Should I vaccinate?

Podblack (via Richard Saunders) alerts us to a Daily Telegraph story:

Anti-vaccine nutters put us all in danger

"Diseases such as smallpox, polio and - until recently - whooping cough have been largely consigned to the past because of scientists, governments, doctors and citizens playing their part to eradicate them for all our sakes.

The efforts of a lunatic minority to bring this undone are almost homicidally idiotic."

The online headline differs but see podblack for the above headline in print.

In other news, The Sceptics' Book of Pooh-Pooh mentioned that the ABC messed up by linking to the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) as an information resource in a story warning parents not to be fooled by anti-immunisation sites.

The ABC was advised of the oversight and they didn't just remove the AVN link, they added a warning that the AVN is an anti-vaccination site.

"The internet has become a popular source for those seeking further information on vaccination. But be warned studies have shown that when you type immunisation into a search engine you will get a disproportionate number of sites that carry an anti-immunisation message. The Australian Vaccination Network is one such anti-vaccination site."

Vaccines, Toxins & Nutrients

I recently discussed the fact that formaldehyde, a known toxin, is present in vaccines. Anti-vaccination lobbyists include long lists of such toxins on their websites. Understandably, a lot of parents are worried when they hear about these toxins and begin to wonder what effect they might have on a vaccinated child.

Today I want to discuss toxins a little more. Be prepared for some scary information but please read through to the end.

Again, I remind the reader up front that I am neither a doctor nor a scientist. I am just another concerned parent doing some research online to get to the bottom of this "toxin" problem and to hopefully help others understand it better.

I have used wikipedia as a reference for the known effects of the following toxins and I will discuss some surprising and scary facts about them that you might wish you knew for the sake of your own health and that of your family.

ZINC:
Excessive absorption of zinc suppresses copper and iron absorption. The free zinc ion in solution is highly toxic to plants, invertebrates, and even vertebrate fish. The Free Ion Activity Model is well-established in the literature, and shows that just micromolar amounts of the free ion kills some organisms. A recent example showed 6 micromolar killing 93% of all Daphnia in water.

Stomach acid contains hydrochloric acid, in which metallic zinc dissolves readily to give corrosive zinc chloride. Swallowing a post-1982 American one cent piece (97.5% zinc) can cause damage to the stomach lining due to the high solubility of the zinc ion in the acidic stomach.

MANGANESE:
Exposure to manganese dusts and fumes should not exceed the ceiling value of 5 mg/m3 even for short periods because of its toxicity level. Manganese poses a particular risk for children due to its propensity to bind to CH-7 receptors. Manganese poisoning has been linked to impaired motor skills and cognitive disorders.

Acidic permanganate solutions will oxidize any organic material they come into contact with. The oxidation process can generate enough heat to ignite some organic substances.

In 2005, a study suggested a possible link between manganese inhalation and central nervous system toxicity in rats. It is hypothesized that long-term exposure to the naturally occurring manganese in shower water puts up to 8.7 million Americans at risk.

A form of neurodegeneration similar to Parkinson's Disease called "manganism" has been linked to manganese exposure amongst miners and smelters since the early 19th Century.

IODINE:
Elemental iodine is an oxidizing irritant and direct contact with skin can cause lesions, so iodine crystals should be handled with care. Solutions with high elemental iodine concentration such as tincture of iodine are capable of causing tissue damage if use for cleaning and antisepsis is prolonged.

When mixed with ammonia and water, elemental iodine forms nitrogen triiodide which is extremely shock sensitive and can explode unexpectedly.

COPPER:
Toxicity can occur from eating acidic food that has been cooked with copper cookware. Cirrhosis of the liver in children (Indian Childhood Cirrhosis) has been linked to boiling milk in copper cookware.

CHROMIUM:
An actual investigation into hexavalent chromium release into drinking water was used as the plot-basis of the motion picture Erin Brockovich.

The acute oral toxicity for chromium(VI) ranges between 50 and 150 µg/kg. In the body, chromium(VI) is reduced by several mechanisms to chromium(III) already in the blood before it enters the cells.

The acute toxicity of chromium(VI) is due to its strong oxidational properties. After it reaches the blood stream, it damages the kidneys, the liver and blood cells through oxidation reactions. Hemolysis, renal and liver failure are the results of these damages.

COBALT:
...shows mutagenic and carcinogenic effects similar to nickel (see Cobalt Poisoning). In 1966, the addition of cobalt compounds to stabilize beer foam in Canada led to cardiomyopathy, which came to be known as beer drinker's cardiomyopathy. Powdered cobalt in metal form is a fire hazard. After nickel and chromium, cobalt is a major cause of contact dermatitis.

MOLYBDENUM:
Low levels of prolonged exposure can cause irritation to the eyes and skin. The direct inhalation or ingestion of molybdenum and its oxides should also be avoided. OSHA regulations specify the maximum permissible molybdenum exposure in an 8-hour day to be 5 mg/m³. Chronic exposure to 60 to 600 mg Mo/m³ can cause symptoms including fatigue, headaches, and joint pains.

Are you scared yet? You should be.

Obviously you would not want to be coming into contact with any of these toxic chemicals - but - every one of those chemicals is likely to be present in at least some of the things you eat every day. Whether you buy food from the supermarket or greengrocer or pluck it fresh from your garden, you are almost certainly ingesting most, or all, of the above toxins.

Or, should I say, you should HOPE that you are...

Each of the above "chemicals" may well be a recognised toxin, but each is also an essential part of the human diet. You actually need to consume tiny quantities of them to remain healthy - they are trace elements, or, micronutrients. Yet look at the scary information I found about them.

If you actually follow my links, however, you will see that I carefully chose which parts to copy - the scariest parts. I "cherry-picked" the information which is also what conspiracy theorists do when they try to scare you into agreeing with them in an argument.

For example, if you read the Molybdenum wiki page you would also find: Dietary deficiency in molybdenum from low soil concentration has been associated with increased rates of esophageal cancer in a geographical band from northern China to Iran.

For Zinc, you would see that: Symptoms of mild zinc deficiency are diverse. Clinical outcomes include depressed growth, diarrhea, impotence and delayed sexual maturation, alopecia, eye and skin lesions, impaired appetite, altered cognition, host defense properties, defects in carbohydrate utilization, and reproductive teratogenesis.

And for Iodine, you would find: Iodine deficiency is the leading cause of preventable mental retardation, a result which occurs primarily when babies or small children are rendered hypothyroidic by a lack of the element. The addition of iodine to table salt has largely eliminated this problem in the wealthier nations,

Follow each link and you'll note similar stories. Each of the "toxins" listed above is not only toxic; it is an essential part of your diet.

Vaccines also contain things that are known to be toxic at certain levels, like formaldehyde. But is a simple list of those "toxins" truly relevant if there's no evidence that the the tiny amounts used in vaccines are also toxic?

I'm not for one moment arguing that the "toxins" in vaccines are just the same as essential nutrients, I'm simply making the point that lists of "toxins" are basically meaningless without supporting data in direct relation to the issue under discussion. It's easy to find scary statistics about the toxicity of almost anything and to "cherry pick" the information for the scariest bits, as I did above. But scary details like these don't tell the full story and should not be trusted without relevant data.

Be skeptical.

If you're concerned about vaccination, don't trust me and don't trust people who spout conspiracy theories about "toxic chemicals" and who also might happen to have a vested interest in "alternative" therapies like homeopathy or herbalism. If you're concerned, speak to your GP - a real doctor who went to a real university and got a real medical degree.

Today Tonight - what gives?

Okay, this is just getting weird. Channel Seven's Today Tonight has long been a place to go to get your pseudo-science served piping hot. If you wanted to blow your weekly earnings on shonky fuel-saving devices, ghost-busters, clairvoyants or alien-visitation experts, Today Tonight (TT) would tell you who to see - and even give you a web link for them. TT was ever-reliable in this regard.

But there seems to be a tear in the space-time fabric or something. Maybe the quantum fluctuations are messing with the universal energy, I don't know, but something is definitely going wrong (or is it right?) here.

Two nights ago TT ran a story on astrology, the pseudo-science that involves making up stories about the cosmos then claiming those stories have a very real and direct influence on your past, present and future. The fact it rarely seems to work out when properly tested is easily dismissed by the "oh, it's very individual" argument or, better still, "the astrological forces are upset by skepticism". That latter excuse is what identifies almost every pseudo-science as very much a non-science (or is that "nonsense"?)

But, unusual about this week's astrology story was that TT invited renowned Australian skeptic Peter Bowditch to lay out some reality for the viewer.

Peter Bowditch is from the Australian Skeptics Association. He points to a distinct lack of scientific proof to back up astrology in terms of its ability to predict the future or to determine individual personality traits.

"When anyone has done any statistical analysis of birthdates and careers or birthdates and personality or birthdates and political views they're found to be no correspondence or no correlation," Peter Bowditch said.

He adds: "There doesn't seem to be any star sign connection to any body's wealth and how they've managed the financial crisis over the last year. Everybody from every star sign has had their superannuation funds drop in value."

Last night, TT ran a story about cosmetics and the astounding pseudo-scientific claims used to sell them. But this wasn't just another TT infomercial for a "breakthrough", rejuvenating beauty treatment but a critical appraisal of an industry that profits, massively, from offering false hope.

Choice magazine's Elise Davidson says the claims of cosmetic companies are nothing more than marketing spin.

"What we're seeing is it's just basically marketing fluff kind of pseudo science hoping to bamboozle and impress consumers by claiming to have all sorts of benefits when in fact it's just marketing spin," Elise said.

Yes, Today Tonight ran a story that actually used the term "pseudo-science". But they went further...

Dermatologist Natasha Cooke disputes the validity of research carried out by cosmetic companies.

"I don't really think that any of the clinically tested claims of most of the over the counter skin care and anti ageing creams have any validity," Natasha Cooke said.

Cooke says the "research" usually involves nothing more than "small groups of women sitting at home putting the cream on looking in the mirror."

Ouch!

I'm sure skeptics can think of many other industries that sell false hope with apparent immunity from useful scrutiny. Let's hope this newer, brighter, more-sensible TT can take them all down one at a time and continue to do so until they become less than cottage industries with a small band of hard-core, "cultish" customers.

Perth's Today Tonight ran a story about Claire Anderson who suffers with muscular dystrophy. MS Anderson is undergoing controversial stem cell treatments that are claimed to cure the condition. This story had an unusual balance that left the viewer sympathising with Ms Anderson's plight while also hearing the medical view that there is no evidence this very, very expensive treatment, available only in India, works at all.

Not everyone believes the Indian doctor has the solution. Muscular Dystrophy Association scientist, Professor Steve Wilton says 'he'd love this to work. His goal in life is for muscular dystrophy to be cured and the he'd retire. He says "the treatment hasn't been proven and that anecdotal evidence doesn't count".

I hope medical evidence is proved wrong here, but we see this same story so often in relation to all manner of non-evidence-based "alternate" therapies that it's difficult not be cynical and to see a mother most likely throwing away tens of thousands of dollars on nothing but false hope - money that might well be better spent on her amazing daughter. But TT actually used the term "anecdotal evidence", that does look like a breakthrough.

This story left me wondering again about the best way to deal with these issues. Clearly no one has the right to tell a mother not to pursue any course that just might, possibly, maybe hold the surprise answer she's looking for when mainstream medicine has made it clear they do not have an answer. How could anyone be expected to not try "just one more amazing cure"? I think this is why we really should be pressuring the authorities to come down harder on the pseudo-scientists who sell that hope, often at great expense, but who deliver nothing. Our media too must take responsibility for promoting products and services that defy scientific reality.

I've been quick to rip into Channel Seven in the past for broadcasting all-manner of silliness as if it were true and, indeed, I do feel they have to accept some responsibility for the success of pseudo-science in the market place. Seven are responsible for the outrageous promotion of so-called psychics in last year's detestable "psychic talent show" (and some of the psychics who failed dismally on that show remain as regular guests on other Channel Seven shows, even today) to the credulous reporting of ghosts in stairwells (it was a spider on a security camera - even my kids could see that) to the promotion of an "extra-terrestrial expert" who apparently believes in aliens because of a well-understood and expertly-explained hieroglyphic "helicopter" in the Abydos Temple (I'll cover this in more detail soon).

But if Seven are going to start promoting reason, as they did recently in Sunday Night's "vaccine debate", then I'm going to have to start promoting them as a positive resource and I'll have to look elsewehere for some nonsense reporting. I imagine Channel Nine will come through for me.

100% safe vaccines

I recently discussed the issue of "toxins" in vaccines, a favourite complaint of the anti-vaccine lobby. I used formaldehyde, a natural component of living things and a known toxin, as an example of how a "toxin" is not always necessarily "toxic".

Once again I remind the reader I am not a doctor (or a scientist for that matter). I am just passing personal observation on arguments used by the anti-vaccination lobby. I make no recommendation as to whether parents should choose to vaccinate or not (though my bias should be clear).

The anti-vaccination lobby, often after listing these "toxins", have also been known to claim they are not against vaccination but they want the toxins removed from the vaccines so they'll be 100% safe. In the meantime, they advocate "natural" or "alternative" therapies - but how safe are such therapies?

Natural News tells us that Aloe vera is "A natural medicine for cancer, cholesterol, diabetes, inflammation, IBS, and other health conditions"

Skeptics are well-aware of the value of anecdotal evidence when claiming efficacy for alternative therapies and the harm caused by vaccines, so I went looking for anecdotal evidence of the safety of Aloe vera.

Aloe Vera:
"I was suddenly hit by severe aloe vera toxification after having treated some excema on my lower legs (lichen ruber) with fresh aloe vera gel from a plant in my kitchen.

all over body rash, necrosis (dead meat) on the legs and lengthy allergic reaction as a result. I might even be hospitalized and the skin specialist says the effects may continue for several months

Just so you know people - Aloe Vera can be a great healer, but can kill too, had it not been for antibiotics and steroids, I would have been so f***"

Apparently Aloe vera is not risk free and it can cause harm - it's a "toxin"!!!

Another oft-used argument against vaccination is that it is not 100% effective. This supposedly means it leads to a false sense of security. So, does alternative therapy offer a 100% guarantee?

Homeoprophylaxis (Homeopathic "vaccination") - HP
HP like conventional vaccination will not prevent all children from acquiring infectious diseases

Even someone pushing homeopathy admits homeopathy does not offer 100% protection. Does this mean it, like vaccination, should be avoided? If you choose HP then catch the disease, does this mean HP gave it to you?

Vitamin C seems to be the current "cure-all". Is it 100% safe?

Vitamin C
I am severely allergic to Vitamin C in all it's forms since infancy what can I do?
My allergies keep getting worse. Early on the doctor told me I might grow out of it but instead I keep getting more severe reactions everytime I try something with Vitamin C. Now I can't even take a multi vitamin with it or drink juice, my life is being seriously affected now I can only drink soda and water safely. Please help what can I do?

Oops. It sounds positively horrid. Would you want your child exposed to vitamin C after reading that anecdotal evidence of how dangerous it really is?

So what else should we avoid, in order to be 100% safe? Here are some odds of dying in particular ways during your lifetime (based on US stats):

• Pedestrian accident - 1:610
• Car occupant - 1:242
• Unintentional (accidental) injuries - 1:37
• Falling in natural water 1:3,154
• Inhalation of non-food object (choking) - 1:1,123
  

It seems life itself is dangerous. Risk surrounds us. Should we avoid ever travelling in a car or walking along the footpath? Should we keep everything away from our mouth - there's a 1:4,812 chance of choking on food so, based on three meals a day, you should choke to death before your fifth birthday just from eating! Stop! Don't do it! Starve yourself or die!

Scary stories are easy to find and conspiracy theories easy to manufacture if you ignore statistical comparisons of risk versus benefit. Almost nothing is 100% safe or 100% guaranteed. Virtually everything has some level of risk and some people are more at risk from some things than other people are.

Parents who are unsure what to do should consult their doctor - a real doctor who went to university and learnt real medicine - in my opinion.

Today Tonight "test" Astrology

I just saw an ad for tomorrow night's Today Tonight (Perth) program in which they will apparently question the validity of astrology. Not sure if this will also be broadcast nationally.

My stars tell me they'll include a little skepticism with a fair bit of "but it works for me" vindication and leave it for people to decide for themselves if it's real or not.

My spirit guides are convinced it will be a case of argumentum ad populum with viewers repeatedly reminded of just how popular astrology is, regardless of what the skeptics think.

If it's popular, it must be true (don't mention Firepower).

It would be comforting to assume Channel Seven's embracing of rationality in the recent vaccine "debate" on Sunday Night would have spread, by now, to Today Tonight - but seriously, does anyone believe that will happen? My lucky numbers say "no".

My phrenologist tells me I'm just being cynical. My tea leaves tell me to ignore her because she has a blue aura. My naturopathist, herbalist, homeopathist and Reiki practitioner all tell me I need a jolly good coffee enema to detoxify my negative energy - but my chiropractor says that isn't necessary - though I couldn't hear him properly because of this candle stuck in my ear (I pray it doesn't burn me).

My iridologist says astrology is a crock and her alpha waves are so strong it's hard to ignore her opinion - but I sense quantum vibrations that make me wonder if she's got one too many magnets in her pillow. Oh, she also says chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism phrenology, numerology, clairvoyance, Reiki and candling are a crock, though she does enjoy the occasional rectal coffee, with a Tim Tam or two (I assume she eats the biscuits but I'm too afraid to ask).

I have no idea where this article is going - a bit like Today Tonight really.

Okay, back to my pyramid. How do you take your coffee?

UPDATE:
I couldn't watch but it's transcribed here. Pity, it had Peter Bowditch on it stating the simple fact that it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I wonder if they had to bleep him out?

From the transcript, it seems TT didn't pooh-pooh the skeptics this time but left the question open.

"When we say there is no proof of astrology and we only have to look at the effect that the moon has for instance on the tides and each other on our own life and our own planet then there has to be some proof that the cosmos has an effect on biological life," Ed Tamplin said."

That effect is called "gravity", the Earth has it too. It affects the oceans because they are a huge mass of fluid but if you jump off your roof, the moon's gravity won't stop you breaking your legs. Anyway, the stars no longer fall into the places the old, old astrological charts are based on.

But is astrology harmless?

Homeopathy: "nothing to offer..."

From today's Australian:

Homeopaths 'would refer cases to GPs'

HOMEOPATHS in Australia would refer patients to conventional doctors if a serious condition did not improve within a week to a month, a manslaughter jury has been told.

Homeopath Dr Vinay Katyal also told the NSW Supreme Court jury that homeopathy had nothing much to offer for acute patients.

I don't think many doctors, scientists or even armchair skeptics will disagree with Katyal on that last point. The question the reporters should ask is whether it really has anything to offer any patients?

(Edit: The above story relates to the trial of Thomas and Manju Sam and the death of their baby daughter who suffered with serious eczema but was treated almost entirely with homeopathy. The couple have since been found guilty of manslaughter: Homeopathic eczema treatment)

I'm somewhat disappointed, though not surprised, that on a page dealing with the apparent dangers of pseudoscience, The Australian website features a Google ad for:

Secret Behind The Secret
"How Does The Secret Really Work?" The Answer Inside May Shock You! [link removed]

*I removed the link

Vaccination in Australia - the debate

Last week, SkepticZone's Dr Rachie brought us a summary of Channel Seven's Sunday Night coverage of the so-called "vaccination debate". In this week's SkepticZone podcast the good Doc gives us even more information following the subsequent Sunday Night vaccination forum.

This is a solid 20 minutes of information covering the facts of vaccination and whooping cough plus the full, un-edited interview with Rebecca Le Tourneau, producer of the Sunday Night program. The interview in last week's podcast was edited to prevent pre-forum fallout from the reactionary anti-vaccination lobby.

Le Tourneau fills us in on some details of the sorts of hate mail the McCafferys received from anti-vax nutters (and the examples quoted were from nutters, not misguided or concerned parents. There is a difference.)

After listening, my spirit guides are telling me Ms Le Tourneau won't be invited to any Australian Vaccination Network ("Anti-Vaccination Network") parties. And I don't think she'll mind.

Dr Rachie also mentions the new Stop the AVN Facebook page. If that sounds like something you might want to support then go to Australian Vaccination Network on Facebook.

The podcast also includes coverage of Sydney's "Mind, Body, Spirit" expo (also known as the "Mind, Body, Wallet" expo) and a delightfully entertaining interview with Alison Oborn (love the laugh!) who operates the Old Adelaide Gaol "Ghost Tours".

Download Podcast #29 at SkepticZone now.

Find some useful vaccination links at the Skeptic Zoners blog.

Vaccination, Whooping Cough - interview

If you've followed the story of Channel Seven's Sunday Night programs dealing with whooping cough and the anti-vaccination trend, you might be interested in last week's SkepticZone podcast featuring an interview with Dr Rachael (with an "a") Dunlop and producer of the programs, Rebecca Le Tourneau.

Kylie Sturgess (podblack) interviews Stephen Fry in the same podcast and that too is well worth a listen. Erudite and intelligent - and Stephen Fry's pretty good too.

Download Podcast #28

HuffPo: Vaccines don't cause Autism

I wrote earlier today about a homeopathy article written by Jacob Dickerman at the Huffington Post. It seems there's even more very interesting writing from Dickerman tucked away at HuffPo.

In March this year, Dickerman also addressed the vaccination controversy - and he doesn't seem to quite agree with HuffPo's usually pseudoscientific position on the issue:

To David & Jenny, with love is a wonderfully emotive piece aimed directly at Jenny McCarthy's insistence that motherhood itself imparts a knowledge superior to that delivered through research, data and facts.

Yes! I admit it. I shot that man in the face. And I say, I'd do it again. Because I knew! Deep down in my heart of hearts, I knew that he was after my daughter. Because I'm a mother, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I'm a mother, your honor. And there are certain things that mothers just know.

Dickerman followed this up with Vaccine Denial = Scientific Illiteracy in which he erased any semblance of subtlety that might have seen the central message of the earlier post fly over people's heads (you'd really have to be standing in a deep hole to miss the point he was making though.)

Here's the cusp of the matter. These guys scream, "You're giving mercury to my kids!!! ARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!" but when scientists stop giving vaccines with thimerosal to children, the anti-vaccination crowd goes "You're giving aluminum to my kids!!! AAARRRRRRRRRAAAARRRRRRRAGHHHH!!!!" And it doesn't matter that the aluminum is part of the chemistry that makes the vaccine work better, and it doesn't matter that their kid gets less aluminum from vaccines than they do from that hippy-dippy soy baby formula shit they put into their stomachs because Mommy's afraid of making cows cry. These guys will not be happy until the syringe is filled with water.

Next from Dickerman was an article addressing the reaction to the second article and attempting to work out "why do anti-vaccinationists believe?". Not "what" do they believe, but WHY?

I can't imagine the pain that a parent would suffer, finding out that their child has an ailment that will impact the rest of their life. But I think what must be a worse feeling is knowing that nothing you could have done could have prevented it, and the dread from knowing that you can't stop something bad from happening again. As paradoxical as it may initially seem, I think the belief that autism is caused by vaccines gives anti-vaccinationists a sense of security.

Dickerman has an engaging style. Not too sciencey, not too dumb. Well worth a read.

(Podblack has enlightened us a little on the skeptical man behind the keyboard).

HuffPo: Is Homeopathy Effective?

I don't read the Huffington Post (HuffPo). Firstly it's not Australian, and I mostly focus my attention here, but secondly, I see a lot of stories about HuffPo damning it for it's pseudoscientific approach to health issues.

Orac at Respectful Insolence is especially damning and has written many an article whilst the "stupid" burns a virtual hole in his grey matter.

So, imagine my surprise today when I see Orac giving HuffPo a tick. Though I suspect I'm not half as surprised by it as Orac is. It appears HuffPo has published an honest article by Jacob Dickerman about homeopathy, explaining that, at best, it is just water:

When you get orders of magnitude bigger than Avogadro's number (in the case of a 30 solution, seven orders of magnitude), you get to the point where it is almost statistically impossible to find a single molecule of the active ingredient in the entirety of the homeopathic solution. And don't forget this fact too: a 30 solution, that's just a standard strength medicine. The extra strength stuff goes all the way up to 100. I don't even know how they make that. There aren't enough molecules of water on the planet to dilute one molecule of the active ingredient that much.

Homeopaths will tell us that water has a memory. That it vibrates in a certain way and thus knows exactly what the homeopath put into it. The thing is, if Hahnemann is somehow right about homeopathy, then it doesn't only fly in the face of all those sciences I listed above (physiology, physics, chemistry, germ theory, hydro-dynamics), it flies in the face of public safety. Because the Florine in our water will have less of an effect than the 65-million year old dinosaur feces that have been naturally distilled for millennia. They say that it has no side effects, and they're right. What they don't say is that it doesn't have any primary effects either.

...

Every positive study of homeopathy, when repeated under more stringent conditions, has shown it to have no more effect than a placebo. Take it if you like, but please don't use it to cure Swine Flu. And if there are any homoeopathists out there who can show proof that my article is bunk, I know a man in Florida with a million dollars for you.

I really don't need to add any more to that. It should speak for itself but it is made even more damning with the knowledge that HuffPo's "Wellness Editor" is herself a homeopath.

UPDATE:
Jacob Dickerman has also expressed some views on the "vaccines cause autism and everything else that's evil" debate.

Vaccines have toxic formaldehyde

I never wanted to enter the vaccine debate. I resisted it for some time. I am not a doctor and am far from qualified to tell anyone what to do with their baby. My interest in the "debate" relates to the logic and truth of the arguments used. Last week's Sunday Night show about the whooping cough death of an Australian baby has made it clear that silence isn't a very good option.

The tail is starting to wag the dog and children are being put at risk.

People trying to push an "alternative" health or lifestyle barrow love to list things they demonise as "CHEMICALS", apparently not realising EVERYTHING is made from CHEMICALS. Everything! You, me, the dog and the flea-ridden bed it lies on. Everything is made from CHEMICALS. Even pure water is made from a CHEMICAL, namely water.

Even homeopathic "remedies" are made from CHEMICALS, namely water - and sometimes sugar or even alcohol and you can bet those last two have a molecular structure that would scare the gibbers out of the uninitiated. Wikipedia tells us that the systematic name for sucrose is β-D-fructofuranosyl-(2→1)-α-D-glucopyranoside. Holy crap! Keep THAT away from me!

Sucrose is actually table sugar but it's not just something lots of people put in their coffee, it is also a major component of some homeopathic pills like Oscillococcinum (85% sucrose according to wikipedia) yet sucrose is also often listed as one of the evil CHEMICALS found in vaccines.

This is the universe we bring tiny babies into with their supposedly weak immune systems. A universe riddled with chemicals. A universe made from them, down to the very last molecule. The problem is that some of those chemicals have been given very scary names and, if you're not inclined to understand chemistry then sodium chloride sounds just as bad as sodium barbital, despite the fact most people happily sprinkle the former on their dinners and few people would want anything to do with the latter.

Penn and Teller made an issue of this sort of chemical ignorance when they collected signatures from environmentalists for the banning of DiHydrogen monoxide. This is a chemical which has been responsible for countless deaths yet no government will ban it. AND, this chemical is a major component of homeopathic "remedies". Yes, you guessed it, it's water.

Chemical names can often sound deadly. Methylmercury and ethylmercury seem the same to someone not familiar with the idea that the smallest differences in molecular structures can mean drastic differences in properties. But one is found in fish, yet not recommended for human consumption, while the other is used in vaccines and considered much safer and more readily metabolised.

Let's take a look at one example of a much-demonised vaccine chemical.

Formaldehyde.

This is one of the standard "toxins" listed on anti-vaccination (aka "pro-choice") websites. It sounds scary doesn't it?

As a teenager I had a dead snake and a collection of dead aquarium fish preserved in jars of formalin (formaldehyde in water). It smelt horrible and I knew it wasn't something to be treated casually. Wikipedia says formaldehyde can be toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic. [wikipedia: Formaldehyde]

What chance does a baby have of surviving, unscathed, even the smallest amounts of such an obviously despicable "chemical"? According to anti-vaccination campaigners, not much chance at all. "It's a toxin!"

So, I went hunting for more information about formaldehyde to see what would possess anyone, even baby-hating pharmaceutical companies, to stick something like this in our children.

I found a website dedicated to formaldehyde and downloaded their Formaldehyde: Human Health factsheet (PDF). Here's just some excerpts (I've bolded some bits):

Formaldehyde – a simple organic chemical made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon -- is a widespread and natural constituent of all living systems, from bacteria and fish to rodents and humans. In fact, formaldehyde is one of the most abundant organic compounds in the universe.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported in 2004 that formaldehyde also is given off by vegetation, forest fires and animal waste and is a natural component of fruits and other foods.

Even the most primitive organisms relied on formaldehyde as a building block for the synthesis of more complex molecules. Due to its importance in various metabolic processes, formaldehyde is naturally present in the human body with concentrations of approximately one to two parts per million (ppm) in blood. Because it is volatile, formaldehyde is exhaled in human breath.

Because formaldehyde has existed since the beginning of life, the evolutionary process had to include a way to ensure that formaldehyde’s inherent toxicity could be controlled. Certain enzymes evolved as the control system; among the most prevalent families of enzymes in all living systems is one known as aldehyde dehydrogenases (ADHs). While many forms of ADH exist, they all have the same function – to convert formaldehyde that is formed continuously in various biological processes to formate, which is less reactive and, therefore, less toxic than formaldehyde.

These highly efficient detoxification systems are found in all species and in most tissues. Their role is simple – to keep formaldehyde from reaching concentrations that are toxic to cells.

This doesn't mean you can drink the stuff or that you should inhale the fumes from jars full of it but clearly, the notion that the smallest fraction of formaldehyde, less than is already present in the baby's bloodstream, is a toxin that no baby could possibly endure is a nonsense. They already have it and the evolved means to deal with it (if you don't believe in evolution, then feel free to assume God made humans this way, perhaps for this reason).

I repeat, I am not a doctor. Don't take my word for anything. BUT, Orac and Steve Novella are doctors and they have a view on formaldehyde too.

My purpose here was only to show how easy it is to scare people about "chemicals". If you find a website (or group) who repeat claims of such "chemicals" making vaccines toxic (and they often list every last part of the vaccine, down to the very cells that make it a vaccine, as toxic) then ask yourself if they really have any idea of what they're talking about or if they're just trying to scare you into taking their side in a so-called "vaccine debate". Also check if they have a vested interest in the alternative health industry and if so, are they as independent and "pro-choice" as they might claim to be?

Parent's who are unsure what to do should consult their doctor - a real doctor who went to university and learnt real medicine. Those other "health practitioners", as they are often called, might recommend sucrose-laden tablets or worse, that nasty chemical - DiHydrogen monoxide!

Read More at: The Evils of Vaccination, MMR, Thimerosal, Toxins & Autism

Vaccination, whooping cough "debate"

So the Sunday Night debate has been televised. It should be declared a win for science but I suspect it won't be enough. In my opinion there was just a little too much ground given to "the controversy" rather than focusing on "the facts".

---

But first, credit where credit is due:

To the McCafferys who must be wondering what they did to deserve the torment they are still suffering. Raising this issue after the tragic loss of their baby daughter to whooping cough (pertussis) must have been hard enough but since going public they've had to deal with hate mail and now, sit through a TV "debate" with people who think vaccination is a dangerous nonsense. It is hoped their courage will see many lives saved and much suffering avoided.

Mike Munro deserves credit too for not allowing the vocal, but minority, viewpoint to go unanswered. He asked several questions of Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) president Meryl Dorey and, for the most part, her responses were less than convincing and Munro made it abundantly clear that he felt that way too.

Credit also to channel Seven for airing the issue at all and not falling in a heap to kowtow to the "alternative is everything" conspiracy theorists. Allowing the scientific viewpoint a presence on an important issue might well be considered ground-breaking television.

---

Unfortunately, my overall impression of this debate was that too much ground was still given. Whilst the pro-vaccination camp will likely be happy that science finally got a decent showing on prime-time, commercial television, I do not feel the televised debate was properly balanced.

Earlier in the week, Dr Rachie reported that channel 7 were having great difficulty finding a medical doctor who would support an anti-vaccination position. Obviously they managed to find one in Dr Giselle Cook. While it's true she got very little air time and said absolutely nothing about the "dangers" of vaccination (she described herself as pro-choice and expressed dismay that doctors receive incentives to vaccinate) she was still one half of the professional panel.

I think Munro should have made it clear to the audience, up front, just how hard it was to find a Dr Cook and stated that the vast, vast majority of doctors they called supported vaccination. An average parent sitting at home watching would be forgiven for assuming there is a genuine divide in the medical community. There isn't.

The issue of "how much doctors make" naturally raised its head (medical conspiracy theorists love the "pharma shill" accusation). It's a silly question for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the incentives in no way alter the fact that vaccinations work. But it's a particularly stupid question when you consider the AVN are a financial body who promote and sell product. Not only anti-vaccination but a range of "alternative lifestyle" products. How much do the AVN get for promoting their anti-vaccination and pro-alternative-"medicine" positions? They even have an affiliate program where they encourage people to promote the AVN in return for commissions"

Become an affiliate of Informed Voice and the AVN:
If you have a website or send emails to friends, family or business associates, you can link to the Affiliates Program and earn money by promoting our products, subscriptions or membership as easily as just displaying a banner on your website or in your email signature. Every time you direct a customer to us, you will earn a commission - simple as that!

I can only assume that such blatant incentives must discount any information provided on the AVN pages and all those that support it through linking in return for payment. But for some reason, there's no such thing as a "CAM-Shill".

The "how much do you make" question is just so astoundingly irrelevant that it probably should have been edited out in favour of something important - and I assume there was more useful information that could have been televised.

Overall, it's unfortunate that a short debate (as televised) does not offer a genuine opportunity to thoroughly thrash out the facts or to correct misinformation. This meant some seemingly legitimate questions about vaccine safety went essentially unanswered except for confirmation that no one can offer a 100% safety guarantee. In reality, no one can offer a 100% guarantee of anything in medicine or almost any other area of our lives. Just driving the baby home from hospital is fraught with risk but parents still do it.

I sincerely hope this program gets the cut-through it deserves and that it hails a new era in Australian television where being odd or vocal is not all you need to get your face on TV.

MORE:
David McCaffery speaks: David, Toni, Dana McCaffery, vaccination, whooping cough
Watch the video at 7: Channel Seven, Sunday Night vaccination, whooping cough debate
Or see it on Youtube: Vaccination, whooping cough, Sunday Night debate
Comments to Channel Seven here.

The anti-vaccination community (if it can be called a community) repeatedly demand parents be given "the facts" and allowed to make an informed choice. On that score, I recommend: Vaccine-preventable childhood diseases in Australia. Inquisitive parents who are concerned by conspiracy stories about medical incentive schemes should also ask themselves why it is that so many web sites declaring vaccination dangerous just also happen to have a vested interest in promoting "alternative therapy".

Sunday Night: Vaccines cause Autism?

Dr Rachie (aka Maggie, aka Dr Rachael Dunlop) has put up a summary of yesterday's (Saturday) studio debate about vaccination (should you vaccinate, does it cause autism?). The debate resulted from the massive response Channel 7 received after last week's vaccination, whooping cough program highlighting the dangers of not vaccinating.

From Dr Rachie's report, it's clear that the pro-vaccination side won the debate* - in the studio. However, we know from "The One" (Australia's "psychic" talent quest) that what TV viewers get to see is decided in the editing room. In that silly display of psychic chicanery, the studio audience saw failure after failure - around 80% misses in fact. But TV viewers were left with quite a different impression as the vast majority of the misses were edited out.

Given the positive tilt on last week's vaccination story and Channel 7's decision to rely heavily on science for this week's debate (see Dr Rachie on whooping cough, vaccination and Sunday Night), it is certainly hoped that tonight's post-edit program will reflect reality and not be edited in such a way as to apparently "balance" a very imbalanced reality. It's a big ask I know, but they've proved they are capable of suspending nonsensical belief when they want to.

I cannot find a report on the anti-vaccination AVN website** (there is one link that may be to their summary but it's tucked behind an admin sign-up page. So much for empowering through information.)

The program screens at 6:30pm Sunday May 3rd (tonight) on Channel 9 and WIN TV.

*there really isn't a genuine debate since one side relies on evidence and the other on anecdotes and debunked data. It's really a bit like pitching cosmologists against flat-Earthers, except that the anti-vaccination camp seem to be generating support through fear-based campaigns. In that regard, perhaps it's more like the evangelical Christian movement winning converts who are unfamiliar with Pascal's Wager.

**AVN say they are about informed choice and are not "anti-vaccination" but one quick look at their front page shows ads for T-Shirts demanding "Love them, Protect them, NEVER Inject them". That looks like a pretty clear anti-vaccination message to me.

Peter Popoff pops in

Last week I was looking at the WA ScamNet website that lists all manner of scams to be aware of. One entry on that list was disgraced US televangelist, Peter Popoff.

ScamNet gives a little background on Popoff's earlier TV shows:
His shows also featured audience members who were brought on stage in wheelchairs and then rose dramatically to walk without support. What the TV audience didn’t know was that the wheelchairs were used to seat people who could already walk!

James Randi was responsible for exposing Popoff's use of an earpiece receiver while his wife transmitted personal details of those seeking his "healing touch". See the first Youtube video below for that story.

As I read the WA ScamNet fact sheet on Popoff, I was reminded of seeing him on a late-night TV infomercial a few years ago spruiking his "FREE" Miracle Water. The ads included all manner of "average American people" telling how they'd become rich shortly after getting their water. Naturally I was convinced enough to laugh and ignore the offer - and to check Google for more information.

Wikipedia says about the Peter Popoff Free Miracle Water Offer:
"The infomercials belonging to Peter Popoff state that by phoning the 1-800 number, you will receive your free holy water sample or miracle manna bread. Once you have finished reading the instructions for this 'free' offering, you've been asked to send in just less than $60 as an offering to God."

Much as I'd suspected.

I haven't seen those ads for a long time and assumed the authorities had taken the necessary action. So imagine my surprise when tonight, whilst looking at swine flu articles on other skeptic sites, I found a link on Skepchick to a Popoff story on MediaWatch, an Aussie TV program that holds the local media to account for stupidity and misconduct.

It turns out that Channel 9, possibly trying to outdo Channel 7 for their never-ending promotion of expensive nonsense to a supposedly gullible audience, have been running Popoff's Miracle Water ads (programs?) recently! A search of the Channel 9 website tonight gives two results for "Popoff" - listed as a 30 minute "religious program" on Tuesday 7th of April and this coming Monday, 4th of May at 3:30am.

How can a person and/or product be actively promoted by one of our national broadcasters at the very same time they are listed on an Australian government scam site?

Do we actually have anyone in this country who is willing and able to actually impose a little authority and get rid of this sort of nonsense that serves only to make gullible people poorer and unconscionable scammers very, very rich?

Randi exposes Popoff

More about Popoff and his Miracle Water scam

Swine Flu: Homeopathy Poll

Pharyngula ( PZ Myers, or Meyers if you prefer) is at it again.

Hpathy website has a poll "Do you think homeopathy can help in the current swine flu pandemic?" and if you know anything about Myers, you know what that means. Poll busted!

Fifteen minutes ago, the result was around 76% in favour of homeopathy. As I write this, it's almost 50% against with the "no" votes increasing fast.

Normally I wouldn't blog about a poll-busting effort but this poll invites comments on why you voted as you did. A quick read of the comments, also coming thick and fast, suggests they won't be available much longer. They are about as complimentary as CAM is complementary (ie "not at all")

A very small selection of recent comments.

UPDATE:
Hpathy have posted a thank you to the visiting skeptics:

Thank you to all the skeptics for coming to our website, reading the articles and voting in our poll. The links that you post on your websites and the traffic that you bring, all help us increase our back links, search engine positions and advertisement revenue. Please keep coming back and while you are here do take our elementary course. It's absolutely free. Once you have completed the course, you will still keep coming back to Hpathy but most likely as a convert. We respect your skepticism and we will continue our effort to enlighten you and bring you out of your ignorance. This is no battle. It is our duty to help you become better human beings! Thank you once again!

This is a good time to remind skeptic bloggers to use the rel="nofollow" attribute in their link tags - though there is debate as to how useful it is.

Swine Flu: Homeopathic treatment

Does homeopathic treatment work for the swine flu (H1N1 Virus)?

No matter what the skeptical community have to say about it, the sad reality is that people are flocking to buy homeopathic products they believe will prevent or relieve symptoms of the flu. From ABC5, Eyewitness News:

For some people, traditional medical practices aren't enough when it comes to warding off the swine flu.

It’s no surprise clinics like Park Nicollet are swamped with calls from nervous patients. But just half a mile away, so is the Homeopathic Medical Clinic as patients seek alternative medicine—just in case the swine flu becomes resistant to treatments like Tamiflu.

Dr. Jacob Mirman says the homeopathic clinic is offering a flu kit that’s growing in demand.

"That’s a hundred bucks from Washington homeopathic pharmacy. They are right now inundated with requests, so they say it's one or two weeks to get it," he said.

$100 for something so diluted there is no active ingredient in it - and people are queueing up to get their hands on it. How does a person with a conscience get a piece of THAT sort of action?

The kit contains pellets of highly diluted extracts from plants or minerals.

Highly diluted is an understatement. Traditional medicines are highly diluted, with active ingredients often measured in parts per million but the active ingredient can still be measured in the laboratory. Homeopathic treatments are far, far, far, far more diluted that that. More than parts per million, more than parts per billion, more than parts per trillion... in fact, I'm not sure there's a name for the number we're talking about. Imagine a one (1) with SIXTY (60) zeros behind it and you have some idea of just how much typical homeopathic treatments can be diluted. If it had a name it would be something like "one trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion" parts of water to one part of some substance that's supposed to make you feel bad under normal circumstances (law of similars).

And if that's not silly enough - homeopaths will tell you their "medicine" gets stronger if they dilute it even more! And then you pay $100 for what is almost certainly pure water since Avogadro tells us that there can be no molecule of the active substance left well before we reach this rate of dilution.

One of the most popular homeopathic flu treatments is Oscillococcinum. This is diluted to such a level that I wouldn't have time to write the number down. It has a lot of zeros - 400 of them in fact (assuming a 200C preparation). Wikipedia lists the INACTIVE ingredients (the bit of the pill that doesn't do anything) as 0.85 g sucrose, 0.15 g lactose per one gram pill. That's one gram of sugar in every one gram pill which doesn't really leave much room for any duck heart or liver (the supposed "active" ingredient).

Even if you had the best laboratory equipment in the world, you would not be able to measure ANY active ingredient in a genuine homeopathic solution because it just isn't there.

So, despite what the linked news article says, a homeopathic flu kit almost certainly does not "contain" extracts from plant or minerals. This is why homeopathic solutions generally state they have no side effects - there is nothing in there for the body to react to.

"The virus does not become resistant to homeopathy because we don't treat the virus. We treat the vital force, the immune system, so then it takes care of the virus, whatever it is," explained Mirman.

Okay, now this is just silly. The virus doesn't become resistant to homeopathy because there's no great benefit in becoming resistant to plain water or sugar. There is no need to mutate to avoid something which does the virus no harm whatsoever. Clearly the immune system cannot be "treated" by drinking tiny amounts of water (or taking sugar pills).

The flu vaccine, the real one that real doctors administer, also does not "treat the virus". It assists in "educating" (my terminology) the immune system to recognise and deal with the wild virus if and when it arrives.

As far as I'm aware, no one knows what a "vital force" is so it's difficult to know whether anything can treat it or not.

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS’ medical expert Dr. Shannon Klingman says up to 30 percent of homeopathic success stories coming from alternative medicine are more of a placebo effect—people simply convincing themselves they feel better, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Placebo effect is not necessarily a bad thing - but a $100 for a kit containing pure water? That would want to be one astounding placebo effect!

However, Klingman noted she doesn’t buy a lot of what alternative medicine is promoting.

Unfortunately, an awful lot of other people do buy it - at great expense.


See also:
Swine Flu Scam Alert
All about homeopathy

Swine flu. Kill the pigs!

What was once known as "swine flu" has now been renamed the H1N1 Virus or Influenza A. Apparently this is due to the discovery that the virus is not actually pig-related at all. However, it also comes after a tsunami of irrationality swept the globe...

Israeli minister wants 'Swine' Flu renamed:
The pig is a much-reviled creature in the Holy Land. It especially provokes shudders of horror and disgust among ultra-orthodox Jews. In the new rightwing cabinet, the black-frocked Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman finds the name “Swine Flu” so revolting that he wants the epidemic re-named the “Mexican Flu”

and...

Israeli official: Swine flu name offensive:
JERUSALEM (AP) — The outbreak of swine flu should be renamed "Mexican" influenza in deference to Muslim and Jewish sensitivities over pork, said an Israeli health official Monday.

I'm sure the Mexicans will be okay with that, as long as it doesn't upset any religious people. Of course, we could just tell Israel to get over it and stop imposing its fear-based nonsense on the rest of the world. I mean, people are dying from this thing that is close to being declared a pandemic - but let's be careful we don't offend anyone by referring to a mammal the rest of the world consume without a second thought. I wonder if Israel have similar concerns about Mad Cow Disease - or if they leave the Hindus to fight their own battles?


Local pork producers bracing for impact from H1N1 virus scare:
At the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, hog and pork belly futures closed lower on Thursday despite the name change.

Because it was called "swine flu" so you just know anything vaguely related to pigs has to be suspect.


Egypt orders slaughter of all pigs over swine flu:
Egypt began slaughtering the roughly 300,000 pigs in the country Wednesday as a precautionary measure against the spread of swine flu even though no cases have been reported here yet, the Health Ministry said.

Oh dear.


‘Swine’ flu is public relations crisis for U.S. pork industry:
Further, the U.S. pork industry produces more than $21 billion in personal income and adds $34.5 billion to our country’s gross national product. That’s some serious bacon, which is why pork producers need to take a much more aggressive approach than we're seeing to combat the public relations crisis they have on their hands – and pigs feet.


Pig Farmers Sales Plummet Amid Swine Flu Fears:
SACRAMENTO (CBS13) ―The Swine Flu is taking a tool on pig farmers; some have seen profits plummet by 20 percent as fears of the Swine Flu spread.


The following tongue-in-cheek article explains the situation well at the domestic level:
How a mother's brain deals with swine flu:


I hear elsewhere that Kermit has filed a restraining order against Miss Piggy!


I write this article partly in response to Ellie who has been commenting on Dr Rachie's vaccination column at the Skeptics' Book. Ellie is no doubt well-meaning in her concerns about vaccinations and makes some very valid points with regard to choice and education but she insists that avoiding vaccination is "common sense" because they contain "toxins".

"Common sense" is behind most of the paranoia surrounding the H1N1 Virus - "if it's called swine flu then it must come from pigs and if it comes from pigs we should avoid anything whatsoever to do with pigs - except maybe kill them all".

What's really required is knowledge based on evidence, not "common sense".