like cures like’. This means that homeopathic practitioners will give a remedy – often highly diluted (to the point that a bioscientist would say it contains no active substance at all) – that produces the same symptoms as the illness.
I presume the focus is on India because of the resources available for the exhibit. I’m not sure why otherwise, given that homeopathy was invented in Germany and is used worldwide, to varying degrees of disaster (I’m not exaggerating – keep an eye out for Martin Robbins’ experiences of homeopaths in Africa for more in that vein).
The other strange thing here, for me, is bioscientist. What does that mean? Also, chemists, physicists and mathematicians all agree that the very idea of homeopathy is ridiculous and scientifically meaningless.
The homeopathic travel kit was proposed to be removed entirely but as you can see only the caption has gone – so now people just don’t know what it is. I suppose it would be odd if it were just an empty space? Some text has been removed from the panel and now simply describes the image of a woman preparing her ‘homeopathic treatments’ at a ‘baby clinic’ – which makes me sad in itself.
They have also, as Alex suggested, changed their wording – all cases of doctor have now been replaced with practitioner. This is a good thing.
Acupuncture
From the correspondence:
You have also raised the issue of acupuncture. Taking on board all the advice we have been given we cannot agree with David Conquhoun‘s suggestion that the advice of NICE should simply be dismissed. NICE set the national standard estabilishing whether a “clinical treatment [or set of clnical procedures] is considered highly effective, cost effective and safe, as well as being viewed as a positive experience by patients.” Whilst there may be good reasons for overturning their conclusion about the efficacy of acupuncture this process has to be achieved by debate in the public arena, and that has not yet happened.
Obviously I, and no doubt David, would dispute this, but I’ll just leave that there and move on.
Painkillers alone just weren’t helping Stephen’s knee pain caused be osteoarthritis, so his general practitioner [GP] recommended acupuncture. Here’s his story.
Stephen is a retired clinical psychologist, but still enjoys walking and travel. His knee pain was severely restricting his day-to-day activity and he was considering a joint replacement. But he was anxious to avoid surgery of that kind because of concerns about complications and the variable success of the procedure.
His doctor recommended acupuncture – this is offered by his NHS GP surgery and administered by biomedically trained medical and nurse acupuncturists.
Fine needles were inserted into acupuncture points around Stephen’s knee and areas of local tenderness and left in place for up to 15 minutes. Each treatment led to greater and more prolonged relief of Stephen’s symptoms.
After four weekly treatments at first, Stephen now comes to the acupuncture clinic every 6-8 weeks for a ‘top-up’ which keeps his symptoms under control. Aside from reducing pain and the need for painkillers, the acupuncture has allowed Stephen greater mobility, which itself is important in managing the symptoms of osteoarthritis. As a result Stephen thinks his quality of life has improved.
The last sentence no longer says ‘…his quality of life has improved enormously‘. Finally, a new caption underneath:
Acupuncture has been rigorously tested by medical researchers for a variety of ailments. These tests have shown that acupuncture can relieve pain and this is why it is available as a treatment on the NHS. The NHS summarised its current judgement in a review published in 2010 on the internet at:
So osteoarthritis of the knee is cited as a condition for which positive evidence exists. Rheumatoid arthritis, on the other hand, has been shown to be unaffected by acupuncture treatments. What’s important to note is the qualification on this page:
this evidence does not allow us to draw definite conclusions…More research is needed to investigate whether acupuncture works for these conditions.
So I’m still not sure the exhibit expresses the weakness of the current evidence – but at least there’s a link.
Most pictures have been removed, as have captions suggesting GPs endorsed the treatment as effective. For some reason the (presumably fictitious) patient’s name has been changed from Ian to Stephen and he’s now suffering from osteoarthritis in the knee instead of shoulder/neck pain, presumably due to a quick read of the above link.
Mention of Stephen being a retired clinical psychologist is interesting. To me this would suggest an attempt to legitimise his choice of acupuncture as he was involved in medicine himself. Appeal to authority?
While Jonathan Freedman (top right of the old panel) no longer appears in the upper part of the new display, sadly the advertising for the St Albans clinic below remains.
Introductory Panel
Finally, another change that was accepted to be important was the wording that greets visitors on the first explanatory panel. The new is on the left (bit small, sorry) and the old on the right.
Thankfully, the following statement was added:
Contemporary research shows that many of the practices are, from a scientific point of view, ineffective.
And an important clarification has been made:
even today 40% of the population of China use Traditional Chinese Medicine clinics as their first (and often only) choice for healthcare.
Whereas before it was simply an argumentum ad populum – that loads of people use it, ergo it must work/be acceptable (bottom of the right-hand photo).
What is disappointing is that some of the things I would consider to be quite dangerous are still there. For example, this description of the herbal product Masturin, about which I can find no actual research, but oft-repeated claims of this nature:
DESCRIPTION
Uterotonic, specific for female disorders. Prepared from herbal ingredients like Saracaindica, Withania somnifera, Abroma augusta, Berberis aristata, Rauwolfia serpentina and iron acting solely on female reproductive system.
INDICATIONS
Uterine tonic
very effective in P.I.D.
Relieves pain in Dysmenorrhoea
A herbal uterine tonic it tones up the nerves and ensures pain free and regular periods. Made from herbs
It worries me that this product is on display along with the claim that Joshanda ‘treats colds and flu’ – it’s this kind of uncritical exposure I take issue with. I know the anthropologists want to claim it’s about looking at culture but I really think you can do that in a safer, more informative way.
Also I was disappointed to see no changes to ‘Professor’ Shi Zaixiang’s board, relating to the claim that he was diagnosing and treating Ménière‘s disease. Also the acupuncture model at the start has not been adjusted so that it no longer claims ‘point BL-60 can be used to treat headaches‘.
*I’m not saying that it should all be a total bloodbath (which is what many ‘skeptics’ might want) but it should reflect what the research has shown – more obviously and comprehensively. It should explore negative sides to these traditions (and more recent inventions) – for example, as my friend pointed out, the devastating impact of TCM on wildlife, making many species endangered and even extinct. Also, ideally (and for me most importantly), tieing in the placebo effect with modern medicine and how the discovery and development of the randomised controlled clinical trial has revolutionised healthcare.
The main thing that drives otherwise rational and caring people to submit themselves and others to quackery when they are vulnerable is ignorance – not of the wilful kind, but most people just don’t know how medicine works. Juxtaposition of alternativeineffective treatment modalities with confirmed effective medicine is the perfect teaching tool.
I’m not trying to be patronising. I am frequently upset by hearing of parents dragging terminally ill children around the globe chasing false hopes and subjecting them to invasive, pointless treatments that often cost them their life savings and cause the child a lot of pain when they could be doing fun things and enjoying what life they have with their loved ones.
What’s a shame is that available expertise hasn’t been utilised. I find this puzzling:
The suggestion that we consult Edzard Ernst is of course a valuable one. However there seems to be little disagreement about the facts (beyond the discussion in which we turn to NICE as an authority). Instead the issue which has been very helpfully brought out in these debates is whether the exhibit can be misconstrued.
I would say that consulting an expert in alternative medicine in constructing an exhibit about alternative medicine would be useful in tackling clarity and factual issues alike.
If anything can be done to make the general public more aware of what they can and can’t trust, medicine-wise, I’m for it. I think this gallery could play a part in that – but at the moment it isn’t. To be noted is that they are planning a ‘radical overhaul’ of medicine in the museum generally so more input from funders and visitors would no doubt be useful.
—
To finish, there’s this hilarious comment in the TCM section:
You don’t have to be ill to need treatment
Well that just sums up alt med perfectly, doesn’t it!! (Also, lifestyle is important in medicine and wellbeing full-stop. Any doctor worth his salt will tell you that, and we hear it all the time; medicine IS holistic. Why do people think otherwise?!)
Sorry for the unimaginative title, but I get the feeling number 2 won’t be the last and at least this makes it easily searchable.
In this post, I want to talk about people’s online behaviour regarding this issue, think about it a bit and hopefully get others to do the same. It’s not a sciencey one (lots of links at the end for that, though), but I hope people will read it nonetheless.
I would say that the general acceptance of alternative medicine by the general public (and indeed the NHS, having walked past the ‘Hospital for Integrated Medicine’, formerly the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, again the other day) creates a dangerous accepting background for these kinds of situations and media coverage of them (the BBC as well), and is a huge contributing factor in people’s choices. So that’s where raising awareness of the dangers and lack of evidence behind alt med as a whole comes in.
With the recent publication of an ‘apology’ from the Observer – actually it’s not an apology, it’s a hamfisted justification for their worryingly positive portrayal of the Burzynski clinic in the previous article that drew all the attention in the first place – it is unfortunately time to step back and really think about what’s going on here. Andy wrote an excellent post in reply the same day over at Quackometer and Josephine Jones is collating responses here.
Today Keir Liddle has also written a good post at the 21st floor starting to address the question of how the anti-Burzynski crowd (let’s call it that, to avoid ambiguity and meaningless labels) is coming across. In addition, upon hearing about people tweeting directly at patients enrolled at the clinic, Hayley Stevens posted her thoughts.
The issue
I am very concerned about this. A very small number of people are thinking it sensible/acceptable/useful to send tweets to people, one account in particular which I won’t link to here, who are paying for Burzynski to treat them. Let’s call them patients.
Let us set the scene.
These people are very ill. They have cancer; most of us have experienced family members and/or friends dealing with various types of cancer (it’s important to remember it’s not just one thing, just as virus isn’t – measles is a specific disease, as is pancreatic cancer, but cancer alone is an umbrella term) and do try to bear in mind how big an emotional toll that takes.
Generally if they have made the decision to spend their life savings and more on a last-ditch attempt to find a cure, you can be sure they have been giving a certain amount of time to live. They know they are dying and, while we all are, when your mortality is thrown in your face by something like a diagnosis of terminal cancer, your perspective is likely to change.
Also, having made said decision to spend thousands on a certain strategy attempting to prolong your life, some strangers shouting at you is unlikely (to say the very least) to change your mind.
The effects
Next, let’s think about what Twitter is. For those of us that use it, this really shouldn’t be difficult to get our heads around, however I’m finding that it actually can be.
Twitter is a bit like your text inbox, or ceefax if you really aren’t an internet person (though in that case you’re unlikely to end up here… anyway). It’s a stream of events coming to you from out in the ether, you read it when you feel like it, unless you have alerts set up as well (like a text notification noise and/or vibration), in which case you’re more aware of each time you get a message through.
Imagine you are one of these patients and your twitter feed starts lighting up with messages from concerned skeptics. They’re telling you that the man you’re giving all your money to is a fraud, a liar and a quack. They’re telling you you’ve been conned, duped, you’re wasting your money and your time.
Now, one reasonably polite message from you, you think, surely won’t come across badly?
I’m just concerned. Surely it’s better they know the truth?
Normally, yes, I prefer the truth over a dangerous lie any day. But again, these are very vulnerable people who have already made a commitment. What possible benefit do you think your attempt to enlighten them will bring?
Imagine your twitter feed/inbox filling up with messages from people you don’t even know, have never met and will never meet, telling you these things – insinuating that you’ve made a horrible decision so close to the end of your life (for yourself or family members). One message from you, one message from someone else… how many hundreds of people are following? If they all decide to raise their concerns, do you think this is positive?
Think about it
Here’s my problem.
I do believe the vast majority of skeptical types and everyone who is following and contributing to this story are good people, people who are concerned for their fellow human beings, who don’t like to see an unscrupulous, ethically blind man take advantage of the sick and dying. I like to think most people I engage with in any case are that kind of person.
But if you think it’s ok to force your voice into the world of the people mentioned above, in this context, then I am concerned. I am concerned that you are being selfish.
Why? Because, as I said, telling people whose minds are made up about all this evidence for Burzynski being a conman is going to make no difference to them, except make them feel horrible, and they don’t need any more of that.
Aren’t you just going directly to them because you want to absolve yourself? You have information, important information, that you feel everyone should know about. Informed decisions are the best kind. People are ill, you don’t want them to do the wrong thing – that’s understandable. But it’s too late. As much as you want them to listen to you and change their minds, that won’t happen, so don’t approach them in the first place, please.
Harsh truth
You want people to accept an awful reality, but I’m afraid you must do the same. We cannot help everyone. The patients are not the target here – nor are the generous fundraisers who have already made commitments to give their time and money (even if we feel it is misdirected, again, you cannot ask people to go back on their well-meaning promises) – because no amount of data and facts will convince them that what they’ve committed to isn’t right. They have access to all of the things coming to light, which they can read if they wish. Directing your otherwise well-intentioned concerns at them will not help.
We have to accept that however much we would like everyone to suddenly see the light and embrace the truths that have been unearthed, that’s not going to happen.
This information must be shared so that fewer people in future, when faced with such a terrible situation, will go down this path. What we don’t need is people coming across as insensitive and rude with no concern for people’s situations – because then things like that nasty Observer editorial will happen, and as a minor point – the reputation of the ‘skeptical community’, whatever that is, is tarnished. That can really have a negative impact on whatever good we can glean from these kinds of occurrences now and in the future.
It’s similar to politics; it’s the fence-sitters and undecideds, not the safe seats, on which attention needs to be focussed, if you actually want to make a difference.
Philosophies and ethics
Today a friend shared this excellent article about how doctors tend to deal with death. They don’t fight for every last second they can muster, they realise what can and can’t be done, what’s inevitable and what’s important. Quality of life over quantity, in the case of many terminal illnesses.
A friend of mine who is a doctor recently told me of a patient who had had very serious strokes and was not going to recover. She had got to know her and the family well, and they were arranging for her to go home to spend her last few days with her loved ones. However, a senior doctor who was rarely on the ward decided to come in and instead override that decision, recommending her instead for rehabilitation – keeping her in the hospital, trying to get her to restart, essentially. She died in hospital, without her family, and my friend was, understandably, incredibly angry. There are serious questions about prolonging life, which are beyond the scope of this post, however.
A major finding that Sense About Science has is that people who spend their last months chasing hopes around the globe, spending their money and time exhausting themselves – when it’s all over and done with, loved ones will wish they had just spent time together, enjoying what life they had left.
That is the real crime; that people like Burzynski and all the other quacks we will continue to attempt to expose are exploiting people’s desire for life to continue, and in doing so, they rob them of it.
I haven’t written about it before, but when a good friend of mine died of an incurable form of brain cancer, in addition to the loss, pain and anger, I was also relieved. Relieved that her family was so strong and dealt with it so well – she spent her last time in a hospice, with wonderful care (the amount of respect I have for end-of-life carers cannot be expressed in words), with family around. We, her old friends, were also allowed to visit her, for which I am very grateful.
Unfortunately, children cannot generally make sense of such a situation and cannot make their own decisions; their parents will make them instead. The act of dragging a child across oceans for invasive medical procedures that cause them pain and impede their ability to enjoy the life they have is seriously questionable in ethical terms. Again a bigger issue, but something else that should be considered if you are thinking about engaging families of patients directly.
Do you want to accuse people of causing their children pain? Again, the hope is to prevent people from taking such decisions in future, but addressing those who cannot be swayed is simply pointless and brings no benefits.
Don’t be a Dick
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again.
I think the number of people who would send such messages because they are just dickish, want to spread their correct opinion around and care not for the feelings of others is very small.
The rest of the people, I expect, are well-meaning but are directing their concerns the wrong way. Your anxiety for their situation is not the point, your desperation to tell everyone you find who is doing something you consider stupid or wrong – in this case, you must keep it to yourself.
There are factors that make this particular case distinct from, say, homeopaths trying to treat illnesses for which effective medical treatments are available. It’s different from people who want to take their baby to the chiropractor. If you can’t see why, read slower, think more – leave a comment? I’m finding that some people get it, some don’t. If you don’t, at least refrain from saying things before you’ve asked a few people.
This is important – for this case and how it could turn out, for the people involved (also, who must remain anonymous wherever possible, for the above reasons), for the skeptics.
Links
Here are a few links, stuff that’s been happening in the #Burzynski tag, for those who aren’t following.
Science-Based Medicine addresses the fact that Burzynski is often using cocktails of chemotherapeutic drugs on his patients. Drug combinations that are not approved for the types of cancer in question. Drugs that some patients are unaware they’re signing up for. Drugs people are specifically hoping to avoid in many cases. Sadly this is common with a lot of alt med; especially TCM. Actual drugs are often included, at unknown levels and from unverifiable sources, making the treatment even more dangerous than if it were just harmless.
An important analysis of what’s really going on with Burzynski’s claims of approved treatments, publications and specific types of cancer patients they recruit, from the Ministry of Truth.
The clinic issued a Press Release suggesting their ‘representative’ Mr Stephens had been fired*, but we bloggers would still be pursued for libel. *Though he is still listed on the Patient Group website as the “Marketing & Sponsorship” contact (noted by @writerjames ).
Some hard reading showed the list of publications in said press release to be, bluntly, crap.
Martin Robbins has also been in touch with the clinic about Stephens and received a response.
The clinic on Facebook – where the wall was shut down and many people came out with ‘this isn’t a place for negative comments’ type comments. Worrying.
The cancer act is rarely enforced – but it is illegal to claim you can cure cancer when in fact you cannot. @jon_S captures such a claim.
Some of the costs of a course of treatment at the clinic are described here by some people who went there.
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.
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.
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!).
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.
In case you missed it, I luckily made it to Westminster Skeptics to see Juliet Jacques give her talk,
Thinking critically about transgender issues
and you can listen to it on the Pod Delusion but I shall write up my notes for those who prefer to read!
Firstly Belinda Brooks-Gordon introduced the talk by saying that trans rights have not really moved forward along with women’s rights. To try to highlight this and educate people, Juliet has a Guardian blog where she posts regularly about trans issues.
Now we can hear what Juliet has to say – it’s a lot of stuff, hugely informative, and it was a great talk!
I’ve put in a few thoughts of my own with [Comment: ...] along the way.
—
“Transgender” is almost deliberately a loose term. There is no commitment to a transsexual (TS)/transvestite (TV) distinction; the two not being the same thing, in case you’ve never thought about it before.
It turned up in late 1960s United States literature and became popular in the 1990s as an umbrella term for gender non-conformity and gender-variant identities.
Terms such as male/female (referring to bodies) were challenged by transgender communities.
A Whistle-Stop Tour of Trans History
Gay/lesbian histories and identities are far better explored (also bisexual but to a lesser extent) and it is much easier to define these terms.
In the Victorian era, modern industrial cities like London were giving people the chance to cut themselves off from their families and old friends, to reinvent themselves and be isolated from their past.
Thus, LGBT identities became possible.
However, men who dressed as women in public were arrested and sent to court. The Met, from 1829 onwards, accused the offenders of being ‘sodomites’; Victorian authorities associated cross-dressing or, officially, ‘men in female attire’, with homosexuality.
[Comment: at this point I'm reminded of one of my favourite comedians. Now, it might piss some people off that I bring it up, but having had close family dismiss him for his transvestism when I was quite a lot younger, since then I've felt uncomfortable when people poke fun.]
Men would often try to have the charges dropped using a defence of humour; “it was just a lark”. They dismissed their actions in this way to avoid prison.
In 1870 two men were often seen out and about as women. The mainstream press showed photos of them and they were well-known in London theatre. One was also associated with the aristocracy. They were charged with committing an “unnatural offence” and were subjected to examinations trying to prove they had engaged in anal sex. This (unsurprisingly?) failed and new charges were brought:
“Conspiring to incite others to commit an unnatural offence”
There was no frame of reference. Law and the media were reacting to events, creating legislation. The prosecution tried to prove cross-dressing was innate in order to suggest that sodomy had occurred.
There was the basic assumption that these people were deliberately trying to deceive men into having sex with them, by pretending to be women.
Obviously everyone’s lives revolve around heterosexual male perceptions!!
Women were also not accorded sexual agency; feminine sexuality was also suppressed.
[Comment: it was in the Victorian era that genital mutilation really took hold culturally; sex was something to be ashamed of and dampened, for both men and women. Circumcision was touted as a cure for boys' masturbation 'problems' and female circumcision became popular to suppress female sexual desires and 'hysteria']
A new defence was then brought: that they’re actors! Actors continuing their roles outside of the workplace. Male-female cross-dressing was a long tradition particularly in English theatre so there was an assumption of performance associated with it, and that London was a City of vice.
The judge did not like the police; he felt they had violated the men’s human rights with their invasive ‘questioning’. Public support increased due to this mistreatment.
In 1885 an amendment to criminal law was made: 2 years in prison for male-on-male sexual acts (which ensnared Oscar Wilde and he was sent down under this law).
Germany’s Paragraph 175 outlawed homosexual behaviour. After this, sexology developed, in order to classify and understand human sexual behaviours.
The medicalisation and pathologising of ‘conditions’ such as homosexuality and transgender/gender-queer identities then began.
Medicine and Media
In 1909-1910 Havelock Ellis published a book called The Erotic Drive to Cross-Dress.
Language is always evolving but there was little to describe transgender behaviour. Transvestite was coined as a broad term then, but is obviously more specific now; referring only to the act of wearing clothes traditionally thought of as being suitable for the opposite sex.
During World War I, Edwardian British and German sexologists were less active. There was still no separation of maleness vs. masculinity or femaleness vs. femininity.
In 1928 The Well of Loneliness was published, one of the first accounts from female perspectives.
The Institute of Sexual Science was founded in 1919 and pioneered sex reassignment surgery. A Danish painter, Lili Elbe, died after attempted ovary and uterus transplantations (Niels Hoyer wrote an account of her life, Man Into Woman). In 1933, the National Socialist Party closed the Institute down and people photographed the book burnings that took place.
These events caused the study and understanding of gender issues to be significantly held back.
Gender verification in sport also became an issue, resulting from people’s suspicions and prejudices, particularly those of Avery Brundage. Examinations to determine (mainly female) competitors’ sex were introduced with the intention of identifying people with an ‘unfair advantage’ – i.e. those born physically male but living as women.
In 1945 the first female-male sex reassignment surgery was performed on Laurence Michael Dillon who later wrote his own book, partly inspired by The Well of Loneliness.
Male-to-female transitions drew attention. A TV/TS schism formed, and also between TS and Gay/lesbian – the latter emphatically not desiring of surgery.
Then the first male-female transsexual was a friend of Dillon, in the early 50s; Roberta Cowell, an ex-pilot and racing driver. Her transition was serialised by the then equivalent of OK/Hello! magazine.
The front page of the New York Times featured Christine Jorgensen, a former US army conscript, in 1952. Her doctor, the sexologist Harry Benjamin, emigrated to the States during WWI. He worked on medicine for TG people, and with those who believed in pathologisation of the ‘condition’. He was closely involved in the development of phychological assessment and requirements for patients to follow ‘paths‘ to get the treatments they wanted.
The medical establishment was in control; unreasonable demands of femininity were made of M-F trans people (F-M were somewhat invisible – people assumed that women did this for practical reasons, to assume more powerful and respected roles in society); antiquated ideas of femininity were forced on people.
In ’66 Benjamin’s book The Transsexual Phenomenon was published, which detailed types of TS e.g. ‘Type 4′ – those with no desire to undergo surgery. These were all ideas articulated by non-trans people.
TS people became aware of the book. People understood the boxes to tick to get what you want - answering the questions posed ‘correctly’!
In 1960, April Ashley had surgery in Morocco. She had been married to Lord Corbett. He took her to court for divorce and the ruling was that she should still be considered male, so the marriage was void and there was to be no settlement. This set a legal precedent in the UK – that TS people’s sex is defined by what is printed on their birth certificate.
In the 60s, transitions and who could afford them were strictly controlled. ‘Sects’ emerged, for example in San Francisco. Sex workers funded their surgery. Police often harassed and blackmailed them in Compton’s Cafeteria, eventually causing them to fight back and a documentary film was made covering it. Later the New York Stonewall Inn bar, rented by the LGBT community, was scene to more famous riots, where Sylvia Rivera stood up to police oppression. This led to the modern movement of Stonewall as the gay liberation front (gay in this context being queer & non-conforming identities).
People became more vocal about trans not being equal to gay and vice versa. Many were trying to integrate with ‘respectable’ hetero society. It became a cliché in the press; “I was born into the wrong body” – people started to think it was a new idea.
—
Lesbian and feminist groups became prominent in the 1970s. These were women-only spaces; M-F transitionists, did they fit in at all? Sport was also a bi-gender separated space. Trans decisions (and often requirements) to conform to patriarchal ideas of femininity annoyed some feminists.
She managed to suggest that TS women were worse than rapists, that the appropriation of female bodies “becomes a total rape” (!). [Comment: hovering dangerously close to a no true Scotsman, I feel that 'feminists' being so obviously prejudiced against gender non-conformity would run against the very core of feminism itself, but maybe that's just my view of it.]
She claimed [comment: epic invocation of Godwin's law here] that TS technology was perfected in concentration camps, but there is no evidence for this. She interviewed 12 TS women (TS men didn’t fit; they were mainly dismissed as butch lesbians). This was prominent in the media.
Carol Riddell addressed Raymond’s comments in 1980. Sandy Stone also responded with The empire strikes back: a post-transsexual manifesto.
—
The Victorian persecution of cross-dressers made trans people invisible. Clinicians were free to frame the experience in a light designed by them alone, to propagate stereotypes, create legislation and silence trans people.
The mainstream media/trans schism developed as trans people were not used in film, TV etc. – the experiences presented were not framed by trans people themselves.
Authors stepped forward to promote the anti-transphobia cause, including: Jan Morris (Conundrum: An Extraordinary Narrative of Transsexualism, 1987); Kate Bornstein (Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women And The Rest Of Us, 1994); Leslie Feinberg (Transgender Liberation: A Movement Whose Time Has Come, 1992); and Viviane Namastie (Invisible Lives: The Erasure of Transsexual and Transgendered People, 2001).
Trans identities have some constitution now. The meanings of words for ‘Gender-queer’ individuals (TS, TV, TG etc.) are still evolving. We are experimenting with the language. The challenge is tackling transphobia and in a sense this is following on from the gay liberation movement. Homophobic violence is still often based on gender expression and identity.
Fear of unknown and unusual drives people’s prejudices. This is often reinforced in the media, a prominent example being Psycho; in which Norman Bates fits the ‘all crossdressers are crazy!’ stereotype. [Comment: I'm reminded again of Mr. Izzard's distinction between TV people in general and the "fuckin' weirdo transvestite!"]
Work is ongoing to close the gap between the mainstream media, trans people and how articles are produced. Also questioning the usefulness of bracketing TG with mental illness; at the moment it is still in the DSM of mental disorders. Perhaps we can overturn the idea that TS is a mental health issue. TS people do have a fear of ‘coming out’ so to do so may help.
In tackling transphobia there is a need for good language use and critical thinking on these issues.
Questions
Q. The ‘Real life experience’ requirement – no scientific basis to it; just tradition?? Good reasons for it potentially being harmful. Barrier and ritual humiliation. People coming to harm via the ‘Hormonal black market’ – e.g. oestrogen without prescription.
A. Especially in Britain. The Trans pathway is structured by the NHS’ fear of being sued; transition and regret. Public money and anxiety over its use! People often suggest decommissioning of gender reassignment to save money (approx 70% comments on Guardian!).
Need for some gatekeeping. If there’s no test; it’s an irreversible surgery. Russell Reed: hormones as diagnostic tool (effects are reversible) – one can stop and revert.
Bit of an endurance test. Street hassle, everyday things become an ordeal. Some programmes do away with the psychiatry element. Difficult – more flexibility? Equality? They were allowed x time… cut-off points?
Increased acceptance – more people – pressure from the right to not spend money?
—
Q. Language. LGBT(Q) bit awkward? Internal disagreements – your view?
A. Ever-expanding acronyms. LGBTQQI (lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, questioning, intersex) – a way around?
Umbrella term. But PC & this are kind of concurrent. Press fatigue with ‘PC’. Introduction of new words isn’t really tolerated now cf. 70s/80s.
“PC” is now pejorative. Causes some friction? Sexuality =/= gender identity. The state didn’t separate these.
How do to this but keep an ‘alliance’? Tend to occupy the ‘same spaces’. Contesting rights (Belinda BG). Trans & bi rights trampled! Medicine/sci/law intersection and research is behind –> guesswork policies.
—
Q. Liz D. Popular culture e.g. Coronation St. (did it badly?) M-F trans people e.g. in Little Britain – offensive?
A. C St. Hayley. History of trans people not given a direct voice/part. Spurred dialogue and was sympathetic to the issue.
Dana international won eurovision; informing people that TG different from L/G etc. “City of Lost Souls” TS singer in lead roll. Autobiography “Man Enough to be a Woman”. Warhol, punk etc.
Tara O’Hara character. Argument on need for surgery and ‘womanhood’.
Little Britain: trans women as comedy. Trans men ignored; men who want to be female/feminine are funny whereas if women want to be men it’s practical. Merton & co. should be more careful with jokes.
You don’t always know how your creation will be perceived eg.. Al Murray pub landlord! Taking the piss out of people but then they adopt it; uncritical identification and missing the point.
Stereotypes often have a basis. Not being critical of them, historical context needed. The LB catchphrase “I’m a lady!“ is now shouted at people; people aren’t aware of transphobia.
—
Q. Pronouns. He/she/it ?? Queer has pejorative connotations (depends on who it’s from) – are you happy with the bifurcation?
A. Personally, yes. Have there been attempts to create new terms for people who don’t fit M/F and or don’t want – outside the binary; se/hir.
If you’re not sure, ask! Give the right of ID to the person rather than imposing your definition, but if you can’t…
e.g. Sonia/David Burgess and tube incident. Press coverage was awful.
—
Transmedia watch. Work with media creators; gap in education. Social innovation camp; trans techies, media, journos/broadcasters – contact us @transmediaact @transmediawatch
—
Q. A utopia where law does not interfere with people and their gender? Legal M-F/F-M transitions.
A. There was; they just existed. Legislation and pathologisation led to project to re-normalise.
—
Q. Change of language ?? To reflect diversity of trans group?
A. Complicated! TG is useful for many. Weird stereotypes around TV e.g. otherwise successful men putting wife’s undies on at home.
Trans cf. privacy issues. Often that history is irrelevant and incidental.
—
Q. Is the goal to erase negative or balance negative with positive?
A. Balance. People will share strong negative opinions inevitably.
—
Q. 1. is use of ‘proper’ pronouns a barometer for accpetance? 2. Maybe human minds are wired to categorise things. 3. Sexuality =/= gender… do you think it might be useful to dissociate completely from LG(B)?
A. 3. Trans people have sexuality; B or G or L… L&G esp have fixed gender associations and so are inadequate to deal with trans. Hence, LGBTQ(I) more relevant.
BBG: Stonewall etc. have resources and can often help.
1. Principle: right to self-determination. Choose your own pronouns (cf. ms?) Changing beauty standards related.
—
Q. Scientific studies e.g. on brains etc. If there is a ‘trans test’, is it good or potentially harmful?
A. It would change dealing with transsexuality.
—
Q. Ignorance. People are unaware of the issues; do trans people need to ‘get real’ and understand that people generally have no knowledge of these things?
A. Panic about making mistakes can increase their frequency; allay people’s fears – better for all – some trans responsibility here.
—
LGBTQQ… we’re all beaten up by the same people!
—
A call was made for a Corrie/LB blogpost.
Also: David Walliams played ‘Vulva’ in Spaced; when wearing some make-up after filming and walking through a park – he was verbally abused and stones thrown – he wrote about it and was apparently amused by this?!
—
Also listen to the Pod Delusion report by Liz in Episode 107! Transgender and the Media (41:00) ft. Nathalie McDermott
