Critical Furniture

This is a ranty one [edit: that turns a bit mushy].

Before I start, a bit of a disclaimer. This is not a reaction to any one discussion, comment/post or person in particular. It is the culmination of many that have happened over an extended period of time. So don’t be offended if you feel like I’m talking directly at you – it’s not the case! (Basically, get over yerself, I talk to loads of people, innit).

So, what’s getting my goat today?

Again a little disclaimer. Criticism is often a good thing, I’ve written about this before; it’s central to medical science for starters. I don’t mind being criticised – sometimes we need things pointed out to us that we don’t want to hear or admit, haven’t realised and so on.

However, the caveat is that it should really be constructive. I’m happy for someone to point out how I’m doing something wrong, particularly if that leads to a way to improve it; either coming from them, or logical steps from taking said criticism on board.

If you just go around pointing out people’s flaws, mistakes and anything you don’t quite agree with for no reason other than being generally disagreeable, that’s just anti-social and mean-spirited.

Soapboxes

There seem to be more and more attitudes developing that there’s a competition going on. The aim of which is to be the ‘best’ kind of skeptic.

The ‘most skeptical’? The most active of the activists? Most lovable and huggable or most aloof and untouchable? I don’t know. As far as I’m concerned, no such contest exists.

Partly because it is (obviously) ridiculous, also because, again as I’ve said before, there is no coherent skeptical movement; it’s just something people have chosen to identify as (or not!) because they utilise some common philosophies. And quite probably enjoy going to the pub.

What exactly is the use of standing up, pointing the finger, telling someone they’re not doing things right (whatever that means) while not offering ideas of how to do it better or at least backing up such an assertion with some decent reasons for your assessment?

Not doing so seems all too reminiscent of reading some right-wing publication, loudly pon

tificating about the sorry state of the country then not even bothering to drag yourself to a polling station.

Each to their own

Going back to the no-coherent-movement.

There is no skeptical application form, no church (despite some deliberations around echo-chamber/back-patting events, there isn’t), no rulebook or set of requirements. It’s the old herding cats thing, if you like.

Some people like the spotlight; these are the TV/radio presenters, ‘media tarts’ (affectionate rather than derogatory; post to come on that, eventually!) and so on. Others don’t, but want to get their message out – the spotlight-lovers can help with that e.g. in podcasts and talks.

For some, the most important thing about being a skeptic is the activism side. These include the people in positions of relative power (the famous names, journalists, authors, lawyers and politicians) and all the grass-roots activists doing their bit, whatever that may be – writing letters, blogging, spreading the word to whatever extent they wish or indeed have the time to do so.

This is not one’s cup of tea

For some there’s just being skeptical by nature and not necessarily feeling the need to do anything more than that. Talking to people with similar views is often reassuring, pleasant and enjoyable. I count so many wonderful ‘skeptics’  among my friends now, I could take or leave everything else, to be honest. The friendships are reason enough to attend events, the bonus being the odd brilliant/extremely interesting talk you just weren’t expecting.

There’s nothing wrong with this, in my view. Maybe you don’t want to go to the pub, maybe you don’t want to spend what little free time you have writing letters – perhaps you’re a bit cynical yet more on the hopeful-skeptical side. Not everyone has to be an activist. It’s not a requirement, you’re not going to be turned away from anything if that’s your position.

However, I do not get the criticism aimed at things like SitP because some people choose not to go – it seems very misdirected to me. Some people don’t fancy it; I don’t think it’s not welcoming – I went by myself the first time (thanks to one David Allen Green!) and have since come to love it. Others won’t find it so appealing. Is that the fault of SitP, or is that just because not everyone likes the same stuff?

Getting offended on behalf of others when you’ve no evidence those people even exist is hardly useful, methinks. If they do exist, I expect people will listen to what they have to say and if it’s valid criticism, it should be taken onboard somehow.

SitP is well-attended and well-liked, nationally and indeed internationally! If it’s something different you want, you are free to go and do it – SitP was built from the ground-up by people who cared enough to bother and so can any other phenomenon be; whether it’s Skeptic Mums in the Café, Skeptic Minorities in the Park, We Don’t Like the Term ‘Skeptics’, or whatever. SitP doesn’t turn people away (except for that very drunk top-hatted man in Camden with the foul language, not knowing where he was the other week…) but probably not everyone wants to go.

Dare I labour the already dubious metaphor, we don’t all decorate our houses the exact same way. I wouldn’t see the existence of various groups as rivalry or splintering, but simply the result of a range of tastes.

Armchairs

I understand disliking echo-chambers; on the opposite side of enjoying the company of those with similar views, there’s preferring to be challenged, to argue, to change minds. Perhaps lacking a need for reassurance and general agreement. That’s fine too, but there’s no need to rip into those who feel differently. Why assume that people who like to have an agreeable evening do so all the time? Unfair judgement is passed too often.

There’s one kind of armchair-sitter I do not like. Criticising things you have no or little personal experience of, intention of attending or improving/contributing to in any way – another anti-social manifestation. Or to use that immortal playground line, don’t knock it ’til you’ve tried it.

Perhaps this is partly a consequence of a community that contains a lot of ‘nerds’; the old somewhat socially-inept, crowd-hating stereotype occasionally rings true and an even smaller fraction manage to combine it with some actual malice. This is unfortunate but probably can’t be helped; if you don’t have a problem with your own attitude you’re not going to bother to change it, whatever anyone says.

There’s always one – in a big enough crowd, there are a few. Their actions and views are by no means representative of the whole; a ‘dicky’ comment on an article shouldn’t draw the conclusion that all the peers of said commenter are equally dicky. As one sensible person pointed out; just call them on it and move on – showing they are indeed the minority is the best you can do.

Pot, Kettle?

Back to the anti-social and holier-than-thou stuff; how is it any less abrasive to constantly pick on large numbers of people (who, as I said, don’t even necessarily formally subscribe to a discreet group) because one or two aren’t behaving ideally? Surely if you walk into a room with your guns blazing, being met with counter-strike should be expected.

There are ways of voicing concerns that don’t elicit such a backlash – people only tend to get defensive when given a reason to do so, so perhaps if when facing such counter-attack, stopping and asking why that is would be sensible, as is being careful to avoid hypocrisy.

Talk of sensitivity doesn’t sit well with me. I find it reminiscent of the old sexist joke-maker, “oh you’re just being over-sensitive”, following something that is demonstrably offensive eliciting an easily-justifiable response.

Yes, people need to be aware of their actions. I’m very much one for being as nice to everyone as you possibly can, unless given good reason to do otherwise. This isn’t everyone’s philosophy, though, and sometimes being nice doesn’t get results.

from Ralf Neugebauer

I wasn’t at TAM (though may I take the opportunity to thank everyone I had a nice chat/drink/dance with during the after-TAM evenings; I had some horrific news on the Friday that I might go into more detail about later – immersing myself in skeptical loveliness kept me going, so cheers for that) but I believe PZ gave a talk along that vein.

There are so many parts to play, many different personalities, philosophies, attitudes and purposes. It is naive to assume that yours are the most valuable or right and that means you’re justified to put everything else down, or that your disagreeing with something means it has no merit at all.

Dare I say that applies to life in general, not just to the mish-mash of entities that is skepticism.

The Big Picture

Possibly the thing that I find most saddening is losing sight of the point. I think most people agree that the enemy (if we temporarily agree on such a concept) is not fellow skeptics, even if they’re being a bit dicky, but the people out there creating victims.

Your Raths and Wakefields, the quacks, charlatans, snake-oil salesmen and swindlers.

The people whose actions result in illness, physical and psychological damage, suffering and death. Or just people wasting their hard-earned pennies.

The average self-confessed skeptic; however bad a day they’re having, however offended another skeptic might be by what they just said, however smug you think they are – they don’t have those crimes on their conscience.

Variety…

… It’s the spice of life! Yeah, I’m wheeling out the big clichés now.

Too long; didn't read

You might not like that article or that bit of a talk, the tone of voice they said that in, that programme, their hair-do (!), but if we were all the same, it’d be pretty damn boring. Yes, it’s nice to find a niche (as I said above), but it’s also nice to have differing opinions, agree to disagree, have a bit of an argument then a pint and a hug and hey presto, still mates regardless (don’t assume that if I disagree with you about something, I’ll stop being your friend! Pretty much never the case).

I’m done with analysing the inner workings of the skeptics (perhaps an optimistic proclamation, but this is probably long enough to bore people before the end) – I attend what I can and what I want, I see my friends, for whom I am so immensely grateful, I appreciate people’s different approaches and I’ll call someone out if I think they’re being unfair or indeed wrong. They might not pay attention.

I do expect people to do the same for me. Sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes we get it a bit wrong. But it’s OK, in the grand scheme of things.

Be Who You Are and Say What You Feel Because
Those Who Mind Don’t Matter
and Those Who Matter Don’t Mind.
– Dr. Seuss.

————

Read more on this kind of thing from Carmen, Crispian and gimpy (both on SitP and TAM).

Edit: also Alom Shaha goes on the attack in his Guardian blog, Frank Swain presents a minimally-revised version of his Westskep talk (that I wrote up here) at Winchester SitP, and Kash defends SitP for his own reasons.

—

Yes, I ended up trying to squeeze in as many clichés and sayings as I could, don’t hold it against me

No points for getting what else I was shoehorning in excessively.

The lady doth protest too much

from @Danatkinson

Hey, the Pope has landed!

I am off around central London on Saturday with a merry band of people – catholic, protestant, atheist, agnostic, humanist, probably muslim, hindu, sikh and just about everything besides – to Protest the Pope. There are many, many reasons to do so…

I’ve had people, frankly, have a go at me about it but I’d have thought it’s obvious why I feel the need to join in. I can understand if people just aren’t that bothered and don’t want to show up but surprised if it’s not clear why people are angry at the man and the fact that the UK is paying for his visit.

Shout, shout, let it all out

On the PtP site is a ‘Rap Sheet‘ for the Pope that concisely summarises the main disagreements with his policies and views but also goes into them in a bit more detail, with supporting quotations.

These can be crudely summarised as child rape, homophobia, misogyny, racism, and the spreading of HIV.

There is a lot of abuse of women in the church, which tends to get less publicity than the young victims. 14 of 22 convicted child abusers remain in the chuch even now. The Murphy Report exposed some of the abuse in the Irish catholic church. Bill Carney’s case is notable, his words here are quite chilling – also see the Newsnight footage.

The Pope does not stand up for the human rights of women, homosexuals or children, opposing abortion in all cases, and contraception even within marriage. So, no one should have a physical relationship with their lover should they be of the same sex or if one of them is known to be HIV-positive; the church spreads misinformation about STDs and barrier contraception, contributing to the spread of HIV and deaths due to AIDS. Women should carry any child to term, whatever her situation, since the potential lives of embryos and foetuses are apparently more important than hers – yet the church has not condemned capital punishment so the ‘all life is sacred’ thing doesn’t seem to apply universally. These are not the views of most sensible catholics, but are the will and word of the head of their church.

This article in the Independent is a plea to catholics to disassociate themselves from the Pope’s views, as they are also damaging to members of the religion. However, a quick look at #papalvisit on Twitter clearly shows that most people feel the need to stand up for him regardless of what comes out of his mouth.

This New Statesman piece is essential reading, detailing why the recognition of the Vatican City as a state, the Holy See, should not be ignored and the activity it has permitted. No other religion is afforded this ‘honour’, given this power. People underestimate the influence of the Catholic church in Europe because of it. We need separation of church and state, to allow both freedom of and from religion. This is important for religious and non-religious alike. It is vital for the upholding of human rights.

Hilariously, yesterday cardinal Kasper pulled out of the visit because we have ‘aggressive atheism’ and we’re apparently a ‘Third-world country‘ due to our ‘multiculturalism’. The hypocrisy here is fantastic – ‘we want to show our faith publically’ – yet people of all faiths and none should not be free to voice their concerns because they’re at odds with his ideas?

Let’s not forget Ratzinger’s lifting of Richard Williams‘ excommunication – a man who denies the gas chambers operated in WW2 and says only about 300,000 Jews were killed, no genocide involved, the attribution of ‘miracle‘ to the results of Jack Sullivan‘s fairly routine back operation or the suspect treatment of the soon-to-be-saint Cardinal Newman.

Why protest?

Well, why is the UK’s money being spent on an official visit for the head of a religion? When he opposes our ‘liberal laws’ and compares the problem of institutionalised child rape to the “grave crime” of allowing women to hold official positions in his organisation.

Protest against  his outdated, offensive views. Protest in support of all the victims, against spending money on an unelected preacher afforded too much power and recognition, against his words and actions.

Tim Minchin’s Pope Song perfectly demonstrates why people should find the pope offensive (moreso than the language in the song btw; not for work/headphones required!)

Also see the PodDelusion live at Skeptics in the Pub London for some BHA commentary (from 3:14).

Apathy

I’ve heard “well there are paedophiles everywhere, mostly within families”, for example. So what? The pope is the head of a powerful organisation, who can affect law and many, many lives. He commands a lot of respect, people listen to what he says. He has (and uses) the power to protect known paedophiles and did so because he considers the reputation and integrity of his institution more important than the human rights of children – as a result he has caused many thousands of lives to be affected.

The fact that other crimes exist does not absolve others. There is a greater rape culture in many African countries but that does not mean we should ignore our own. If you know of crimes, if you have the power to stop them, you should be using it – people need protecting and turning a blind eye helps no one.

I have not covered everything, I’m sure others have made more eloquent points. But I know I do not believe these kinds of views and actions should be sanctioned by our government, paid for with our money or allowed to pass without comment. Also, the protest itself is going to be fun, and I need some of that.

You know it makes sense.

Shocking bleachgate stuff from @fibularis

Edit:

Well, within a few hours of landing, the Pope has already practically Godwinned himself. See the transcript of his first speech.

we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many

Um, Pope is clearly unfamiliar with Hitler’s own reasons for his actions. For example, from Mein Kampf:

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.

Also we have, of course, the failure of Pius XII to condemn the Nazi regime at the time, as RD comments.

Moving on to more gems from the Pope’s attack on secularism:

As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny”

Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms

So apparently atheism and secularism breed intolerance. Former member of the Hitler Youth (sorry to keep bringing it up but it’s probably important in this context) says it was christianity that stood up against Nazism (implying while not plainly stating that atheism caused and tolerates it). The hypocrisy is beyond my words and I expect we’ll see some heavy backlash to this quite swiftly; for example the BHA has already made a statement.

Edit II: see the fantastic Konnolsky‘s commentary on these remarks and Stephen Fry’s response to the Daily Fail’s latest spewings.

Edit III: Brilliant! (I might stop this eventually) By CaptainMandate

I don’t know if hitler was a catholic, atheist, astrologist or wiccan (depends on your source) but I do know he was a german head of a totalitarian state endorsed by mussolini

glass houses

Libel Bullies

Original post from last week, March 13th, but relevant with this story coming to light today*.

http://www.libelreform.org/sign

To support the libel reform campaign, it is Libel Week, culminating in the Big Libel Gig on Sunday (which I am excited to be attending – blog post later!). The Free Word Centre (together with INDEX on Censorship and English Pen) hosted an event on the 11th March entitled

“What You Don’t Get To See: Libel’s Impact on Documentary Film”

Three excellent speakers detailed how the UK’s libel laws have impacted on their desire to bring important truths to the public’s attention, thus affecting them personally (financially and psychologically) and seriously restricting the availability of information on issues such as health, the environment, finance and politics.

Indeed it was surprising when Tracy Worcester told us that film from disc B had to be shown over disc A, because if disc A were shown, the owners of the building could be sued. Also, later on, one speaker asked another to turn off their recorder (running to capture the session for their absent spouse) so that they did not have to worry about a permanent record of their statements.

The overwhelming take-home message was (and remains) that our libel laws are upside-down, back-to-front, protecting those with the biggest wallets and quashing criticisms ranging from perfectly reasonable up to absolutely essential. Libel laws should be about upholding reputations reasonably when they are under attack undeservedly.

Examples cited included Peter Wilmshurst vs. NMT Medical and Francisco Lacerda, also in attendance, vs. lie detector manufacturers. Closer to home, my own lab supervisor was threatened with legal action by AstraZeneca when she had this paper accepted for publication in Nature Medicine; essentially showing that anti-cancer drugs (integrin inhibitors) could actually be promoting tumour growth at intervals during the treatment regime due to actual dosage fluctuation (pharmacologists know about this) and advised caution in their use. This kind of research should never be silenced as it is essential for the provision of the best patient care.

“These laws are not protecting reputations, just big companies with money”

- Tracey Brown, Sense About Science

Surely, the most important thing is (or should be) that the public can access the truth, NOT that big corporations retain the right to hide it? As the chair said, it’s about the risk.

“… not saying things you know are true because it’s not worth the time and cost”

- Afua Hirsh

In the UK, when presented with a libel suit, you need the time and money to defend it, resulting in a huge amount of stress. You must prove that your claim wasn’t in fact libellous and even if you win the case it will cost tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds (and that’s ignoring the personal non-monetary costs). On the other hand, in the US, the burden of proof is on the subject of the alleged libellous statement to show that it is reputation-damaging, rather than assuming the defendant is guilty to begin with – contrary to how our courts are supposed to work. Theirs is a more sensible system.

More Examples

Christopher Hird has made an episode of Dispatches entitled “Cameron’s Money Men” – an uncomfortable (but also amusing) look at the serious subject of political party funding. The BBC’s insurance company ended up having to shell out £1.5million costs for a case that awarded just £1,000 in damages. So, it’s easy to see how the diversity of films being made can be affected by these laws; it’s ok if you’ve got a broadcasting giant behind you that has the resources to go through with such cases, but this means that TV is one of the few viable distribution methods.

* The episode was also to contain an investigation of Lord Ashcroft but judging by today’s story re: Panorama, perhaps we will never get to see it?

Then there is the case of Duncan Campbell, a journalist and film-maker who has devoted over two decades to exposing the truth, at great cost to himself. He nearly went to prison for breaking state secrecy laws, but told us that dealing with companies and individuals was even worse than the state since their campaigns are full of malice; spiteful suits brought with the assumption that any attack is purely personal (surely no one actually cares about the public??).

Of the many conflicts he has seen, he recalls in particular that of one ‘doctor’ and business partner who worked at London Bridge Hospital claiming to cure cancer and AIDS with bizarre, dangerous methods. The gist is here in his Independent article and was covered by Watchdog in 1979. One and a half years of hard work finally saw them struck off (along with at least 3 other nasty characters) but only 6 years later did the judge get bored and throw out their court case – the BBC spent £1m and much of Duncan’s time, energy and peace of mind was lost.

“It’s a case of ‘attrition’ – the letters and threats wear you down over time”

- Duncan Campbell

That pretty much matches the definition of bullying;

It comprises repeated acts over time that involves a real or perceived imbalance of power with the more powerful individual or group abusing those who are less powerful

- wiki

Our legal system is letting rich people & organisations, who are in the wrong, bully their critics into silence.

In 1989 Duncan published an article entitled ‘New Age Pill-Pushers’ in the Sunday Correspondent, dealing with the quacks who like to sell vitamin pills to desperate, ignorant individuals with the promise of recovery from very serious illnesses. That paper is now out of business due to the ensuing legal action (no pun intended), but Duncan sued back! The case is still hovering, as he found the Master of the Rolls had closed the books (no idea if my legal terminology is right here) back in 1999 but when asking if he could circulate his article online, finally, he is told no because the case might then be re-opened.

As usual, the major attack from said woo merchants is ‘he/she works for that big drug company, they don’t want people taking natural remedies!’ – why are the public so ready to trust these mad individuals over scientists? Why is distrust in science so rife? Is it because individuals, even if they are money-grabbing liars (I find it strange that Big Pharma is such a target when it’s clear that ‘alternative therapists’ are just as much out for themselves, if not moreso), seem more trustworthy than faceless companies? It is surely also because of our woefully inadequate science education, something that Prof. Brian Cox and affiliates are currently trying to address for the coming election.

People must be allowed to criticise what does not work, what is harmful, what is an out-and-out lie. It is a relief that Ben Goldacre won his case against Matthias Rath, who claimed to be able to cure AIDS with vitamin pills; but the facts that a) it cost so much money and b) Rath was able to bring the case in the first place… it is truly worrying.

We need to change these laws. http://www.libelreform.org/sign

Some more good links:

Robin Ince on Daily Politics trying to explain that it’s not a laughing matter – this one’s well worth the watch (8 mins!)
Listen to the PodDelusion here at about 33mins in for a clever change-the-libel-laws song!
BMJ editorial on why libel laws need reforming
BBC News coverage of Glasgow Skeptics in the Pub!
Nature Blog on Academic Freedom and the libel laws
Padraig Reidy’s Libel Week summary

Thanks again to Robert Sharp for his photos.

Hey, I’m in this one! Mr Christopher Hird speaking.
I giggled at flickr’s choice of “embiggen”. Reminds me of Jebediah Obadiah Zachariah Jedediah Springfield…
[Edit: I have been reliably informed that the verb is now in common usage in the US, less so here, and did originate with the Simpsons!!)

As a final example of the ‘chill’ effect, if you want to know what was said in more specific detail, ask! I took a lot of notes but I’m not going to write it all up here; I’m not that worried as my readership is currently non-existent but I don’t want to join the ranks of bloggers-being-sued retrospectively, so I’ve kept this fairly vague.

Singh when you’re winning…

From 20 February 2010, 14:05

[Edit 21/02/2010: Jack of Kent's latest post on Simon Singh's libel case.]

Here is some info on Libel Reform, how I got into it, why it’s important etc. mostly recycled from old Facebook notes.

New links:
Please sign this petition (read on to find out why!) [edit: and this one!]
Dave Gorman’s blog on the subject.
New Scientist piece.

New Scientist particularly recounts Nick Cohen’s descriptions of ridiculous cases brought to the London courts that were won, despite simple common sense saying they should not even have got to the court in the first place (not that I’m a lawyer so I don’t know – legal flatmates, jump in! When the exams are over…)

Nick Cohen’s article; Chris Kavanagh’s review; a post by another science journalist…

Skeptics in the Pub is every 3rd Monday of the month in Holborn [and now in Westminster too] and there are a few groups:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36648188218
http://www.facebook.com/pages/London-United-Kingdom/London-Skeptics-in-the-Pub/13256221934?ref=ts

This was May 18th; got a message that Dave Gorman was speaking and I think he’s brilliant!! [Edit: he very, very kindly allowed me to have a cheesey photo with him. I don't usually go up to celebrity-types but just couldn't resist. Cool guy.]

Anywho, there was a talk from Simon Singh, who is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association for saying some of their claims were BS.
Line-up: Dave Gorman, Dr Evan Harris MP, Nick Cohen and Simon Singh introduced by Prof. Brian Cox.

The meeting was chaired by Prof. Chris French and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s great to feel at the centre of a movement that’s really pushing to get something done, something that’s incredibly important. The atmosphere is fantastic; friendly and fun (and boozey…). I also met Dr. Armand Leroi, whose programmes I have enjoyed!

Followed by October update:

Simon spoke about the issues with our libel laws on BBC Newsnight, following a SitP Westminster meeting (which I couldn’t make, sadly!).
Ian Hislop also exposed the problem nicely on that week’s Have I Got News For You.

This Trafigura incident is similar to Simon’s issue with the BCA. [Update: Richard Wilson on Trafigura and Libel]

In case you’re still unfamiliar with the story, Simon’s being sued by the British Chiropractic Association for saying some of their claims about homeopathy being a cure or valid treatment for things like HIV, colic, malaria and all sorts of things totally unrelated to the spine or sensory perception of flowery smells – are a bit bollocks. The word used was ‘bogus’ and despite justifying exactly what that meant in the very next sentence of his article, our courts are upholding the complaint so far.

His permission to appeal is a good step forward but the battle is not over.

The implications are huge; please see previous notes for more examples of people getting protection they do not deserve from criticism, using our twisted libel laws.
Sense About Science supports the campaign.

When journalists and indeed Joe Blogger are too scared of speaking their minds, lest they have their finances decimated by such action, the fundamental requirements for progress are blocked. If criticism cannot be aired, nonsense claims are made left right and centre, people believe these things with no one having the ability to speak out against them… the consequences are not pretty.

Homeopathy – what’s in it?

18 February 2010, 10:56

Good grief, it’s been a long time. I can’t even remember which font and so on I used to use…
I guess that’s the problem with Facebook etc.; when you can make frequent, small updates, what’s the point of writing a big one?

Well, I feel I should get back into it. Blogging is very much en vogue and finally starting to feel like I want to make my point again, having been thoroughly disillusioned by the general stupidity in the world for quite some time.

So, today I’m going to write a bit about homeopathy, the 10.23 campaign and other stuff, having seen this reported in the Metro this morning*.

On Monday I went to Skeptics in the Pub, Holborn, for the second time (having been meaning to go again for months and months), at which Martin Robbins (@mjrobbins) spoke regarding the current progress and achievements of 10.23 – one being that an overdose event was staged around the country this winter, at which people took what may have been a bit too much of various homeopathic ‘remedies’, to highlight how pointless they are, essentially.

With regard to SitP generally, it’s a lot of fun, some of the best people in existence tend to show up (e.g. Dave Gorman, Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh, Tim Minchin, need I go on), it’s amusing and friendly and it’s in a pub so it’s automatically good (even if it is a Wetherspoons). However, on Monday, something did really get to me.

Robbins explains in his slideshow here, if you skip ahead a few to the point where there’s a picture of a guy (feel free to read through it all, it’s all good – though missing some references and a nod to gimpy’s blog, as he put those in verbally at the time, and I’m hoping to find a video of the whole thing as I was stuck in a place where I couldn’t see a thing!).
At this point, we get to the real crux of the homeopathy problem. Said guy, Jeremy Sherr, states that AIDS is generally curable but ‘they’ don’t want you to know about it, and he’d be happy to set up a trial in which one of the arms (i.e. groups of patients) receive NO ARV (anti-retrovirals; current gold-standard AIDS treatment) with homeopathy alone. The man is insane.

He wants to set up ‘homeopathy schools’ to train people in this waffle. Funding coming from a recognised British charity; this money could be going to real things that actually help people, or just do SOMETHING, even if it’s fixing a street lamp somewhere – it’d do more good than this hair-brained idea.

And the saddest, most devastating thing; homeopathy ‘practitioners’ have been sent to Haiti and other parts of Africa, telling poor individuals that they can help them with their dysentry, typhoid, cholera, malaria, dengue fever (a horrific disease if ever there was one), AIDS, you name it – with sugar pills and water. This is simply a crime.

So with this post, if anyone ever reads it, I encourage you to look into homeopathy; the fact that people who make money from it can’t even agree on what it is (or isn’t), that supposedly reputable companies (one dubbed ‘shoes’ at the talk, for example!) are selling things to people without bothering to try to find out about it – consider that yes, some people with more money than sense may get better quicker because they spent a bit of quality time with a homeopath and didn’t bother the NHS doctors for so long, but with this somewhat positive effect of what is essentially a lie (is being lied to preferable now, so long as you get better?) there is the extremely serious negative aspect of cases like *the woman and her Chinese alternative ‘medicine’ and people who have died from repeated chiropractic treatments (including babies, see Simon Singh’s libel case for info and PLEASE SIGN HERE!!!).

It’s not at all harmless.