Sponsor me.

Hypocrisy corner (6/3/2010)

It looks like nothing has changed at the resuscitated Australian Vaccination Network. One of the first announcements to come out of the outfit following its almost miraculous reprieve from collapse was this reiteration of their commitment to free speech and open comment.

This is the discussion list that has banned me from participation since 2001, although there is no ban on discussing me. That discussion of me can apparently go too far, it seems, because someone was banned from the list recently despite calling me an arsehole. His problem was that he then provided a link to what I had said that annoyed him. The inference is that talking about me and what I say and do is acceptable provided that nothing is done which might allow denizens of the AVN mailing list to actually see what it is that I say and do.

A cynic might also comment that if all messages which "make broad statements about vaccination or disease without backing it (sic) up with references" were to be eliminated then the list would be very bare indeed. As for not welcoming "those who behave in an abusive or dismissive manner towards those whose views do not match their own" and "The list is about intelligent and referenced discussions on vaccination issues",  all I can say is that I am glad that my irony meter is still away being repaired after the last whopping lie from the AVN otherwise it would have exploded and I would have had to pay to get it fixed again.

Christopher Hitchens on the Ten Commandments (6/3/2010)

In an article in the April edition of Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens considered the relevance of the Ten Commandments to today's life. Here is the man himself talking about this.

Part 1

So that this page doesn't load too slowly because of lots of YouTube videos, you can see all six parts of the talk here.

Oh no, they do not! (6/3/2010)

A good way to spend a Sunday (6/3/2010)

I know the dateline on this article says March 6, but really I had to wait until the next day to write it. This is why:

You can see a report of the speech here, and even watch a short extract. A video of the full speech is supposed to be up on the 'net real soon and as soon as it is I will let you know. Dawkins didn't say anything that was startling to anybody who had read his books, particularly The Greatest Show on Earth, but like the people who have all the AC/DC records but still went to see them in concert last week, you attend events like this because of the sense of occasion (and the chance to down some beers with friends and like-thinkers afterwards).

While we're waiting for the Dawkins speech (and the one preceding it by Professor Grayling) to appear in full on the web, here is a conversation between Richard Dawkins and George Negus on the SBS Dateline program.

And here is him being interviewed by Richard Glover on my local ABC radio station. I sent a message to Mr Glover afterwards about the comments from listeners that he read out after the interview. In my message I pointed him to the video below about creationist arguments, because almost every one of them had popped up. The last one he read out even said "it's only a theory".

Writing stuff (6/3/2010)

I'm like that person referred to by Omar Khayyam, you know the one whose "moving finger writes and having written, moves on". My fingers seem to be writing all the time and the results keep appearing in various places. One of those places is the Yahoo!7 News opinion page, and you can see the latest effort here. The standard of comments has been maintained for this edition, and I particularly like the way that some of them illustrate quite well the idea expressed in the article, which is that there are some people who are not worth debating. There are two people who post anonymous comments to every article whining about how I get to speak and they don't. Apparently they have never thought of putting a few hundred words together and submitting it for publication. Perhaps they are frightened that someone might require them to reveal their names. As for whether they are going to get me to write something different, I refer them again to Omar Khayyam. "Nor all thy piety nor all thy wit, can cancel half a line of it".

And while I'm thinking about debating people, here are some things to think about if you ever have to debate a creationist.

Another piece of my writing that has come out since we last met is my regular Naked Skeptic column for Australasian Science. I will refrain from making any nakedness jokes this month because I almost missed the deadline and barely got it finished in time. It was about UFOs, and it generated the following comment on some UFO enthusiast's blog called UFOs - scientific research:

The March 2010 issue of the "Australasian Science" magazine, Volume 31:2 page 44 has an article "What's that up in the sky?" by Peter Bowditch, immediate past president of the Australian Skeptics Inc.

It discusses the December 2009 Norway light show. It comments about "experts" who pronounced the light display due to aliens; a wormhole; or a black hole from the Large Hadron Collider. The Russians then said that it was actually a failed missile launch of theirs.

Bowditch went on to state "...problems can arise if we approach anomalies or novelties with a predetermined context or a standardised explanation." He comments that "UFO believers apply a different error...There is something in the sky that they don't understand so again they see what they want to see..."

That's it! I'm not sure if the blog owner agreed with me, disagreed or is an expert in non sequitur. All three, perhaps.

Speaking of writing and deadlines ... (6/3/2010)

See more of PHD Comics here

I knew it was too good to be true! (22/2/2010)

I go to all the trouble to build the AVN Deathwatch Countdown counter, I fill the refrigerator with expensive French champagne, I invite all my friends around to celebrate, and what happens? The Australian Vaccination Network carcass gives a twitch and then someone detects a pulse. The thing is still alive! You can read the awful news here.

You might notice where Ms Dorey says:

Well, no sooner had I sent out the email from Sam Statham offering a case of organic wine to the first person to donate $1,000 to the AVN, then (sic) he started to get threatening emails and phone calls.

One email was from a known member of the incorrectly-named Australian Skeptics who has posted many angry messages on boards across the internet - messages whose intent is the denigrate the AVN and myself.

Well, here's a fact for you, Ms Dorey. No member of Australian Skeptics contacted Mr Satham at Rosnay Wines. None, zero, zilch. The person who did contact him is not a member of AS, although he probably shares some of the ideals and principles of the organisation. Also, he did not threaten Mr Statham - he asked him politely if he was aware of the nefarious activities of the AVN. And, Ms Dorey, there was no need for him to denigrate the AVN. You do that yourself every time you spread misinformation about vaccines and medicine.

I also notice that Ms Dorey is standing down from the position of AVN President. I still haven't heard anything back about my application for the job, and I even found someone to fund the entire AVN operation if I became President. I suppose the answer and its accompanying employment-related paperwork has been caught up in the rush of activity at AVN HQ. I hope I hear about it soon because I am settling in to teaching and it becomes harder to reorganise my time as each week passes.

But is the AVN ever really going to fail? I have seen the stories before about its imminent collapse and there always seems to be a saviour who comes along at the last minute. I'll believe it's dead when I hear the clods of earth hitting the coffin.

And one final thing. Ms Dorey said:

I  foresee some wonderful additions to the AVN's already impressive range of vaccination information as well as the beginning of scientific research which we have been planning for years.

Elsewhere in the release she mentions that she has tears in her eyes. That statement above brought tears to my eyes. Tears of laughter. They provide an "impressive range of vaccination information"? They are going to do scientific research? I will have to stop now before the laughter triggers an asthma attack.

But the news is not all bad (22/2/2010)

On the other side of the world there are signs of a breakout of common sense. I probably don't have to comment about this news story from the UK Daily Mail. I just hope that the Parliament goes beyond just talking about and does something about it. Taxes should not be paying for idiocy like homeopathy.

Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS, say MPs

By Daniel Martin
Last updated at 2:46 PM on 21st February 2010

Homeopathy should no longer be funded on the NHS because there is absolutely no evidence that it works, MPs will say today.

The cash-strapped Health Service spends millions of pounds every year on the complementary medicine - at a time when it is restricting proven life-saving drugs for people with cancer.

But experts say there is no way known to science that homeopathic medicines could possibly be effective beyond being a placebo.

MPs on the Commons science and technology committee will also conclude that homeopathic medicines should be banned from using phrases like 'used to treat' in their marketing - as it could lead consumers to believe there is clinical evidence that they work.

Homeopathy, which counts Prince Charles among its fans, claims to treat and prevent disease by using greatly diluted forms of herbs and minerals.

It is based on the principle that 'like cures like' - that an illness can be treated by substances that produce similar symptoms. For example, homeopaths claim onions, which make eyes itchy and tearful, can be used to relieve the symptoms of hay fever.

But scientists point to the fact that the 'cures' are so diluted that the cannot possibly contain even a single molecule of the original substance.

The homeopathic industry, worth £40million in the UK, does not dispute this, saying that their remedies retain a 'memory' of the original ingredient. But they are unable to say how this could happen given the laws of physics and chemistry.

Some 54,000 patients are treated each year at four homeopathic hospitals in London, Glasgow, Bristol and Liverpool - taking around £4million of taxpayers' NHS funding away from conventional medicine.

A fifth hospital in Tunbridge Wells in Kent was forced to close last year when the local NHS stopped paying for treatments.

During the MPs' inquiry, the British Medical Association said the use of homeopathic medicine could not be justified on the current evidence, while the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain said there was no way it could work.

And Paul Bennett, from Boots, admitted there was no evidence homeopathic drugs were 'efficacious' - despite the fact that the chemist sells the medicines.

Since 2006, manufacturers have been allowed to claim their products can treat specific ailments, without providing proof. The MPs are expected to conclude that these rules should change.

Critics fear the sue of homeopathic medicines could lead to life-threatening illnesses going undiagnosed, or to patients binning tablets provided by their GP in favour of an unproven alternative.

David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology at University College London, said: 'It really is very simple - there is nothing in the pills. The danger is that people get diverted from the actual medicine which could cure them.'

Last year an Australian homeopath and his wife were found guilty of the manslaughter of their baby daughter because they did not seek conventional medical treatment for the nine-month-old, who died of septicaemia.

Cristal Sumner, chief executive of the British Homeopathic Association, said: 'We feel the select committee inquiry was too narrow in its remit. There is plenty of evidence to support homeopathy, with 100 randomised controlled trials, and many more on outcome measures, which reflect how patients say they feel.'

The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health, which promotes the use of alternative medicines, urged the government not to restrict the use of homeopathy, which would mean 'abandoning patients'.

Medical director Dr Michael Dixon, a GP, said: 'For all those people with long term conditions for whom there is no evidence-based medicine, it doesn't matter how it works, what matters is what helps them get better.'

So where has he been? (20/2/2010)

I have two real-life jobs that put food on the table, pay the rent and give me some spare money to spend on things like hosting this web site. One of these jobs is a computer consultancy based on selling and supporting a specific software package and the other is teaching at TAFE NSW. Over the last couple of weeks I've had to do the annual recertification examination to remain an accredited consultant for the software product and I have also had to refresh my teaching qualifications. I am not sure how I organised to have both of these things happen at the same time, but that's the way the universe works. To make sure that I have the minimum of spare time, one of the other TAFE teachers became unavailable just before the year's classes commenced and I had to take on his load or the course would have to have been cancelled. Things might be a bit sporadic around here over the next few weeks while I adjust to a fifty percent increase in the time needed for lesson preparation and teaching and a twenty percent reduction in the time available to do anything else.

More about Dr Wakefield (20/2/2010)

Following up on the recent story about Dr Andrew Wakefield's woes, I wrote an update to my 2004 article about him for the Yahoo!7 News site. You can read it and the comments here. I love the way that the fifth person to comment told me about research showing that measles vaccine virus particles could be found in the gut of autistic kids. The commenter had apparently missed the article where I mentioned that the particular piece of research had just been retracted by the journal that published it. Wakefield must be right because research by Wakefield says so. Quackonaut logic at its best.

Despite the canonisation of Wakefield by the usual anti-vaccination liars groups, it seems that his employer decided that paying someone a quarter of a million dollars a year to attract bad publicity was no longer a good idea and Dr Wakefield was reluctantly let go by Thoughtful House. As he had set this outfit up in the first place and it was funded by the huge amounts of money that he secretly received from the lawyers in the UK I am a bit surprised that they were able to sack him. If I were the suspicious kind I might even suspect that his "resignation" might be a form of damage control and he will quietly slip back in to his Texas office when all the noise about the GMC and The Lancet has quietened down, and it will be business as usual.

If he can't get his old job back there is an opportunity in Tijuana. The death of überquack Hulda Clark has left an enormous hole in the Mexican quackery fraud business and her clinic in Tijuana is conveniently close to the border. Accommodation in the area shouldn't be a problem as Clark also left behind a rather nice house in a cul-de-sac in Chula Vista, and it's only a short drive south from there to get to work in a place free of the FDA and other pesky rule makers. As one of the services provided by Thoughtful House is chelation to cure autism, Dr Wakefield could start by offering that to the millions of parents of autistic children caught in the autism epidemic in California. I am sure that with his research skills he could soon prove that chelation was also useful in the treatment of cancer and thereby gain access to all those poor people with cancer who have been sent home to die by their doctors and have had nowhere to go since Clark died. Of cancer. (I should note that when I used the word "poor" above I wasn't referring to people with no money. Such people are of no interest to Tijuana clinic operators.)

Speaking of canonisation ... (20/2/2010)

When the night is cloudy there is still a light that shines on me, and it will shine a little brighter after October 17 this year when the canonisation of Australia's first Catholic saint, Mary MacKillop, becomes final. I won't write too much about Mary's sainthood here right now because it will be the subject of my next column for Australasian Science magazine, but I will make a couple of points. The first is that Mary did a whole lot of good work while she was alive and it is perfectly legitimate to honour her memory and celebrate her life. The fact that she supposedly did her good work because God told her to is irrelevant. Much of her biography suggests that she would have expressed her compassion in a productive manner without the church had she lived in a different period of history, and it devalues her life's work by setting up a situation where she is celebrated for performing (or more correctly, facilitating) miracles after she died.

The second point is the danger of encouraging people with serious illnesses to expect miracles to come from a deity rather than from reality. I have no problem with people praying for a cure as long as they don't give up their treatment while waiting for God to answer the prayers, but the the publicity given to miracles could convince some people that prayer is a viable alternative to taking nasty medicine and undergoing uncomfortable procedures.

The third point is that some people (not, I might add, most of the people actually doing the work) have tried to claim that the investigative process involved in canonisation is somehow scientific. It looks like science only in the way that there is a hypothesis (if you ask someone nicely and often enough they can persuade God to break the rules He set for the universe) and strenuous effort is made to refute any supposed supporting evidence. The science starts after a miracle is established, by trying to find out what really happened, but that next step is never taken. In any case, the whole procedure became much less fun after the position of Devil's Advocate was renamed to something more compliant with modern management principles. I would take a job in the Vatican myself if I could have that title on my business cards.

A lawyer is defended (20/2/2010)

Lawyer Jonathon Emord was Highly Commended in the 2009 Millenium Awards for his ability to be totally committed to absolute, universal freedom of speech while simultaneously getting ready to argue in court that some people should not have freedom of speech. He is the tame lawyer for the National Vaccination (dis)Information Center, an organisation which shares his ambiguous attitude to free speech. Someone mentioned the awards on the Australian Vaccination Network's mailing list and one of the responses is an excellent example of how people will believe anything if it fits their agenda and ideology. I replied to the poster (directly, of course, because I am banned from the list) but I have not yet received a reply. Somehow I don't expect to ever get a reply.

From: Eileen Landies
Sent: Sat, 13 February, 2010 9:36:49 AM
Subject: [AVN] Re:Ratbags goes too far

For those of your unfamiliar with him, I met Jonathan Emord at the NVIC conference back in October. He gave a phenomenal talk and I have recommended his book (The Rise of Tyranny: How federal agencies abuse power and pose risks to your life and liberty) to many people. He was successful in suing the FDA regarding their suppression of information regarding folic acid and birth defects. He is a strong supporter of health freedoms.

Hello Eileen,

Did he happen to mention when this suppression of the information about folic acid and birth defects took place? As there are papers indexed in PubMed going back more than 60 years dealing with this matter either Emord is close to 90 years old (to allow time to get established as a lawyer by 1958), he was a child prodigy who was able to conduct a complex legal battle as an infant, or he is a liar.

But don't let the facts interfere with a good story.

A journey of a thousand miles starts ... (20/2/2010)

The following article appeared in several of my local papers. I haven't been able to find out any more, but it could be very good news indeed. The reaction in some anti-medicine forums was interesting. They welcomed the news because they thought that it meant that the government was going to crack down on real doctors who are responsible for all those deaths caused by medicine. I was glad I hadn't switched on my irony meter or it would have shattered.

Crackdown on quacks
February 13, 2010

CHARLATAN healers who exploit vulnerable sick people by selling fake balms and rituals will face stiff penalties under new national laws.

The laws may also compel some alternative health practitioners to admit they cannot prove that their "treatment" will make a difference to a patient's health.

The crackdown on sham healers was proposed by the Victorian government and won national approval and a budget for further development at yesterday's Health Ministers' Conference in Melbourne.

Under the scheme, unregistered health practitioners - those who do not fall under registration schemes such as those for doctors, nurses or pharmacists - will have to abide by a code of conduct or face restrictions, bans or even jail for repeat offenders.

The code of conduct will catch out people who: claim training that they don't have; behave inappropriately, for instance in sexual contact; do not inform their clients of any risks involved in the treatment; or do not get informed consent.

Weeping walls (20/2/2010)

In April 2007 I appeared on a television current affairs show to talk about what was being called "the miracle house", a place where oil was seeping from the walls creating an instant shrine for a dead schoolboy. I forgot about it afterwards because I thought that it was something that would just fade away. I was a bit surprised when the same program ran a reprise of the story in late 2009 which showed that the thing was still running strongly. The show brought in some scientists to test the oil (a combination of rose and olive oils) and, in the fashion of such shows, followed the scientists' debunking by saying how it was still a mystery. The mystery became a little clearer a few weeks later when the father of the dead boy was revealed as a con man, although the particular fraud was not related to weeping walls. It did suggest a pattern of behaviour, though.

Here's the 2007 item from Today Tonight.

And this is what reminded me:

See more of Red Meat here

Where will he be next week? (20/2/2010)

You might remember that I played the Pope in last year's Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade. If you don't remember, you can go here to be reminded. The Pope won't be parading this year but I will, supporting the Sydney Queer Atheists. I am not, in fact, a Sydney queer atheist, but as Meatloaf used to tell us interminably on radio in the late 1970s "Two out of three ain't bad". The Mardi Gras parade is one of the highlights of the Sydney social calendar and I had so much fun last year that there is no way I wasn't going to be in the show somehow this year. The parade is on Saturday, February 27, so I won't be doing any web site updating that day, but if everything goes to plan I should have some spectacular pictures to put up in the following days. If you will be watching the parade look out for me. I will be one of the three (or maybe four) straight guys.