Gillian McKeith: the pooh thickens

Gillian McKeith (or 'Shitty Gill' as I call her because her main interest is in analysing other people's excrement) seems to understand she could be in legal hot water after libelling Dr Ben Goldacre: she called him a liar on Twitter, presumably for pointing out that her 'doctorate' is from a now-defunct unaccredited correspondence college and referenced weirdo magazines rather than peer-reviewed science,and that her prestigious diploma from the American Association of Nutritional Consultants was also available to his dead cat, that some of her 'herbal' remedies were illegal, that her scientific claims were from the land of make-believe and that she'd been forced to stop calling herself Doctor.

Hilariously, her (or someone's) response was to delete the libellous Tweets - but not properly -  then remove the links to her Twitter page from her own website, then post a few weird messages claiming that it wasn't actually her Twitter feed - despite linking to it ('Follow Me On Twitter') in her own newsletter! Unconvincing, and as responsible as an 8 year-old caught eating jam from the pot.

The whole weird story is here, with all the technical detective work explained. I'm loving this.

Public health messages

Ben Goldacre points out these Thai health messages, from which we can all learn:

Ben Goldacre - secular saint

Ben Goldacre, as those of you who read Bad Science know, is a genius and he's on our side.

He's feeling a little grumpy, this time about politics. Now I'm a little more optimistic: British politics is a mess of petty-minded careerists, but there are selfless types out there. Ben puts his case better than I could, however:

I view politics as a tedious and impenetrable world of soul-destroying compromise populated by individuals too ambitious to speak clearly on issues of any importance, while generally defending the interests of the new wealthy friends they make while in power.

Cut and dried (in another sense)

The Guardian reported the other day that circumcision (much more common in the US than in the UK) reduces the risk of contracting AIDS, according to double-blind trials.

Ben Goldacre, who writes a column in the Guardian about the media's reporting of science, amongst other things, takes issue with this report most amusingly:

Dear Editor,

your reporter Alex Renton claims there are double-blind trials to show that circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV. In a double-blind trial, neither the researcher nor the participant know whether they have had the intervention, in this case “circumcision”. However distracted I am by the lack of basic scientific literacy in British news media, I feel certain that if somebody cut the skin at the end of my penis off, I would notice, if not immediately, then at some stage in the years that followed.

Yours

Ben Goldacre
(Bad Science)

Boo! Hiss!

Commiserations to Ben Goldacre, whose Bad Science book was pipped to the Samuel Johnson Prize by Leviathan, a book about whales. I'm sure it's very good, but can't help feeling that a panel containing an editor of the Telegraph was never going to vote for a book which excoriates poor science journalism - that paper is particularly guilty (and that's only one example).

If it quacks like a duck, it's not science

The Daily Telegraph has done democracy a massive favour by publishing all the MPs expenses claims.

But you can't keep a mentally-ill publication down. If you know even the slightest thing about science or journalism, I urge you not to click on this link (hat-tip to Ben Goldacre) because you'll start to self-harm, so great will be the anguish. If you meet Christopher Middleton, feel free to beat him to a bloody pulp. After all, he can be healed by sending a hair sample to a radionics specialist…

What are little Christopher's scientific qualifications? Well, he was Property Writer of the Year 2005, and describes himself as a 'modern manners journalist'. It would be very wrong of you to email him at CMidton@aol.com to question him further, or to leave skeptical questions on his website.

Garlic cures AIDS - yeah, right.

I've banged on about Ben Goldacre and Badscience.net relentlessly. Fearless exposing the small dishonesties and major frauds of pharmaceutical companies, media outlets, universities for hire, 'alternative therapists' and 'Dr' Gillian McKeith alike, he performs a public service.

Ben's book, Bad Science is a must-read because it gives all the tools required to challenge any of the 'wonder-drug' / X causes or cures cancer / scientific shampoo bollocks shovelled at us.

Now, he's making available the chapter on Mathias Rath which was dropped from the book because the dangerous charlatan was suing Ben and The Guardian. Now the case is over (Rath lost), you can read how a man claimed that cancer sufferers should drop their medication in favour of vitamin pills, because the pharmaceutical companies were deliberately poisoning them for profit.

However, this was just the start. South Africa has 6.3 million AIDS sufferers, and 25% of the population has HIV. Along comes Rath, with adverts reading 'Multivitamin treatment is more effective than any toxic AIDS drug' and 'Multivitamins cut the risk of developing AIDS', with clinics dispensing these 'vitamins'.

Needless to say, these are lies from start to finish. Yes, major pharmaceutical companies are capitalist whores, but there is a serious legal framework which demands drug testing before a product is licensed. Rath's rubbish isn't licensed or tested, and he lied and lied and lied about his 'research'. In tandem with Thabo Mbeki's conspiracy-theorist approach to AIDS, the death toll in South Africa rose by 330,000. Millions of South Africans believed Rath and his denialist friends, leading to mass deaths.

So when you whinge on about not trusting doctors or pharmaceutical companies, remember this: that your sophisticated scepticism round dinner tables might sound terribly clever, but it's killing people on a huge scale. Pharmaceutical companies are deceitful, capitalist liars, but they have to operate within a strong regulatory and legal system which makes them behave… in the West, at least. Your doctor IS on your side. S/he's trained and the drugs are the end-product of years of experimentation. Kneejerk rejection of rationalist science kills people - kooks here and poor, uneducated, oppressed people 'there'. Read the chapter: the extent of the lies, shenanigans and plain stupidity will horrify you.

I'm doomed…

Over on Bad Science and on Newsnight, Ben Goldacre is ripping Susan Greenfield and another 'researcher' to shreds for the ludicrous claim, as the Daily Mail puts it, that 'Facebook = Cancer'. She says 'there's no evidence for this but…' - which echoes the infamous Chris Morris paedophilia episode in which Dr Fox makes the same claim about crabs and paedophiles sharing genes (can't embed this one, but it's at 1.15).

The basic idea behind this ludicrous story is that use of Facebook etc. = loneliness = susceptibility to disease. Fair enough. In that case, holding tutorials yesterday made me very susceptible, and my daily routine (read books, teach, read books) means that I'm a high-priority case. I demand screening! Compensation! That bastard Gutenberg and his pushers Waterstones, Bangor University, Wolverhampton University, Amazon, ABE and all the other backstreet book dealers should be strung up for this. My entire life has been predicated on George Eliot's maxim: 'the world outside books is not a happy one' - and now I discover that hiding myself away with one will kill me.

Jeni Barnett is an ill-informed loon and a danger to the public

She is, needless to say, a radio presenter on LBC, which apparently qualifies her to bullshit away about medical matters and shout down actually qualified people. Now she's harassing Ben Goldacre over at Bad Science. Not because he's distorted her ill-informed ravings, but because he posted an audio clip of her so that he couldn't be accused of misquoting her insane and dangerous rambling - encouraging people to believe that MMR vaccination is damaging to children (short answer - it isn't and all the science proves it). 

This malicious no-talent whinger isn't challenging Ben on medical or factual grounds - but on copyright: 'fair use' is apparently an unknown concept to her - or perhaps she doesn't want her inane rambling to be subjected to sober assessment. What a coward, and what a desperate, bandwagon jumping pathetic excuse for a public figure. Send her a message!

A dose of common sense

Like most people, I'm sceptical of Big Pharma, commercial scientific organisations and the like (how's the Malaria cure coming on boys? Coming up after yet another treatment for 'erectile dysfunction' or halitosis?) because let's face it, their motivation is profit and that, you'll be amazed to hear, distorts their priorities. 

However, I am fascinated by scientific research - and horrified by supposedly intelligent people who put their faith in quacks (who are also naked capitalists). So I thought I'd point you to two great science communicators, both linked to from my blog list. Ben Goldacre is the acerbic nerd who writes Bad Science in the Guardian every Saturday, patiently explaining to us how and why dodgy corporations, rip-off merchants and the media conspire, through greed, malice or incompetence, to mislead us about pretty much every science story which reaches us. Buy his book.

The other author I'd like to direct you towards is someone whose blog I discovered only recently. Pharyngula is a practising scientist who has a great gift for direct, outspoken communication and the great joy of living in a country seemingly run by obscurantist medievalist cranks, on whom he practises his scorn - like this:

I wrote about the Kara Neumann case last year — it was the tragic story of an 11 year old girl in Wisconsin who died of treatable juvenile diabetes because her parents were faith-healing morons. Morons who still claim they did no wrong by neglecting their daughter when she lapsed into unconsciousness, choosing to call on the congregation of their wackaloon church to pray harder, instead of calling a doctor.

The parents are finally going to trial this spring, and it could be an interesting case. They are clearly and self-admittedly guilty of lethal negligence, but Wisconsin law actually has an exemption for people who choose to treat their children with prayer. It's an evil law, but it is on the books, and that makes this a case where justice and reason are on one side, and narrow legalism and superstition are on the other. I'm not betting on which side will win out, not in America

All hail P Z Myers.