Psychic Oz Lotto

Well, the results are in - I suck at Lotto, my family suck at Lotto, Random.org sucks at Lotto and so-called "astrologer, numerologist, psychic" Milton Black apparently sucks at Lotto.

Tonight's seven number draw (excluding supplementaries) was:

• 3, 12, 21, 23, 29, 38, 40

You'll recall my sourced numbers were:

• D: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
  
• S: 29, 5, 13, 22, 25, 31, 45
  
• W: 19, 28, 7, 9, 15, 32, 45
  
• R: 17, 23, 30, 34, 29, 1, 15
  
• P: 2, 11, 17, 22, 25, 29, 43

D = Daughter = 1 hit (3)
S = Son = 1 hit (29)
W = Wife = No hits (I'm not laughing)
R = random.org = 2 hits (23, 29)
P = random.org lottery pick = 1 hit (29)

Pretty sad all round really. Random.org won with just two hits. So how did Milton do, based on my assessment of his vague ramblings? I deduced the following long list of numbers from what was quoted in the Daily Mail:

• M: 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45

As stated yesterday, this many numbers considerably increases your chances, with over 11,000 possible combinations reducing the odds to about 1 in 4000, but did it help? Not really. Despite having 16 numbers to hit, based mostly on his suggestion that numbers divisible by three were significant, Milton only scored a three (3, 12, 21). Even the supplementary numbers (22, 43) don't help his case. (This might answer my question about Librans who ignored values of three - they might have done better than anyone who followed the numerical advice.)

Milton's 3/16 is pretty miserable compared to random.org's 2/7 and it's worth noting that to cover all bases with those 16 numbers, you'd need to play over 11,000 games (I don't think they do a "System 11000"), at a cost of over $12,000 - and you wouldn't have won a cent back! So much for numerology.

Now, Milton did say 12 was significant, and it came up. But he also said 8 was significant, and it didn't come up so if we can conclude that he was right, we can equally conclude he was wrong, unless we choose to focus only on hits and ignore misses.

Serious numerologists will no doubt point to 23 and 38 as numbers that "include number 3" and maybe to 29 which contains one number divisible by 3 and maybe even 40 though I can't mangle my brain enough to come with an excuse for including 40 in Milton's vague offerings, except maybe that it's a multiple of that special number 8.

Even OZ Lotto aren't much use when it comes to predicting outcomes. The Daily Mail article says:

According to Oz Lotto, the most frequent numbers drawn are 35, 17, 33, 20, 3, 27 and 16.

(I don't know why they were listed in that apparently random order. Any guesses?) Of those, only number 3 came up tonight.

And poor old "Anonymous" who commented in yesterday's article about an unbeatable combination of 18 numbers - well, no joy there either I'm afraid. I'm surprised, seriously. We were only told of one "for sure" number - 16 - so I hope Anonymous didn't tell his or her employer where to jam it today - that job might still come in handy since 16 was not in tonight's draw.

I promised Anonymous that I already knew what the numbers would be and that I would expose them here. Well, my spirit guides were a little bit naughty but I assure you that, had I played, I would have chosen 3, 12, 21, 23, 29, 38 and 43 - so I would have missed out by one number (43 was actually a supplementary number). If you've followed my blog from the start you'd remember that my guides are often mischievous like this. (Trust me, I'm a blogger)

The only interesting numerical feature I'm noting in all of this, and it is almost spooky enough to turn me to the magical side, is that I wrote yesterday's article on the 29th of the month. Number 29 was not only drawn in the real game but also featured in 3 of my sample draws.

• D: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
  
• S: 29, 5, 13, 22, 25, 31, 45
  
• W: 19, 28, 7, 9, 15, 32, 45
  
• R: 17, 23, 30, 34, 29, 1, 15
  
• P: 2, 11, 17, 22, 25, 29, 43

No other number was drawn three times in these samples - but quite a few feature twice (1, 2, 5, 15, 17, 22, 25, 45).

All in all, it was a waste of effort. Hope you enjoyed it.


UPDATE:

There were only two winners, that's seemingly less than statistical chance so it would appear no mystical forces were at play tonight.

So, where does this leave astrology, numerology & psychic-ness?

• Astrology: with just two winners from an estimated 10 million participants, I'm going out on a limb and assuming that a lot of people born in any of the six months Black listed as positive, didn't win. In fact, less than one per cent of players got as much as a fifth division prize and only 24% got the lowest prize available. Not a great result given around 50% of players would have been born in the "good" months.
  
• Numerology: contrary to Black's claim, the number 30 was not significant and nor were "values of three". People following this advice would have lost badly, even if they'd spent over $12,000 covering all possible combinations.
• Psychic-ness: Black saw that the prize would obviously go off but that wasn't psychic so much as a matter of statistics. With more people than ever before entering, five people could have won without the result appearing unusual. What's really surprising, if anything, is that ONLY two people won.

Oz Lotto Psychic Picks

Tomorrow night's $90 million OZ Lotto draw is generating almost as much news coverage as Michael Jackson's death. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration but it is getting mentioned a fair bit in the mainstream media - along with the usual supernatural silliness that journalists can't resist foisting on consumers.

Here's one of my favourite quotes so far, from The Daily Mail:

IF YOU believe in astrology, Librans and Scorpians have a better chance than others of winning it. If you believe in numerology, those who choose numbers divisible by three could get lucky.

But if you believe in mathematics, you are more likely to die in the 24 hours leading up to Tuesday night's $90 million Oz Lotto jackpot is drawn than actually win the prize.

I suspect that the vast majority of our population will have no problem believing at least some of the completely unfounded paranormal "statistics" in those statements (and in the remainder of the story) yet will strongly doubt the calculated mathematical probability.

On the question of completely unfounded paranormal "statistics", otherwise known as wild-arsed guesses, the Mail quotes Milton Black:

Numerologist, astrologist and psychic Milton Black said Tuesday night's jackpot was definitely going to go off and would probably be shared rather than a single person win.

As I'll discuss a bit later, there's probably a 5:1 chance of a win - that means five people could win based on statistical chance alone. Chance doesn't care about your star sign (who does really?) or your perverse interest in certain numbers. So, a multiple win is not paranormal, it's virtually expected.

With the draw falling on the 30th he says numbers that are values of three could come up.

With 45 numbers to choose from, there are 15 numbers that fit that bill. I agree that numbers that are values of three could come up - but which numbers?!!! I also think that numbers that are values of two could come up. Let's see who does better.

"Three also connects well with 12 and 8," he said. "On the astrological aspect, the moon is on the rise so it's obviously going to go off.

I have no idea why three connects with eight but if Milton says so, it must be true. I assume he's actually picking 12 and 8 as two definite possible maybes. Will the top prize "obviously" go off? Not necessarily but the odds will be high with an anticipated one in three Australian adults participating (Perth's Channel Seven News estimate 2/3 of Perth adults will play) - each buying multiple games. Using an estimated $250 million spend this week, there will be almost 230 million games in play. With a one in 45 million chance of winning we should, theoretically, see around five winners - based purely on probability and nothing else.

"I'd say people born in the months of January, March, May, July, September and November have a good chance of winning because the moon of that month is going to be in a good aspect of the month."

Wow, that's a genuine skill Milton has there. Apparently half the people ever born are in with a chance. Of course, it's unlikely we'll ever find out the birth details of the winners so we won't know how accurate this astonishingly detailed prediction is.

But Mr Milton said the moon is moving into Libra on Tuesday night, which is a good sign.

For who? Someone? I suspect he might be right. My neighbour is moving into a new house tomorrow - I think someone will do well in Lotto.

"There could even be some Librans or Scorpians who could benefit greatly out of OzLotto," he said.

Okay, so we can add October to the already long list of likely winners. That's seven out of twelve months covered so Milton's odds of getting something right are astronomically (or is that astrologically) higher than the odds of winning Lotto. But he did say it's only a "good chance" for the first six months he mentioned. In reality, your chances are about one in 45 million for each $1.10 you spend. Milton says those born in October "could benefit greatly" - this could just mean you might win $20, which is a lot greater than nothing.

Oh, but what happens if you are a September Libran, which should give you very good odds, but you choose numbers not divisible by three? He doesn't say. Which is better, astrology or numerology - and, if he's psychic, why does he need those other things at all? Why doesn't he just tell us who's going to win and what numbers they'll choose? I mean, if he said I was going to win (he'd have to name me and publicly guarantee to cover the winnings if he gets it wrong), I'd go and buy a ticket with the numbers he says.

But he's so vague and casts such a wide net of possibilities - all based on absolutely nothing it seems - as to be completely useless as a source of advice. When you sum it all up, it's almost like he said "a human might win". One wonders why the Mail bothered with him.

The Mail later quotes mathematician Dr David Warton, who illustrates the odds with alarming clarity, then seeks opinion from a Lotteries spokesman who seems somewhat less familiar with statistics and probabilities:

But NSW Lotteries spokesman John Vineburg said many experts called upon at times like this purporting to be the "voice of reason" sometimes go too far. He said about 200 people pick up first division prizes throughout the country each year.

"I haven't seen figures saying that 200 people around Australia are killed by lightning or taken by sharks," he said.

What Mr Vineburg seems to be forgetting is that there are a number of Lottos to participate in and many, perhaps most, participants play multiple games in each one and often participate not only as individuals and families but in work and other communal syndicates. There were 79 million entries in last week's Oz Lotto alone - from a total population (men, women and children) of just over 20 million people. Then there's Lotto, Oz Lotto, two Mid-week Lottos and Powerball to choose from and jackpots sell even more games than usual.

When mathematicians quote the odds as one in 45 million, they quite obviously mean per individual game played (7 numbers per game for Oz Lotto), not per person. Obviously someone who plays ten games reduces their odds by a factor of ten to one in 4.5 million.

Anyway, in the interests of performing a small test, I've gathered some "predictions" from various sources to see how they perform tomorrow night:

• D: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
  
• S: 29, 5, 13, 22, 25, 31, 45
  
• W: 19, 28, 7, 9, 15, 32, 45
  
• R: 17, 23, 30, 34, 29, 1, 15
  
• P: 2, 11, 17, 22, 25, 29, 43
  

The odds for each game in the list, even the first (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), is 1:45,000,000.

I'll add a special entry for Milton Black:

• M: 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45

Each of those numbers fits Milton's vague prediction of "8" and numbers divisible by three. As you can probably see, he's basically cheated by ticking far too many boxes for a normal game (the rest of us only get to choose seven numbers). With 16 numbers, he's more than doubled his odds (EDIT: Myriad at JREF advises Milton's odds drop to just one in 4000 with a 96% chance of getting at least one number right based just on normal odds!) but let's see how it goes tomorrow anyway, just for fun.

I'll reveal the source of any strong performer(s) sometime after the draw.


If you care, here's how the odds are calculated:

In Oz Lotto there are 45 numbers to choose from and you need seven numbers to win. So, there are 45 choices for the first of seven numbers (45/7). Next, there are 44 choices left for the remaining 6 numbers (44/6). This continues until you have only one number left to choose and there will be 39 numbers left to choose from for that spot (39/1). To calculate the odds, you multiply all these fractions together:

(45/7)*(44/6)*(43/5)*(42/4)*(41/3)*(40/2)*(39/1)

This gives us 45,379,620 odds against you winning with one game.


LINKS:

Some interesting statistics
Australian Lottery Odds


Disclaimer: I'm not a mathematician. If you see an obvious error, let me know asap. Also, apologies if things were abit broken as you read the article - I keep editing it.

Articles and images on this blog are nothing more than satirical commentary based on the honest opinion of the author. No one should use this blog as the sole basis for forming an opinion on the subjects discussed but readers are welcome to consider these opinions in light of similar or contrary information available elsewhere. I advise skepticism regarding my own commentary just as I advise it with regards to the subjects discussed here. If I can get you to take nothing at face value, I've done my job.

Today Tonight: Why oh why?

Last week I congratulated Channel Seven's Today Tonight (Perth) for exposing a cancer quack who had led a terminal patient to suffer during the final weeks of her life by convincing her to throw away her pain killers in return for some magical thinking. It was a justly skeptical report that one would hope would make some people think twice before believing nonsense ahead of empirical reality.

Unfortunately, Today Tonight didn't think that story was important enough to put on their website as a long-term warning to readers who might not have seen the story on air.

However, tonight they have countered both those previous actions. Firstly they have unquestionably promoted magical thinking, without a gram of skepticism, and secondly they think it so important that they've put a lengthy transcript on their website.

David Wells, we are told in this advertisement masquerading as journalism, is a leading UK psychic and astrologer. He also apparently hates "psychic stereotypes":

"It drives me potty or people will say if you are late 'you should have known you'd be late' ohh ha ha ha very funny."

This struck me as odd since I would have thought most psychics would find that comment insightful and thought-provoking and that it would lead them to introspectively question why, indeed, they didn't already know they'd be late (that's sarcasm, by the way).

In the story we see Wells standing before an audience who all sit with their eyes closed while he plants visions in their heads by basically telling them what he expects them to experience. "See the forest. If an animal comes to you, that might be your guide".

I imagine many participants, who apparently pay $80 a head to be there, would feel like failures if they can't conjure up at least a hamster to guide them. I'll bet Bambi is popular though. Just a hunch.

As the story-telling continues, we are told some "successful" participants will experience their past lives - oh, we all have them by the way.

"You will all have past lives because you function fairly well on the earth plane. You make money you can look after yourselves you have been here before."

That's it. You're here now and functioning so you had a past life. Simple. I'm not sure why I doubted it really. And we know that's true because Wells said so and no one challenged him and this is hard-hitting current affairs journalism, so it must be genuine (that's sarcasm, by the way).

I'm not sure what happens if you're not "successful". I suppose you get your money back (that's also sarcasm, by the way. I have no idea what happens if you don't have a vivid imagination and just get stuck with a virtual hamster for the remainder of the exercise).

"if you start to use your subconscious properly it tends to bring things towards you in life. It does actually change your luck it changes the way things happen to you... people take away something from themselves I don't go you know...oohhh ahhh you were born in i don't do any of that marlarkey. The person having the past life regression tells me what's happening. they see the experience they go through it. They get the information not me I just help them to get it."

Yep, you pay $80 to come up with your own past life scenario based on a fairy tale shared with the whole audience. If you dream up a centurion, then that'll do, you're a centurion. What more proof could you possibly need to deem the experiment a complete success? What proof could there possibly be? For that matter, how could anyone disprove it? And we know from experience that if you can't disprove something, then it must be true. That seems like money well spent to me (yes, sarcasm again, sorry).

I feel that a great many of the people who believe this sort of thing, with no evidence to support it as a reality, are the same people who could die painful deaths as a result of believing the nonsense of some future cancer quack instead of seeking genuine, reality-based, medical attention. Such people do not need our national broadcasters reinforcing their delusions, they need to be taught some skepticism.

Whether it's psychics or cancer quacks, magical thinking is magical thinking and Today Tonight seem hell-bent on promoting it.

Today Tonight Perth can be contacted here.


Articles and images on this blog are nothing more than satirical commentary based on the honest opinion of the author. No one should use this blog as the sole basis for forming an opinion on the subjects discussed but readers are welcome to consider these opinions in light of similar or contrary information available elsewhere. I advise skepticism regarding my own commentary just as I advise it with regards to the subjects discussed here. If I can get you to take nothing at face value, I've done my job.

What is Homeopathy?

For some time I've wanted to put my thoughts together on my understanding of homeopathy. Since it is Homeopathy Awareness Week (UK) this seems like a good time to finally bite the bullet and get my thoughts out there.

I am neither a scientist, doctor nor homeopath (see disclaimer at bottom). I am just a guy who reads a lot of stuff about various things and occasionally forms opinions, often whilst still having lots of questions. So take this as a layman's guide to the often-confusing and contradictory world of homeopathy.

WHAT IS HOMEOPATHY?

From wikipedia with subsequent comments by me:

Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine that treats patients with heavily diluted preparations that are thought to cause effects similar to the symptoms presented, first expounded by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking ("succussing") after each step under the assumption that this increases the effect of the treatment; this process is referred to as "potentization". Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.

While it is true that genuine medicine (pharmaceutical or western medicine) is often highly diluted, the active ingredient can still be measured, even if it is present in parts per million. The biological effects of these trace presences are well understood. In typical homeopathic remedies, the dilutions go well past parts per million, well past parts per billion (nine zeroes) and well past parts per trillion (twelve zeroes). Indeed, a 12C solution is diluted to a figure with 24 zeroes. 30C solutions, which are common, have 60 zeroes in the dilution rate. I don't even think that number has a name.

Once you pass 23 zeroes in your dilution rate, you'd be damned lucky to find the original active ingredient in a random sample of remedies.

WARNING: Arithmetic follows...

One popular homeopathic product sold to flu sufferers is diluted to 200C!!! That dilution rate has 400 zeroes!

Using the figure of 20,000 drops equals 1 litre, we can work out that just one drop of active ingredient (duck heart and liver in this case) would make 1 x 10³⁹⁶ litres of flu remedy. That's a one with 396 zeroes after it - litres! To try and picture how much remedy that is, imagine for starters that there's a little over 1 x 10²¹ litres of water on Earth. That's only 21 zeroes.

Every zero you add multiplies the quantity by a factor of ten. This means that a billion (1,000,000,000) Earths would only contain 1 x 10³⁰ litres of water.

If my arithmetic serves me correctly (and I'll happily accept correction here since I worked it out on a scrap of paper and am not a mathemetician), one drop of active ingredient in a 200C solution would make a remedy equal to 1 x 10³⁷⁵ times the total volume of water on the whole of this planet. I'm not sure, but I suspect that's more water than would be available in our entire galaxy and, perhaps, the universe.

Imagine how much you could make with a whole duck heart and liver! Unlike TamiFlu, there's no risk you would ever run out.

Okay, so there's probably no chance whatsoever that you'd find ANY duck heart or liver in that much water - not even if you threw in every duck on the planet - but homeopaths get around this by saying the water remembers what you added to it at the start. More on that later.

To make matters more confusing, that particular flu remedy is sold in the form of small pills (or pillules). There is no water, with or without memory, in the marketed product. Indeed, the ingredients are listed as 85% sucrose and 15% lactose. That's 100% sugar!

Okay, let's move on. Still with wikipedia for now:

PLACEBO:

Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence.

A placebo is essentially a pretend medicine. The idea being that the "patient" in a trial is lead to believe they are being given real medicine but what they are given has no active ingredient. The point of this exercise is to compare the results of those who are given real medicine, with those who get the placebo. The so-called "placebo effect" is widely recognised and can effect not only the trial patients but anyone participating in the trial, including those conducting it. If a product repeatedly performs no better than a pretend medicine in trials then the product would usually be considered a failure.

It sounds, to me, like magic.

TRIALS:

Several high-quality studies exist showing no evidence for any effect from homeopathy, and the few positive studies of homeopathic remedies have generally been shown to have problems that prevent them from being considered unambiguous evidence for homeopathy's efficacy.

This is a contentious issue. Good quality trials and systematic reviews repeatedly show no significant (better than placebo) benefit from homeopathy. Sympathisers often dismiss this by suggesting that real homeopathy is holistic and based on "the individual" and, as such, cannot be subjected to typical scientific trials. However, when a small trial delivers a seemingly positive result, using essentially typical scientific methods, the result is readily hailed as evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy.

Homeopathy for dementia
Homeopathy for Asthma
Homeopathy for ADHD

WATER MEMORY:

Modern homeopaths have proposed that water has a memory that allows homeopathic preparations to work without any of the original substance; however, the physics of water are well understood, and no known mechanism permits such a memory.

My biggest concern about this "water memory" claim is that even if we did accept it, we are then left wondering why homeopaths generally claim their remedies have no side effects. How can it be that diluting and shaking (or "succussing") the original ingredient results only in its supposedly beneficial properties being remembered and enhanced by the water solution?

For example, homeopaths have tested an ultra-diluted solution of arsenic (Arsenicum Album) to treat arsenic poisoning. Theoretically, the remedy remembers that it used to have arsenic in it and homeopaths perversely claim that the higher dilution, with shaking, actually increases the potency of the remedy.

The idea is that when the body encounters the product, it will react as if it were encountering real arsenic and go about doing whatever needs to be done in order to fight it. In doing so, it will also, theoretically, deal with the actual arsenic poisoning that is being treated - and there will be no side-effects like poisoning.

Got it? No? Good, that means you're getting it.

Now, here's my problem... if the remedy acts like a potent form of genuine arsenic, to the extent that it stimulates the body's natural defences, then why is it not also toxic, just like genuine arsenic? How is it that the detrimental properties of the toxin are diminished by ultra-dilution while the beneficial properties are enhanced by shaking?

I have studied a little chemistry and physics - though that isn't required to see some potential flaws in this line of thinking. From the traditional viewpoint of science, it makes sense that dilution would reduce effects - but it would likely do so for both detrimental and beneficial effects. How does shaking the solutions and diluting past the point of retaining any active ingredient result in the coincidental diminishing of one effect (toxicity) and the increasing of another effect (immune response)? It sounds, to me, like magic.

LAW OF SIMILARS:

Through further experiments with other substances, Hahnemann conceived of the "law of similars", otherwise known as "like cures like" (Latin: similia similibus curentur) as a fundamental healing principle. He believed that by inducing a disease through use of drugs, the artificial symptoms empowered the vital force to neutralise and expel the original disease and that this artificial disturbance would naturally subside when the dosing ceased.

I'll translate that with an example. If a patient as a sore stomach, dizzy spells and blurry vision, then the appropriate homeopathic remedy is one which would cause a normal person (not sick) to suffer those same symptoms. This helps explain why a homeopath would even consider treating arsenic poisoning with arsenic since arsenic would clearly cause similar symptoms in another person.

Looking back at our arsenic patient, another question naturally follows from this "law of similars". If the body's natural defences can be stimulated by a pretend solution of arsenic into fighting the very real presence of arseninc that caused the poisoning, why weren't those defences similarly stimulated by the very real presence of arsenic in the first place. Is this just another seemingly magical property of homeopathic water currently unknown to chemists or physicists?

IS HOMEOPATHY LIKE ANTIVENOM?:

When I first read about the law of similars, or "like cures like", I assumed this was much the same as occurs with the administering of antivenom to snake bite victims. I was wrong.

Snake venom is indeed used to make snake antivenom but what is adminstered to a bite victim is not diluted venom. The venom is used to produce antibodies in an animal and these antibodies are harvested and used to treat bite victims.

IS HOMEOPATHY LIKE VACCINATION?:

This thought also crossed my mind when I first began reading about homeopathy. Vaccines generally contain the very thing they are intended to guard against. That sounds a lot like "like cures like". But vaccines are administered to healthy people and they essentially "train" the immune system to recognise a specific risk and build immunity to it - and they contain very real and measurable active ingredients. The method by which vaccines work is also well understood and is not based on the vague notion that "something" that would make a normal person experience particular symptoms will treat an unwell person experiencing those same symptoms.

RECENT QUOTES:

During the recent trial of Australian parents Thomas and Manju Sam, homeopath "Doctor" Vinay Katyal told the jury in the Sam trial that "homeopathy had nothing much to offer for acute patients."

It appears the general recommendation of homeopaths is supposed to be that if you really are sick, you should see a real doctor. Only a homeopath can explain why they would think their chosen form of therapy is unable to cope with acute cases.

From wikipedia, we find a comment from Boiron spokesperson Gina Casey who, when asked if a product made from the heart and liver of a duck (Oscillococcinum) was safe, she replied: "Of course it is safe. There's nothing in it." (see also Oscillococcinum)

From The house of Lords in what could be called "Homeopathy on Trial". Question 538 is especially telling:

Q538 Lord Broers: I have a simple, technical question about homeopathy and drugs. Is it possible to distinguish between homeopathic drugs after they have been diluted? Is there any means of distinguishing one from the other?

Ms Chatfield: Only by the label.

There really isn't much I can add to that reply. She didn't say "by smell" or "by laboratory testing" or even "by testing on patients". Ms Chatsfield is from the Society of Homeopaths Research and Ethics Committee and her response suggests, quite directly, that the only difference between one homeopathic product and the next is the label.

SUMMARY:

From all this we can derive the following points about a homeopathic remedy:

• It is diluted to the point where it doesn't contain the product named on the label.
• It somehow remembers the active ingredient but does so by no means known to modern science of any discipline.
• It carries all intended beneficial effects but has no side effects that would occur if it really did contain the active ingredient.
• There is not nearly enough water on Earth to make all the 200C remedy that could theoretically be made from a single drop of active ingredient.
• It is not recommended to be used in "acute" cases of illness.
• No homeopathic product can be distinguished from any other homeopathic product (or from the water, alcohol or sugar it is made from) by any means whatsoever except by trusting the label.
• Good quality trials repeatedly show homeopathy to perform no better than pretend medicine.

That pretty much sums up homeopathy as I understand it currently. If I've missed something or messed up, let me know in the comments.

For a far more scholarly review of homeopathy, you might want to read Dr Steven Novella's Neurologica Blog article: Homeopathy Awareness Week or Orac's (Respectful Insolence) article on Homeopathic Plutonium.

See also: Homeopathy website ordered to retract dubious Arnica claims

MORE:
10:23 - Suicide by homeopathy

I am not a doctor, homeopath, scientist or statistician. This is just a layman's assessment of homeopathy as I understand it currently. Readers are reminded to draw no conclusions from my opinions but to use them only as a springboard to their own research. You are free to disagree.

Homeopathic Awareness Week: Allergies

Bloggers Zygoma and jdc325 have commented on an article in the Daily Mail* titled simply "Homeopathy works!" It's a short article that makes the startling claim that a "A study found that allergy sufferers who were given homeopathic treatment were ten times more likely to be cured than those given a dummy pill instead"

That's my bolding, by the way.

But what did the study the article refers to actually do and what did it find? Can we believe, based on this story, that homeopathy is not only likely to CURE allergies but is TEN TIMES morel likely to cure them than is placebo. Okay, if we accept that placebo will never cure allergies, then there might be a case to argue that homeopathy is indeed ten times as likely to do so.

I'm not schooled in the deadly art of pulling apart scientific studies but this one, at least as reported, doesn't appear to need much education in order to raise big questions. Even a rudimentary grasp of arithmetic and statistics should have the reader shaking their head in disbelief at he way this has been reported.

The study apparently used just 50 participants and split them into two groups - homeopathic treatment and placebo treatment. There was no control group who were not treated at all and no comparison with patients treated with pharmaceuticals.

25 people in each of two groups (this is assumed from the text) seems like a very small number from which to extract useful statistics. Small numbers of trials can lead to wildly different results just from chance alone. To test this, try flipping a coin just ten times and write down the results. Theoretically (statistically) you would get five heads and five tails since the odds are 50/50. Realistically, you probably won't get that result. I tried it and my result was:

H T T T T H T H T T

That's just three heads from ten coin tosses. What happened to the 50/50 result the odds tell us to expect? Simply, small samples lead to skewed results. To reinforce this, imagine just three tosses of the coin. If you get one head and one tail on the first tosses, then on the third toss, regardless of the outcome, you will have twice as many of one result as the other. Would this mean that result was twice as likely as the other? Such a conclusion would be preposterous.

And this leads me to question the astonishing statement in the article "A study found that allergy sufferers who were given homeopathic treatment were ten times more likely to be cured than those given a dummy pill instead"

Where does the "ten times" figure come from? It would seem to be a basic misreading of the results.

"Both groups reported that they got better - but on average patients who received homeopathy had a 28 per cent improvement in nasal air flow compared with 3 per cent among those in the placebo group."

See that? Firstly, no one was cured. Not one reported cure in the whole article. No one was even "nearly" cured. All we have is a relative improvement in nasal air flow. 28% in one group and 3% in the other. This would appear to be the source of the "ten times as likely" figure - but where does any hint of a cure come into it. On average, even the best-off patients were still suffering with the remaining 72% air flow restriction - and presumably still had their allergy.

Blowing my nose will result in a significant improvement in airflow - but it won't cure me of any allergies I suffer.

As or the actual results, the small sample means the figures are easily skewed. The 28% and 3% figures are average results from each group, so if just two or three people in one group enjoyed a significant recovery, that result would skew the results for their whole group. Whether this would be enough to deliver these results would depend on the overall results but we should be very wary of relative percentages not backed up by actual figures (as shown in the "three toss" coin toss experiment above).

Much more information is needed to determine exactly what the reported results mean, if anything at all. I'll leave that task for people who understand such things better than I do. [Edit: EoR points out in the comments that the actual paper has already been done to death here]

So, in this Homeopathy Awareness Week (UK), does homeopathy work? There's nothing in this article that would lead me to think it does.

*Note: The Daily Mail article appears to be six years old but has some relevance since the theme for this year's HAW is "hayfever".

I am not a scientist or statistician. This is just a layman's assessment of a news item. Readers are reminded to draw no conclusions from my opinions but to use them only as a springboard to their own research.

Homeopathy Awareness Week: June

As mentioned earlier, it is Homeopathy Awareness Week in the UK. Strangely, it was "World Homeopathy Awareness Week" back in mid-April and Australia apparently had its Homeopathy Awareness Week in late April - early May - it brings to mind that classic Australian saying "couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery!"

Like many other blogs, The Sceptics' Book of Pooh-Pooh is doing its part in raising awareness the craft of dispensing medicine without medicine (homeopathy).

Some time this morning, Dr Rachie, aka Dr Rachael "with an a" Dunlop, aka Maggie, posted an article about a homeopathic website ordered to publish a retraction of "dubious" claims. Go to the Sceptics' Book to see the actual retraction and read the background story: Homeopathy for burns and bird flu? . Once again, some hard work by dedicated sceptics has brought about a result.

Yesterday, Dr Rachie, aka Dr Rachael "with an a" Dunlop, aka Maggie, brought us the story about a push by naturopaths to have their non-medicine treated almost as if it were actually medicine but preferably without all the limitations the government places on real medicine. They call it a "national register" but some sceptics are calling it the legitamising of nonsense. (Naturopathy register in Australia)

Dr Rachie, aka Dr Rachael "with an a" Dunlop, aka Maggie, brings us an update on that story today with letters published in the Herald - one from the good doctor herself and one from Professor David Colquhoun of DC's Improbable Science. A third letter apparently responds to another letter regarding the unfortunate death of Gloria Sam whose homeopathic expert father chose not to treat her eczema with real medicine. Gloria Sam, who died aged nine months, demonstrated how the placebo effect doesn't work on babies with life-threatening ailments, no matter how deep the parents belief in magic might be. (Response to Register for Naturopaths)

Homeopathy Awareness Week (HAW):

Coming as it does, hot on the heels of the Neal's Yard Remedies "hide and seek" saga, in which Neal's Yard refused to answer questions by people who wanted to raise the awareness of homeopathy and other non-medicine - and remembering that Simon Singh vs BCA started in Chiropractic Awareness Week last year - this Homeopathy Awareness Week should be interesting.

Interest in Homeopathy Awareness Week is high and a Google for "homeopathy awareness" currently turns up four skeptical blogs in the first-page results. Ouch! Here's a few blogs that have taken the awareness challenge so far (some from last year):

• Neurologica: Homeopathy Awareness Week
• Skepticblog: Homeopathy Awareness Week (copy of the Neuorlogica article)
• Quackometer: Homeopathy Awareness Week
• jdc325: Homeopathy Awareness Week
• In Defence of Reason: Homeopathy Awareness Week
• A canna' change the laws of physics (1): Homeopathy Awareness Week
• A canna' change the laws of physics (2): Homeopathy Awareness Week
• Zygoma: Homeopathy Awareness Week
• Burning Mind (2008): Homeopathy Awareness Week
• Skepchick: Homeopathy Awareness Week (2008)
• Denialism Blog: Homeopathy Awareness Week (2008)
• Sceptical Rants: Homeopathy Awareness Week (2008)

Awareness Weeks are great when people take them seriously.

What's wrong with believing?

A depressingly familiar tale of the risks that come with a sad lack of skepticism comes to us from the UK.

41 year old Simon Trussell was estranged from his girlfriend and sought the assistance of a "psychic" to see if the relationship[ could be salvaged. The "psychic", who was obviously very convincing, told Trussell that he could help.

Lovesick chef loses £12,000 in psychic con, but medium sees fraud trial coming and flees country

George Lavery, who uses the professional name Simon Lavery, persuaded his victim to buy a mobile phone which he said he would pass to his ex, Mary Pratt.

He and an accomplice then posed as the woman in dozens of text messages in which she asked for cash and gifts to be sent through Lavery.

Over eight months, Mr Trussell, 41, was tricked into handing over as much as £6,000 cash, £800 of leather fetish gear, a sofa and even a £6,000 engagement ring.

The real harm in being credulous is that you make yourself a natural target for con-merchants. None of us is perfect and we are all at risk of falling for a scam at some time in our lives, especially during times of desperation, but some people seem hell-bent on being as credulous as they can possibly be. The old saying "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is" seems lost on such people who instead believe "if you think it's too good to be true, you're just scared of the truth and closed-minded".

Found via JREF Swift


CLOSER TO HOME: Cancer quackery in Australia

In more compelling news, much closer to home, Perth's Today Tonight (TT) just ran a story about quack cancer treatments. The story deserves to be spammed across the blogosphere but I've so far been unable to find it online.

TT tells the story of a naturopath who was dying of cancer and, having heard good reports, sought help from a man (Schindler, I think) who claims he can cure cancer with "massage therapy". Like chiropractors, he claims the nervous system is at the core of all ills and that he can strengthen it. "Cancer", he says, "is easy to cure". Unfortunately his remedy involves abandoning any real medicine including chemotherapy and even pain killers. As a result, this patient suffered in pain until her death two weeks later.

If you can find this story reported elsewhere, please drop me a comment. I tried to congratulate TT for the story but their comment box didn't work.

Okay, THIS contact form worked.


UPDATE: BadPsychics has a copy of the story - Cancer Quackery, Massage Therapy in Australia

UK approve "drug" with "nothing" in it?

Yesterday's Guardian carried a story about the licensing of a homeopathic product which carries the claim "used within the homoeopathic tradition for the symptomatic relief of sprains, muscular aches, and bruising or swelling"

That claim seems to not be much of a claim of anything to anyone who is used to reading information from the alternative "medicine" industry. To people who are not so familiar with weasel words, it might look like a claim that the product will actually deliver relief from symptoms.

The Guardian quotes Professor David Colquhoun, a pharmacologist at University College London:

"The average consumer is unlikely to know that 'used within the homoeopathic tradition' is a form of weasel words that actually means 'there isn't a jot of evidence that the medicine works'."

Professor Colquhoun considers the licensing of the product to possibly be illegal:

In a letter to the BMJ, he writes: "I can see no legal loophole that allows the manufacturers of Arnica 30c to evade the provisions of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. One of the 31 commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair is 'falsely claiming that a product is able to cure illnesses, dysfunction, or malformations'".

You can read more about Professor Colquhoun's concerns at his website, DC's Improbable Science: The Medicines and Health Regulatory Authority breaks the law?

More reading at:

Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News: Homeopathy Licence
Telegraph: Illegal Homeopathic Licence?
Times Online: Homeopathic Product Licence

Vaccination information

A leaflet warning against anti-vaccination propaganda has been released by The Australian Skeptics.

I can't upload PDFs so I hope the Sceptics' Book of Pooh-Pooh don't mind me linking directly to their hi-res copy of the flyer:
An Open Letter to... The Parents of Australia, about Immunisation

"In America, the anti-vax movement is represented by model Jenny McCarthy and film star Jim Carrey. In Australia we have
the deceptively entitled “Australian Vaccination Network” (AVN) which spreads misinformation about the safety and
effectiveness of vaccines. They incorrectly claim that vaccines contain toxic quantities of heavy metals such as mercury as well
as aluminium, anti-freeze and formaldehyde. Further they will tell you that vaccines cause diseases such as autism, despite the
fact that as a result of concerted scientific research, a link between vaccines and autism has been unequivocally dismissed."

The flyer, which is free to copy, print and redistribute, points parents to the following sites for more information:

Immunise Australia Programme
http://www.immunise.health.gov.au

National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance
http://www.ncirs.usyd.edu.au

Australian Childhood Immunisation Register
http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/public/services/acir/index.jsp

The Australian Immunisation Handbook
http://immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook-home

Immunisation myths and realities - responding to arguments against immunisation
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/content/uci-myths-guideprov

Homeopathy for Eczema? No!

A while ago I wrote about the trial of Thomas and Manju Sam whose daughter died after suffering from severe eczema. Her "treatment" had consisted almost entirely of homeopathy.

But these were not just a couple of parents who'd been hoodwinked by an alternative "medicine" practitioner into avoiding genuine medical assistance. Thomas Sam was a homeopath himself. And he wasn't just a homeopath, he was a senior lecturer in homeopathy - in Australia.

Gloria Sam died of septicemia and malnutrition in May 2002, at 9 months of age. That was seven years ago but The Natural Health Guide ("bringing you the leaders in natural health care") still carries the following statement on Thomas Sam's website entry:

"The body has an immune system that corrects and protects itself, but due to our stressful living conditions, pollution, radiations and drug abuse, our natural healing ability is delayed or suppressed. Homœopathic treatment gently stimulates the immune system of the body and brings about a gentle healing. During times of acute complaints of deficiency or imbalance, medicines are recommended. Eventually conditions can be controlled without any medicine, through diet regulation, nutrition, regular exercise, wholesome and positive thoughts and meditation."

Homoeopathy (aka homeopathy) apparently did not gently stimulate Gloria Sam's immune system. It would appear from evidence presented at the trial that homeopathy acted exactly as science predicts it would - it was useless. In fact, homeopath "Doctor" Vinay Katyal told the jury in the Sam trial that "homeopathy had nothing much to offer for acute patients."

Was Gloria's condition "acute" enough to warrant real medical attention?

"The court heard that by the time Gloria was six months old, her eczema had begun weeping, causing her clothing and nappies to stick to her skin, which would tear whenever her parents changed her. Crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi QC said the baby girl's skin began to peel off, allowing infections to enter her bloodstream."

I'm not a homeopath, but that sounds like it might qualify as "acute".

This case is tragic enough in that it involves the needless death of a baby who could well have been saved by genuine medicine and gone on to live a fulfilling life. But perhaps more tragic, is that her father, "Doctor" Thomas Sam BSc, BHMS, MPH CWPT, ANTA (Hom), has taught other Australian's about this non-medicinal alternative called "homeopathy".

His entry appears to have vanished last week (perhaps not surprisingly) from the Natural Therapy Pages website but the cached version can still be found on Google - Abundant Life Wholistic Healing & Research Centre: (My bolding)

Mr.Sam has been practicing in various Medical Centres in Sydney for the last 12 years and is a Senior lecturer in the Medical Science faculty at the Sydney College of Homoeopathic Medicine now at Crows nest since 1998. He is a faculty member of Medical Science at the Nature Care College at St. Leonards for the last 4 years. Currently he is working towards his enrolling for MD (Homoeopathic Medicine) from Los Angeles International University California, USA, through Samuel Hahnemann School of Homoeopathic Medicine.

His passion is to release people from drug dependency and to help them to lead a normal healthy life. He specialises in the Wholistic management of autoimmune diseases and chronic complaints like Migraine, Chronic fatigue, Allergies, Tonsillitis, Asthma, Insomnia, Hypertension, Infertility, Eczema. Psoriasis, Leucoderma, Pigmentation, Warts & Corns, Alopecia, Autism, ADHD, Menstrual and menopausal complaints, Stress, Anxiety, Obesity and Depression.

Thomas is interested in treating those cases not responding to regular conventional medicine and surgery and he believes that Medical Science is not the solution to the problems of mankind but just a tool to adjust certain physiological processes. We are triune beings composed of spirit, soul and we live in a body. A chronic disease will definitely have an emotional and spiritual issue. He believes that disease first gets conceived in the spirit and then it manifests in the body. So patient with a chronic disease needs a total tuning of the spirit, soul and the body along with conventional treatment - a Wholistic Medical approach.

Yes, it does seem that Mr Sam specialised in almost everything from being overweight to bacterial infections to psychological disorders and the remainder does indeed read just like a page from a fundamentalist religious outfit. I suspect homeopathy really is just a religion, interested more in the indefinable "spirit" and "soul" than in biology or medicine and, like prayer, homeopathy proves itself ineffective against anything that wouldn't normally abate in it's own time.

I had followed this case for a while but was distracted recently by the Simon Singh libel case, brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association. The Bad Astronomer, however, was not quite so distracted and posted an update today (Homeopathy Kills).

Yesterday, Thomas and Manju Sam were convicted of manslaughter.

His counsel Carolyn Davenport, SC, argued there was a wide sentencing range for manslaughter and the offence was at the "bottom end".

"This isn't a neglect case where the child was unloved and unwanted," she said. "It's a case where my client was doing his best in his perception of things to take care of his child."

"At the bottom end"? And what does "doing his best in his perception of things" mean? It sounds, to a layman like myself, like an argument of diminished capacity. But again, Thomas Sam was a senior lecturer in homeopathy, in Australia. This isn't a case of a new arrival secretly administering a perverse, cultural treatment whilst being entirely ignorant of modern medicine. And if multiculturalism means we must accept all manner of nonsense then I'm starting to think it might not be all it was cracked up to be.

Thomas Sam should have been very aware of modern medicine, he'd been "practicing in various Medical Centres in Sydney for the last 12 years." But against all scientific evidence for real medicine and all the scientific evidence against homeopathy, Sam apparently decided homeopathy was better - "he believes that Medical Science is not the solution to the problems of mankind". And he not only practiced it but taught it to others.

How many of Sam's past students are currently out there advising other parents to forgo real medical attention and just take sugar pills or tiny drinks of water or alcohol (since this is what homeopathic medicines actually are)? How many of them will throw their own degrees in the bin as a result of this case?

Here's some interesting reading from The house of Lords in what could be called "Homeopathy on Trial". Question 538 is especially telling:

Q538 Lord Broers: I have a simple, technical question about homeopathy and drugs. Is it possible to distinguish between homeopathic drugs after they have been diluted? Is there any means of distinguishing one from the other?

Ms Chatfield: Only by the label.

If homeopathic "remedies" had any noticeable effect then Ms Chatfield would surely have answered that the contents of different botttles could be determined by their differing effects. For example, an anti-headache potion should actually cause a headache in a person who doesn't have one (this is the basis on which homeopathy is founded after all). An anti-constipation potion should result in the non-sufferer becoming "bunged-up". But Ms Chatsfield responds that the only way to differentiate is by reading the label.

So, it seems you could switch the labels on any genuine homeopathic drugs (not to be confused with herbal products that might be sold as homeopathic) and the results of ingesting them will be the same. Unlike real medicine, there will be no side effects from taking the "wrong" homeopathic "medicine" - because there will apparently be no effect at all, unless you choke on it.

This court case has now proved that the law does not see homeopathy as a genuine medical treatment (we surely wouldn't charge parents with manslaughter as a result of promptly taking their child to a real doctor for treatment) yet we have colleges that still charge students to learn that homeopathy is "medicine" and they go out and practice it in the health market place.

Why? Why is this not treated as a fraud at both the college level and in the market place?

Last year, the WA department in charge of consumer affairs demanded the Moletech "fuel saver" device be taken off the shelves and that customers seek refunds - because it didn't work. Why does alternative "medicine" continue to get a free pass no matter how much evidence accumulates that it is not only of little practical use but potentially deadly?

One consistent argument from regulators appears to be that alternative "medicines" are acceptable if they can be shown to do no harm. But the banned fuel saver device wasn't likely to harm anything beyond the wallet, just like homeopathic treatments. But unlike homeopathic treatments, the fuel saver was banned after about 6 months on the shelves because it didn't do what it was claimed to do.

We are also subject to a plethora of what some might consider to be nanny state regulations and promotions. From warnings on tobacco products to commericals about abuse to seat belts and bike helmets and speed limits, our government often goes to great lengths to try and protect us from ourselves. But they remain silent on alternative therapies leading, I'd argue, to a perception that such treatments might actually be useful.

So, are Thomas and Manju Sam solely responsible for their daughter's death - or do our regulators share that responsibility since they allow a situation not only of personal belief but in the selling of that belief as if it were fact? I think our federal and state governments have a case to answer here.


LINKS:

Sydney Morning Herald: Homeopathy, Eczema, Thomas Sam
SBS World News Australia: Homeopathy, Eczema, Thomas Sam
Digital Journal: What is Homeopathy - Eczema
Daily Telegraph: Homeopathy Eczema Trial, Thomas Sam
ABC News (Australia): Homeopathy Trial, Eczema, Thomas Sam

See also: Ben Goldacre on Homeopathy and government regulation (UK)

*Some late editing has taken place on this article. It does not change the substance but deals with some niggling phrasing and potential legal issues.

Articles and images on this blog are nothing more than commentary based on the honest opinion of the author. No one should use this blog as the sole basis for forming an opinion on the subjects discussed but readers are welcome to consider these opinions in light of similar or contrary information available elsewhere. I advise skepticism regarding my own commentary just as I advise it with regards to the subjects discussed here. If I can get you to take nothing at face value, I've done my job.

Homeopathic Hide & Seek

Beginning in March this year, The Guardian have hosted a regular segment they call "You ask, they answer". The series has featured a variety of "ethical and green" subjects from cardboard box makers to the UK's Environment Agency. Readers are invited to ask questions that will be answered by the chosen subject over the following four days.

Comments ranged in number from 15 to 72 - that was until The Guardian invited Neal's Yard Remedies to participate last week.

Following last week's spotlight on Fairtrade and food, this week we turn our 'You ask, they answer' series to look at organics and beauty. For the next four days, ethical skin and body care products firm Neal's Yard Remedies will be doing its best to answer your questions below.

Neal's Yard Remedies (NYR) advertises itself as carrying the "UK's largest range of organic herbs and skin care" (as opposed to those synthetic herbs you might be familiar with?). Among the large variety of products they sell is a range of homoeopathic "remedies" for all manner of ailments. It was this range of homoeopathic products that brought the questioners in - and they came in hard, fast and seemingly unrelenting.

In keeping with the purpose of the "You ask, they answer" forum, they asked questions they wanted answered - and they asked and asked and asked again - mostly for evidence. For more than 24 hours they listed homoeopathic claims from NYR's website and asked for evidence that the chosen product worked, by what mechanism it could work, clarification of some claims and whether NYR felt it was ethical to advertise and sell some products.

How do you validate the medical efficacy of your 'remedies'?

Have you ever been offered a natural remedy that was so obviously without any merit that you refused to bottle it and sell it to your gullible customers, or does pretty much anything go?

Please could you explain what level of evidence of efficacy you require before stocking any product?

Given that homoeopathy has never been shown to have any effect distinguishable from placebo, do you regard it as ethical to profit from publications which seek to exploit the anxiety of new mothers to sell pseudo-medicines?

What does '1% organic' mean? (Yes, they have a product which they advertise as "1% organic")

After a few hours, forum host Adam Vaughan commented that Neal's Yard were working on replies and urged the eager audience to "watch this space". Indeed they did watch - and they continued asking questions.

Does your part in the MMR scare make you feel guilty? Do you feel bad when you think of the children who have suffered measles and possibly even had brain damage or died because of the scare which you promote?

Could you please explain how the 'correct homoeopathic remedy' is decided on and describe the qualifications of the people who make these decisions?

I'd also be grateful for a biological definition of 'healing energy' and an indication of where I can find the scientific evidence for its existence.

I'll buy the relief of stress and tension, especially if combined with massage, but what evidence is there for the elimination of toxins held in the body? What evidence is there that these toxins exist in the first place?

Do you have any evidence that "foresight Preconception Care" helps women conceive?

What is "healing energy"? What units is it measured in and where does it come from?

They asked. They asked a lot. Five pages of comments - 214 comments in fact! The vast majority were seeking information on the efficacy and evidence-base for homoeopathy. On the morning of day two, Adam Vaughan again assured readers that NYR were still in the game and would be responding.

Voodoo provided a very helpful link: House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (see Q538 - go ahead, read it, but don't blame me if you spit coffee in your keyboard).

Unfortunately, though a few helpful passers-by tried hard to wave the questions away with anecdotal distractions and the usual claims of "you're just scared it might be true", NYR never answered. Not one question.

Why NYR chose not to offer the evidence that was repeatedly being sought is anyone's guess because they didn't post a single comment in the forum. As a result, the comment section was closed early which is a shame because I suspect more people would have liked to have asked a lot more questions. Although, it's worth noting that as frustration began to set in with the realisation NYR were unlikely to hold up their end of the "You ask, they answer" arrangement, questions began to drift into the realm of the sarcastic and the down-right silly, though not entirely inappropriate...

If the labels come off the remedies will it matter which one I take for any given health problem?

I have some Tamiflu, if I crush it up and disolve it in my bath, will I now have enough Tamiflu to cure everyone in my road when the swine flu comes a rolling round?

I've been soaking a £20 note in a bathfull of water for the last few days, is it ok to pay for an order using my new homeopathic money? I now seem to have rather a lot of it.

And on it went until the hosts decided it might be best to call it quits. Shortly after, The Guardian followed up with a story on the PR consequences of failing to engage an audience who eagerly accept an invitation to ask questions. Indeed The Guardian had offered the forum as an opportunity to "grill" NYR who had been ordered by UK regulators last year to withdraw a homeopathic remedy for malaria. Forum host Adam Vaughan wrote:

Despite assuring me on Tuesday evening and early on Wednesday morning that it was formulating a catch-all response to the homeopathy questions, the company's PR representatives changed tack. By Wednesday lunchtime the company had decided not to take part in the debate.

Comments to that article are currently still open. The questions and observations continue and, as far as I can tell, Neal's Yard Remedies are still nowhere to be found in the discussion.


UPDATES: (I was very late to this story)

... and then, the comments spilled over into another Guardian story that had featured Neal's Yard Remedies in a much friendlier light.

Holford Watch discusses Neal's Yard Remedies efforts in "You ask, they don't answer"

Oprah Winfrey: Menopause & The Secret

Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert have written a less-than-complimentary article about Oprah Winfrey and her apparent tendency to support pseudoscience over real science.

The article begins with Suzanne Somers' seemingly bizarre ritual for postponing the onset of menopause...

"Each morning, the 62-year-old actress and self-help author rubs a potent estrogen cream into the skin on her arm. She smears progesterone on her other arm two weeks a month. And once a day, she uses a syringe to inject estrogen directly into her vagina ... Next come the pills. She swallows 60 vitamins and other preparations every day."

The authors cover a number of health issues in which "dubious" advice was offered up on Oprah's show...

"The problem is that this all has the aura of being scientific when a lot of it is wrong, or not proven or just utter hogwash," Cooper says. "No wonder it sounds very credible to the patients, and in my opinion, that's even worse. If it was all complete rubbish, people would be more likely to see it for what it really is."

Eventually, we get to Winfrey's promotion of "The Secret"...

The book that Oprah urges everyone to live by teaches that all diseases can be cured with the power of thought alone: "The question frequently asked is, 'When a person has manifested a disease in the body temple … can it be turned around through the power of "right thinking"?' And the answer is absolutely, yes." The book then offers the testimonial of a woman identified as Cathy Goodman. "I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I truly believed in my heart, with my strong faith, that I was already healed. Each day I would say, 'Thank you for my healing'." Goodman watched "very funny movies" to make herself laugh. "From the time I was diagnosed to the time I healed was approximately three months. And that's without any radiation or chemotherapy."

Of course, this should prompt the question of why Winfrey doesn't tell Suzanne Somers to abandon her weird daily rituals and just think herself younger, or why she doesn't tell Jenny McCarthy to just wish-away her son's autism or why she doesn't insist overweight people abandon diets and exercise and just start believing themselves thinner. But this is often "the way of the woo" - all conflicting advice resides happily together and the only one's who would notice the conflict are "closed-mninded" skeptics.

The real answer to the above question of why Winfrey doesn't dismiss all the conflicting health and well-being advice might be answered by the following...

In March 2007, the month after the first two shows on The Secret, Oprah invited a woman named Kim Tinkham on the program. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer, and her doctors were urging surgery and chemotherapy. But Tinkham wrote Oprah to say that she had decided to forgo this treatment and instead use The Secret to cure herself. On the show, Oprah seemed genuinely alarmed that Tinkham had taken her endorsement of The Secret so seriously. "When my staff brought this letter to me, I wanted to talk to her," Oprah told the audience. "I said, get her in here, OK?" On air, Oprah urged the woman to listen to her doctors. "I don't think that you should ignore all of the advantages of medical science and try to, through your own mind now because you saw a Secret tape, heal yourself," she said.

It would appear that, perhaps, Oprah doesn't really believe some of the fantastical pseudoscience that finds life, or re-birth, on her show - and maybe also assumes that no one would take her seriously when she promotes it. But then, why promote it?


via Pharyngula