Free pr0n for asylum seekers

Spiegel Online reports how the Czech Republic tests whether applicants for asylum are telling the truth or not when they claim they would be persecuted for being gay. It seems the report may have been written by Benny Hill, since it notes that

the only way to obtain hard evidence was to administer a test using a phallometric device.

People who make such puns should be given a stiff dressing down. EoR just won't stand for it.

Furthermore, the person administering these tests is a physician and sex therapist called Dr. Ondrej Trojan. More proof of Nominative Determinism.

It also seems that Dr Trojan has difficulty determining patient/doctor boundaries:

A former patient claims that he offered to masturbate in front of her while she was under his treatment, and she says that she intends to produce video recordings as evidence. Trojan insists that he was merely applying a method known as "demonstration therapy," which even he admits is "controversial."

EoR doesn't know which is worse. That a sex therapist offered to masturbate in front of a patient, or that the patient was videotaping the whole thing.

Positively swishing forward fast to desired energy

EoR has been aware of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) for decades, but never really thought much of it other than some sort of wacky fringe mind programming cult. It has been brought to his attention, however, by the constant advertising from the local bonecracker who, regardless of his constant claims that the 'body has the power to heal' and chiropractic's miracle cures, still feels the need to pile on improbable therapy on top of improbable therapy, including trigger point therapy and kinesiology (the applied — fake — kind). Not only that, but his advertising also includes a Christian ichthos so, presumably, prayer helps as well. Now NLP is included in the package:

NLP life coach Terri Messenger said she offers NLP studied by Bandler & Professor Grinder to move people forward fast and effectively. "It's the study of human excellence and how people think on a neuro-synaptic level," she said. "It models Milton Erickson, Fritz Pearls [sic] and Virginia Satir. It is successeful in the fast phobia cure and swish pattern. These are some techniques used to beat depressive, anxious, fearful and addictive states. People can expect to reach desired states of energy, motivation and positivity very quickly."

Now, perhaps EoR is alone in seeing that as gibberish, but he'd never realised just how deeply mad NLP is. Even though its practitioners seem to be heavily skewed towards the holistic kind where the preference is for the deeply mad.

While there are seemingly millions of sites on the internet explaining NLP, Wikipedia provides a good single-source summary.

To sort out some of those names Ms Messenger rattles off: Bandler and Grinder were the originators of NLP back in the seventies. Fritz Perls was a gestalt therapist, and Virginia Satir was another therapist, both of whom inspired the creation of NLP. They were not, however, part of NLP.

NLP does not appear to have any sort of scientific validation of any kind. Instead, its practitioners seem to rely on the double edged sword of "it works for me" and "it can't be tested scientifically". Long term skeptics will recognise the cri de coeur favoured of homeopathic practitioners in the face of all evidence that their preferred form of magic is, in reality, a placebo.

Perhaps the single most telling condemnation of how brilliant NLP is in increasing energy, motivation and 'positivity' is the protracted and acrimonious breakup of Bandler and Grinder, and the subsequent court cases. If it doesn't work for the creators, what hope for the rest of the world?

Furthermore, like cults that break up into increasingly more isolated subcults, NLP has a plethora of forms. Wikipedia notes that you can become an NLP practitioner in Europe with only 2-3 days of training. For the truly dedicated, those prepared to devote themselves longterm to the hard slog, you can become a professional in a wearying 35-40 days. In Australia, the average seems to be around a week to become a fully qualified practitioner, though you could opt for the incredibly lengthier 13 day training course (though that does, of course, give you "3 international certificates"). That last site offers scientific proof of all the claimed miracles that NLP delivers ("Click here to find out what the latest research has shown about NLP Practitioner Training in Australia"). Unfortunately, that link only takes you to a solitary recommendation from a fellow coach.

I know all this to be true because I've worked with Wilbert before on various projects and I've also had him as my coach...and he's brilliant! One of the best.

In the context of "lastest research" it's worth less than nothing.

But what is that bizarre 'swish pattern'? Apparently it is

The process of taking a behaviour or state and changing the submodalities to enhance a new behaviour or state, sometimes accompanied by a noise like swwwwishhhh at the time of changing them.

It involves two (imaginary) pictures, one showing the desired behaviour and one the negative behaviour which are swapped around faster and faster — the 'swishing'. It basically seems to be a method of distracting yourself from an unwanted or negative behaviour. Whether it works or not is another question. But if the next public speaker you see stands on stage sweating nervously, and making 'swish' noises over and over, at least now you'll know why.

What's that noise? Swwwwiiiissshhhh.... Oh, it's the sound of evidence disappearing...

Experiencing magical courses

There is so much wrong with this...

The Australian reports on an Australian Universities Quality Audit report into the Endeavour College of Natural Health (report available here).

The Australian doesn't list the full "13 recommendations, four commendations and two affirmations" in the report, but notes that students

were largely cynical towards the college's management and were "not impressed" with the state of facilities, "particularly as they are paying what they perceive to be large fees".

Students were critical of the College's "student experience" and the report also noted the College's "cultural challenges".

EoR has no idea what these marketing weasel words have to do with education. Are the students customers clients stakeholders attending College for the "experience" rather than an education? And what sort of "experience"? Relevant, accurate knowledge? Intellectual debate? Examinations? Rigorous tutors? The student bar? The night life?

Of course, the glaring omission here, as in the UK, is that the Australian authorities will license any sort of course if it meets certain management and regulatory provisions. The actual content of that course can be as wacky, unproven or magical as you like. What, for instance, is the real world basis for teaching units such as Chakra Meridian Interface or Acupuncture Channel Theory?

Ill winds

We're already well aware of the significant negative health effects caused by random electromagnetic frequencies (seemingly, only from high tension power lines and mobile phones — all other sources such as television signals, microwaves, computers, wall cabling and so on do not cause problems) but what about the terrible and hidden health costs of renewable energy sources?

Dr Sarah Laurie has raised the terrible spectre of "wind farm sickness".

Dr Sarah Laurie, medical director of the newly formed Waubra Foundation, has forwarded to executives of Hepburn Wind a letter she wrote to Premier John Brumby, in which she says she's shocked at the extent and severity of symptoms in patients she has encountered with "wind farm sickness".

[...]

Symptoms included a sudden acute severe headache, nausea, a sensation of "their heart leaping out of their chest", and they feel extremely unwell.


"This pattern of symptoms is associated with a dangerously high blood pressure, and warrants immediate medical attention," Dr Laurie said.

A Wind Farm Director interviewed for the report notes that Dr Laurie is discussing "very small numbers of patients" but the exact number is not given. The claims Dr Laurie makes also come from interviews, not any sort of study, and there appears to be no effort to match and compare with any sort of control group. Her letter to the Victorian Premier mentions five people (and another two who, it is not clear, may or may not be included in the five) who have suffered health problems, though she doesn't specify the total population this sample comes from. Nonetheless, Dr Laurie wants a 10 km buffer zone around wind farms.

The symptoms she describes sound eerily similar to those of EMF poisoning:

Commonly reported symptoms of EMF poisoning include sleep disorders, headaches, vision problems, sensitive skin, dizziness, chest pain and nausea.

It has been noted that people experiencing such symptoms have them only when they know that EMF radiation is present. However, if they are unaware of whether the radiation is present or not, there is no correlation between symptoms and EMF. It would be very interesting to know whether the same situation exists with wind farms.

EoR would also be interested in learning whether a Q Link pendant is equally effective for the new malaise as for EMF poisoning?

The Yorkshire Post is equally concerned, noting

a possible link between low-frequency noise of the type transmitted by wind farms and a rare condition called vibroacoustic disease – a complex illness that can lead to epilepsy and cancer.

Vibroacoustic disease appears to have mainly been studied by N Castelo Branco, who describes it thus:

Vibroacoustic disease (VAD) is a whole-body, systemic pathology, characterized by the abnormal proliferation of extra-cellular matrices, and caused by excessive exposure to low frequency noise (LFN). VAD has been observed in LFN-exposed professionals, such as, aircraft technicians, commercial and military pilots and cabin crewmembers, ship machinists, restaurant workers, and disk-jockeys.

Different frequencies are given, but the dangerous levels appear to be 500Hz or less, with lower frequencies being more dangerous. The authors state that decibel levels are not important:

Hence, two situations arise: a) it is not scientifically sound to compare the results of noise-related studies that describe their acoustical environments merely in terms of a dBlevel measurement (i.e., without a frequency spectrum analysis), and b) the results of noiserelated studies that do not report the frequency distribution of their acoustical environments cannot be compared to those that do.

The Clean Energy Council states:

[H]ealth problems stemming from wind farms might be related to the anxiety and stress a person might feel about living near turbines which is then “exacerbated by rhetoric, fears and negative publicity” in the media.

[...]

Australian guidelines for wind farm acoustics were among the most stringent in the world and noise levels were improving with advancement in turbine and blade technology and anti-wind farm campaigners could be responsible for creating their own health problems.

Of course, this sort of possible issue is manna from heaven for the climate change deniers. The Australian Environment Foundation has joined in the protest, calling for windfarm development to cease until all its concerns are addressed. Finding independent information about these matters has been some trouble for EoR, with interest groups on both sides putting their points of view, but any organisation with "environment" and "foundation" in its title these days is automatically suspect for being a duplicitous front for climate denial interest groups. Which the AEF, of course, is.

The Australian Environment Foundation is a front group founded by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a conservative Melbourne-based think tank.

The director of the environment unit of the IPA, Jennifer Marohasy was the founding Chairwoman and is listed as a Director in the organisation's documents with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). Mahorasy is also the listed registrant of the group's website, although the address and phone number for the website registration are identical to the address and phone number for the Victorian office of the logging industry front group, Timber Communities Australia.

Presumably, "Australian environment" means exploiting the Australian environment, and not sustainability. If the AEF truly believed in the precautionary principle, it would also be advocating action on climate change.

Dr Anthony L Rogers at the University of Massachusetts provides a powerpoint presentation offering some relevant information on noise and infrasound in relation to wind turbines. He notes (p.28)

No reliable evidence that infrasound below the hearing threshold produces physiological or psychological effects.

He also provides some intersting graphs (pp. 46-47) showing that annoyance levels increase faster for wind turbines than for comparable industrial noise, and also when people held negative attitudes towards turbines. These concerns were also related directly to audible noise, rather than infrasound.

Dr Laurie's letter of concern is now being quoted by politicians as a "study" in order to stop windfarm development.

[Bass MLA Ken] Smith said a study by a South Australian GP Dr Sarah Laurie, had shown that noise disturbance, sleep deprivation, headaches, increased blood pressure, body vibrations and tachycardia (fast or irregular heart beat) could all be symptoms of wind turbine syndrome.

Perhaps these people would also support shutting down Manhattan?

Noise in 98 percent of Manhattan's public space exceeds healthy levels, says a study co-authored by Columbia University researchers to be released today.

To summarise: there may be a possible link to windfarm turbines and vibroacoustic disease. VAD has, however, never been studied in this situation, nor is it clear that VAD itself exists. Evidence that much of the health issues experienced around windfarms may actually be psychosomatic is clearer.

Ask the vet

While reading Dr Dingle's latest proclamation in Nova, EoR also came across the following Q&A: A WORRYING LUMP - Animal Healing Q & A with Dr Clare Middle, BVMS CVA Cert1AVH.

A woman writes to holistic vet Dr Middle about her Pomeranian dog which has a tumour that she, as a pensioner, cannot afford to have treated with chemotherapy. That was two years ago, and now the lump is "40 or 50 cm in size".

If Wikipedia is to be believed, Pomeranians average 13-28cm high. If Nova is to be believed, the tumour has now grown to twice the size of the dog. Even if the dimensions are taken as 40-50mm it's still a large tumour, and the implication is that in the two years it has been growing its owner has not been back to the vet.

Dr Middle advises (EoR's emphasis):

It does sound as if the lump on Snowy's leg is a nasty one if the vet has recommended chemo. If it is a tumour of the bone, or an osteosarcoma, then it may have spread to other parts of the body, but small dogs rarely get this type of tumour. It is more likely to be a fibrosarcoma, which is unlikely to have spread. So if the vet has done a biopsy and knows it is this type of tumour, then this might sound drastic, but amputating the hind leg may be the best and most cost effective option if the lump is causing him pain. This would be easier and more successful than trying to remove the tumour, according to the information you have given me. Small breed dogs do not carry much weight on a hind leg and usually do well after an amputation.

However, if the lump is not causing him pain, that is, if he is using the leg without much of a limp, then it may be best to do nothing about it, or use herbs to reduce its growth rate. You can buy these herbs cheaply from a herbalist or health food shop which sells herbs, in either a dry herb or liquid tincture form. The herbs are, Burdock, Slippery Elm Bark, Sheep Sorrel, Red Clover, Indian or Turkish Rhubarb Root and Blessed Thistle.

Call EoR old fashioned and alarmist, but his recommendation would be for a vet to examine the dog urgently to determine the nature of the growth and how it has progressed. A fibrosarcoma is less likely to have spread, but is also extremely rare in comparison to osteosarcoma in dogs. How Dr Middle can differentiate based on a brief letter is an amazing demonstration of her skills.

Sadly, at 11 years old, and this advanced, it may well be that nothing can be done. Sitting back and seeing whether a hodge podge of herbs and doing nothing will effect a cure, however, are the sort of actions that kill people suffering from cancer.

Dr Middle also warns most strongly:

do NOT feed him dried commercial food, as the carbohydrate will weaken his immune system

because, you know, processed carbohydrates are all different from any other carbohydrates, with a completely different chemical structure, and they go straight for the immune system.

A pot and a kettle walk into a bar...

Dr Peter Dingle's latest 'health advice from a non-health qualified person' in that esteemed journal of well researched information, Nova, is on the subject of published research on pharmaceuticals (EoR's emphasis):

An interesting dimension of pharmaceutical companies’ practices is that the same drug companies that reap money from drugs conduct the research, pay the researchers and control the research - including what is, and is not, published. Drug companies engage in censorship, bribery, corruption, fraud, suppression of negative studies and all varieties of unscrupulous tactics to sell their products; there are literally hundreds of studies that demonstrate this situation. At the simplest level, most medical research is financed by pharmaceutical companies seeking support for drugs that are either on the market or in development.

Big Pharma, we are informed, are nefarious, devious, malevolent and all powerful.

The influences employed include participant bias, ghost writing, pressure on researchers or, even worse, financial incentives for researchers, fake journals and just about any underhanded means by which a pharmaceutical company can achieve the outcomes it desires, including pressure on or removal of dissenting academics.

Strangely, Dr Dingle, as a dissenting academic, still has his job. Perhaps his powers of resistance are more powerful than the average academic?

Dr Dingle's argument is effectively the same one promoted by climate change deniers: scientists are corrupt, papers are faked, the science is made up. Don't believe it. They're only in it for the money!

To sum it up, the studies are rigged from the beginning, and still the doctors trust the research and the drug companies? If it were any other business, these companies would be out of business and no one would believe the information. So why do we do it here?

Of course, there are genuine concerns about industry influence on studies, but a more balanced and nuanced view of the issues involved would be better found at Bad Science than the Nova Journal of Fearmongering.

What is interesting, however, is not what Dr Dingle mentions but what he doesn't, since his arguments are so often selective presentations. There is, for instance, no discussion of Big Altie. What funding do they do? How do they influence the various studies they conduct (when they conduct them)? What funding does Dr Dingle receive, if any? His website includes a link to Nova on the front page, while Nova includes a link on its front page to Dr Dingle's site. Are these funded? What influence (whether stated or implied) might there be in this relationship? What other Doctors, naturopaths or organisations does Dr Dingle recommend? Do these, in return, recommend him? Is there any financial incentive, whether directly or indirectly? Does the fact that Dr Dingle is married to a naturopath influence his health recommendations? Is the fact that he has a conflict of interest from running a business promoting his unqualified health advice relevant? Is it more relevant for not being mentioned? EoR doesn't know, since there is no disclosure.

A serious question of ethics arises as a result of the strong link between the authors of most of the studies, at least the ones showing positive results, and the pharmaceutical companies. The disclosure of the associations reads like a Who’s Who of the pharmaceutical industry.

Is this also applicable to the altie world? Or do they play a purer game?

A fat load of marketing

EoR was casually switching through radio stations the other day, when he heard a woman scarily telling everyone how they were deficient in all sorts of nutrients, and it was almost essential that everyone in Australia supplement iodine, vitamin D, selenium and so on. She also informed the listeners of the dangers of a fatty liver.

By this stage EoR was getting rather worried. It turns out that the woman was Dr Sandra Cabot. Well known worldwide for her bestselling book The Liver Cleansing Diet. True to form, like all self-help books, regardless of the amazing results promised by the original book it has now apparently been superseded by a new volume, Fatty Liver — You Can Reverse It.

Well known American doctor, Thomas Eanelli, meets an Aussie doctor, Dr. Cabot, through her little green book The Liver Cleansing Diet. After searching through university medical libraries and visiting numerous liver specialists and surgeons and finding no real answers, Dr. Eanelli discovered that the liver could be healed without drugs or surgery - luckily the information in this little green book was the catalyst that would inspire him to go on and heal himself thus avoiding potentially dangerous surgery.
Dr. Sandra Cabot has devoted her career to helping people heal themselves from this potentially fatal yet still under reported disease.
Dr. Thomas Eanelli's courage has enabled him to "come out of the refrigerator" to share his tale so others may be saved.

What sets this book apart from others is that rather than bravado and bragging by a set of new age gurus, Cabot and Eanelli instead forge an instant connection with their readers by their honesty and empathy when confronting the imperfections of dieting, especially where food addictions are concerned.
This book may become one of the most timely and important health narratives in years.

Like other fringe health advisers, Dr Cabot seems to spend a lot of time scaring people, with her reports of how cancer is increasing, interspersed with promoting her seminars. Fear, of course, is one of the great advertising motivators (are you too fat? too undesirable? too unfashionable? do you have bad breath? are you going to get cancer?) and it's unsurprising that the altie health vendors use this since it seems Australians fear cancer more than any other nation on Earth*.

Her modality is, however, scientific (why, she says so herself!). In fact, disagreement with her claims is so rare as to be noteworthy.

There has been the occasional person who did not understand my theories on the liver, and in particular one reader thought it was impossible to cleanse the liver, believing that this was unscientific! However, it is vitally important to cleanse the liver regularly because, like any filter, it can become overloaded and blocked with excessive waste products.

Yes, your liver is really just a fancy kitchen sink filter.

Possibly the singular person who refuses to accept this miracle is Dr Joe Proietto.

No doubt, the diet is good because it involves low-fat and more vegetables and more fruit. None of us would argue with that. The problem I have is the claims made for this diet are based on no scientific evidence and the simplistic blaming of the liver for a multitude of different ailments. I will quote again Dr Cabot’s own words?—?“How can anyone know the benefits of a particular diet or therapy without evaluating its effects upon patients first”. On this we agree. What we clearly don’t agree on is what constitutes proper evaluation. There is overwhelming acceptance in the medical and scientific community that any new therapy or any new claim for an old therapy must be tested in a controlled trial, preferably in a double blind fashion. The words “controlled trial” do not appear anywhere in the book.

Dr Proietto also details the various expensive supplements, memberships, powders, tonics, books and creams that you need to buy to ensure your health the Cabot way.

---

*The newspaper report makes the world-encompassing claim, based on a survey conducted in only eight nations. No, EoR can't see how the extrapolation has been made, but it's not alone in its statistical exaggeration.

One more dose of Dinglemania

EoR promises that this is the last post in what has become a week of Celebration of Dinglemania...

Dr Peter Dingle's first ever newsletter no longer appears to be available on his informative, well-researched health advice website. Luckily, it can still be found here.

This is a valuable historical document, outlining the goals and aims of Dr Dingle's plans to change the world of health for the better of all ("my health and wellbeing programs" as he describes them).

All the familiar themes are there: the one dimensional health system ("The medical system needs to focus on preventative health rather than a 10 minute consultation for a drug 'solution'.") as well as the dubious factoids:

[W]e are seeing far too many children taking pharmaceuticals, both prescribed and over the counter. In Australia each month, 60,000 prescriptions for antidepressants are written out for people under 20 years of age.

No reference is provided, so the veracity of that figure can't be determined, but note how 'children' in one sentence becomes 'people under 20' in the next? EoR would hope that a first year university student would understand that comparing different populations is incorrect. A 19 year old would normally not be considered a child. Or an 18 year old. Where you draw the line between 'child' and 'adult' (or 'adolescent') is important, but not defined here, especially since it would be reasonable to presume that a lot of depression is diagnosed in the teenage years.

Back in 2005 things were also rather different (EoR's emphasis):

My research shows that many people don't become more active or eat more healthily because they think they don't have the time.

Contrast that to today, when Dr Dingle states he no longer has the time to do any sort of research. Also, like the previous factoid, he fails to mention where his 'research' has been published, or how it was conducted, or on what sample.

As an aside, it's also interesting to note that the metadata encoded in the Word document shows the author as Julie Eady, yet another unqualified person who regularly provides health advice to the media ("Consumer activist" and "housewife superstar" — note that Dr Dingle, even though not mentioned, has managed to get himself into the photo for that story). But what can you expect when Dr Dingle, Julie Eady and Dr Igor Tabrizian co-presented a Save Our Kids Seminar in 2006.

Presented by Dr Peter Dingle, Julie Eady & Dr Igor Tabrizian. A public seminar addressing the issues of “Averting the Child Health Crisis”. This is a must for anyone interested in the health of our future, our children. This includes invaluable information about prevention, food additives, biochemical causes and so much more.

Nope. No unqualified health advice being given there. He also provides a glowing testimonial for Julie Eady's book and is featured in the media together with her.

ASSOC PROFESSOR PETER DINGLE (MURDOCH UNIVERSITY): You know it's funny, all motivational texts will tell you what you focus on is what you get so we've focussed on calories, carbohydrates and fat and we now have the most overweight, obese and diabetic population ever.

So Dr Dingle bases his health claims on the authority of motivational texts? What sort of lunatic science is that?

The following year to his first newsletter (2006) Dr Dingle was warning us of the dangers of Vegemite. In a shockingly original finding, he claims that a Vegemite sandwich is not a "nutritious meal". That concept had probably never passed the mind of any Australian parent previously. But then, there are stupid and undeserving parents.

"If you don't have five minutes to cook a healthy breakfast for your kid and provide them with a healthy lunch and dinner, then you don't deserve to have kids,'' said Prof Dingle, associate professor in health and the environment at Murdoch University.

Dr Dingle: health expert and promoter of eugenics. Personally, EoR thinks if you don't have time to research improbable therapies like homeopathy, you don't deserve to act as a health expert.

Yesterday EoR noted Dr Dingle's promotion of Mindd but, of course, these woo-peddlers all promote one another. Indeed, in 2009, Dr Dingle was a presenter at the Mindd International Forum.

Renowned author, juggler, media personality and Murdoch University academic, Dr Peter Dingle PhD, explores the question of how the (mal)nutrition of our children sets the stage for childhood behavioural disorders including autism and ADHD, and how a healthy diet in childhood can provide a good alternative to Ritalin and amphetamine medications.

Well, he certainly wouldn't have been giving any health information there, would he?

So how is evil drug-peddling one-dimensional health failing us these days in relation to our childrens' health?

The South Australian and Western Australian Governments have been awarded a ‘Gold Medal’ for their action on obesity prevention at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the ANZOS in Sydney today.

[...]

“The South Australian and Western Australian Governments have made significant progress this year to topple Queensland, which has won the Gold Medal for the previous two years. What these three states share is strong leadership in policies to improve the food supplied in various important settings. They’ve gone beyond healthy food policies in schools, expanding into healthcare, government and sporting facilities. We would really like to see the other states and territories following this lead,” said Dr Peeters.

Dr Peeters also commends two Governments for initiating the implementation of progressive policies -Victoria’s kilojoule labelling in fast food outlets and the ACT’s legislation to increase competition between supermarkets in order to lower food prices. NSW is also recognised for its leadership in advocating for national restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods to children.

[...]

“Western Australia also has a strong bipartisan, whole of government approach, extending its influence through a range of initiatives such as its Premier’s Physical Activity Taskforce, monitoring and evaluation of population data and strong, evaluated social marketing campaigns such as ‘Draw the line’, ‘Go for 2 & 5’ and ‘Find 30 every day’,” said Dr Peeters.

ANZOS commends the Western Australian government’s excellent policy on food in public facilities, which it is now looking to be expanded to sporting venues, and its model of funding through the health promotion agency Healthway supporting reforms around sponsorship and food supply in sports settings.

So, while there is still a way to go, the multifactorial health approach seems to be working. Without the assistance of books from Dr Dingle, or homeopathy.

And here's a photograph of Dr Dingle in an extremely rare moment earlier this year (outside the Coroner's Court) when he wasn't giving health advice.

The self-reinforcing circle of improbable beliefs

As a follow on to yesterday's post, there are a couple of other interesting things in Dr Peter Dingle's recent newsletter.

Dr Dingle also takes the oppotunity to promote his UWA extension courses on subjects such as how to cure diabetes — which is a strange topic for a non-medically qualified person to lecture on, as well as a seminar run by Mindd held, appropriately enough, at the Murdoch University School of Chiropractic ("Murdoch University — where too much magic is never enough").

While the history of Dr Peter Dingle's association with the University of WA Summer Schools appears to have been almost completely purged from the web, enough remains to show that in Autumn 2009 he was offering:

Dingle says do the DEAL and forget dying - until you're ready to do it. ...

Clearly the DEAL, and his beliefs, have failed to meet their exaggerated claims.

It would also seem that the University of WA have reconsidered the appropriateness of allowing the use of their institution to legitimate the offering of health advice by someone with no qualifications to do so.

But on to the even more disturbing stuff... Mindd (Metabolic, Immunologic, Neurologic, Digestive, Developmental) are one of those legitmate looking health organisations that promote ideas which, if not part of the lunatic fringe, are definitely sitting right next door to them. Why, then even have a link on their home page to a Professor who has cured her son's autism and won a Bent Spoon Award! Their home page states:

Our focus is on paediatric disorders such as Autism, ADHD, Asthma, allergies, chronic illness, learning and language delay, and digestive and behavioural disorders. Research is showing that these children are coming from families with a history of brain-immuno-gut disorders such as allergies, digestive disorders, anxiety and depression.

The rise in childhood disease signals a need for preventative healthcare that focuses on cellular health by optimising nutrient intake while minimising toxins.

This almost sounds sensible, but that last paragraph contains meaningless phrases so beloved of alties: 'cellular health' and the terrible effects of unspecified 'toxins'.

These people are still pursuing the autism/gut/mercury nexus that Andrew Wakefield so successfully, and on the basis of no evidence, promoted.

Many in the ASD community blame mercury in vaccines for causing autism. Note that the vaccines contain LPS or other toxins from microorganisms. It is possible that LPS and other microbial toxins also play a key role in the vaccine damage.

[...]

We are in total agreement, and offer as our own evidence, scientific articles and many positive results from using a diet that eliminates neurotoxin-producing bacteria and fosters intestinal healing.

In view of the research, we have to consider Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) a poison, as toxic as mercury and other heavy metals, LPS has drastic consequences for those in the ASD Community. Fortunately, dramatic improvements may result after its removal.

Toxins from the gut are apparently the cause of autism, ADHD, allergies, Coeliac Disease, childhood diabetes, schizophrenia, depression and epilepsy.

"The vast majority of epilepsy cases in children are due to toxin accumulation in the brain. When the amounts of toxins reach dangerous levels the brain sends an electric discharge to get rid of it all in one go. So, an epileptic fit is a safety valve for the brain, a cleansing procedure. In order to help the child we need to remove the toxins. In the majority of cases, these toxins come from the gut, so treatment has to concentrate on the child's digestive health." Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride.

This process is so simple, and so well understood, that it can be illustrated by a simple graphic:



This leads to a range of symptoms. EoR isn't sure why a number of conditions are repeated over and over, but did find the number of times OCD appears amusing.



While they don't actually come out as anti-vaccination (presumably, they leave that to the chiropracters), they do provide inaccurate scare stories:

Mercury levels are steadily rising from industrial activity. Main sources include dental amalgams, fish, coal burning, and until recently the preservative used in childhood vaccines (thimerasol). Thimerosal contains 50% mercury and was used in MMR vaccinations in Australia until recently. Unsafe levels of mercury can cause speech and learning difficulties, poor concentration and can lead to autistic behaviour.The flu shot still contains mercury

Did you notice that quick slip from discussing mercury in vaccines, to the reference to "unsafe levels of mercury", almost as if they wanted you to believe that vaccines contained unsafe levels! Pretty classy misdirection indeed! The medical experts at Mindd seem to have a poor understanding of chemistry and also seem to be unaware that:

TThiomersal has been used in medical products and vaccines for more than 60 years and is the most commonly used preservative in multi-dose vials. It has a very long safety record. There is no evidence anywhere in the world that thiomersal in vaccines has caused any developmental or neurological abnormalities, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), autism or any other health problem. Thiomersal, which contains a small amount of mercury, was removed from vaccines given to young children in Australia simply as a precaution to reduce the theoretical risk of exposure to mercury in babies, particularly those of very low birth weight. Pre filled syringes, which do not require the preservative, are available for vaccination of children aged six months to 35 months.

The best way to deal with these issues is by broadly embracing every possible form of improbable therapy, including:

Complementary Medicine, cranial sacral therapy, nutrition, Chiropractic care, speech and neuro-developmental therapies, energy medicine, acupuncture, holistic dentistry, Functional neurology, Ayurvedic & Chinese medicine, yoga, meditation, osteopathy, naturopathy, and homeopathy.

And, of course, their true beliefs can be determined by their support of Generation Rescue (an autism cult), and the affilations of their WA practitioners also show how many have DAN! training. It is unsurprising to see Dr Igor Tabrizian listed there, given his links to Dr Peter Dingle.

And so the world of improbable beliefs comes full circle.

Cancer is a modern illness (2)

Dr Peter Dingle, as he admits himself, is not a medically qualified doctor and has no time to research such matters. It is interesting, therefore, that his April/May newsletter has him providing health advice on cancer.

Perhaps the most dreaded of all diseases is cancer. It will kill around 1/3 of Australians. Unfortunately with our one dimensional health model we have continued to focus on the treatment rather than the prevention and as a result more people die. While cancer is largely untreatable, despite the miracle cures you hear about in the media, it is largely preventable. There is no miracle cure for cancer nor will there ever be. The rates of cancer and death from cancer continue to increase despite the billions of dollars injected into treating the illness. Only a few minor cancers are treated effectively with modern techniques yet we still keep doing it.

This is scary stuff. Cancer will kill you! It can't be treated! There will never be a cure! Doctors adopt a 'one dimensional health model'! The paragraph continues, in direct conflict with that claim:

One cancer however, is showing significant reductions in its occurrence and all future predictions show it reducing even further, lung cancer. The occurrence and the rates of deaths from lung cancer are on the decline, no because of treatment but because of education and prevention.

EoR expects that Dr Dingle's devoted readers will not notice that the 'one dimensional health model' includes not just treatment, but also education and prevention. Perhaps that is why we are seeing so much advice not to smoke, to drink less, to eat a healthy diet, and to exercise?

Despite the claims by specialists that say we don’t know why we are getting so many cancers it is obvious that it relates to our diet, environment, attitude and our lifestyle and there is abundant information to show that changing these parameters can dramatically reduce your risk of cancer.

If in doubt just look at the cancer statistics of countries that have different lifestyles and diets.

Most of the cancers of today were either rare or unheard of just 100 years ago and are still rare in many countries where people live on traditional diets. Breast cancer rates for example are around 1% of the woman in populations living on traditional foods in rural Japan and China and around 13% in Australia.

So there's that 'cancer is a modern illness' meme again.

EoR isn't sure why Dr Peter Dingle singles out Japan and China. Even Australia where, apparently, cancer is a modern, incurable epidemic, has lower rates in rural areas (but poorer outcomes due to lower access to those 'one dimensional' health care services), as noted by the Cancer Australia:

People living in very remote rural areas of Australia have lower incidence rates, but higher death rates, for all cancer types when compared to the community as a whole.

Dr Peter Dingle also fails to take into account that cancer is related to ageing. Since lifespans have been increasing, the number of cancers has also, but

Numbers of cancers diagnosed each year increased by 26 per cent from 1993 to 2003. Given the ageing of the Australian population, increases in population size and the fact that the risk of most cancers increases with age, annual numbers of new cancers are predicted to keep rising. However, while the number of people diagnosed with cancer is rising due to these factors, when we adjust rates to consider our ageing population, incidence rates were about the same for all cancers combined in 2003 as they were in 1993.

And, since Dr Peter Dingle isn't able to look at any of the research, he clearly remains unaware that

More than half of all cancers diagnosed in Australia are successfully treated, and survival rates for some common cancers have increased by more than 20 per cent in the past two decades. In general, Australian survival rates for cancer are high by world standards. Five-year survival rates for the most common cancers affecting men (prostate) and women (breast) are now more than 80 per cent.

So his claim that cancer is 'largely untreatable' is patently false and that 'Only a few minor cancers are treated effectively with modern techniques' is so wrong it would be funny if people weren't actually getting health 'advice' from this man.

Breast cancer survival rates have also steadily been increasing (p.127) so his claim that 'more people die' as a result of focusing on treatment is also patently false.

Of course, 'cancer' is not an illness, as Dr Peter Dingle seems to think, but a grouping of many illnesses of different types. Causes, etiologies, and treatments are multifactorial (and far from 'one dimensional').

Given the fact that breast cancer (to take only one, smaller, grouping of cancers) is more common amongst higher socioeconomic individuals, p116, (to take only one variable) shouldn't Dr Dingle actually be arguing that women's incomes should be lowered? Or is that too 'one dimensional'?

EoR notes that TAM Australia is touting for business:

The audience of 600 highly science-literate and obviously highly enthusiastic people offers a perfect opportunity if you or anyone you know has relevant and appropriate products or services to promote.

EoR trusts that Dr Peter Dingle will take up this opportunity.

Cancer is a modern illness (1)

Well, it appears all those alties were right, and cancer is a modern disease that was unknown in the ancient world. A paper in Nature Reviews Cancer (which is embargoed for a full year (!) for electronic access so only subscribers can access it) is reported in a University of Manchester press release. This finding is based on analysis of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, as well as reports in literature and earlier animal studies. Just exactly what was examined is unclear in the press release:

The team studied both mummified remains and literary evidence for ancient Egypt but only literary evidence for ancient Greece as there are no remains for this period, as well as medical studies of human and animal remains from earlier periods, going back to the age of the dinosaurs.

[...]

As the team moved through the ages, it was not until the 17th century that they found descriptions of operations for breast and other cancers and the first reports in scientific literature of distinctive tumours have only occurred in the past 200 years, such as scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps in 1775, nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761 and Hodgkin’s disease in 1832.

Presumably the full paper provides further information, especially since the body of literature, records, reports and papryi from early Egyptian to late nineteenth century would, presumably, be too large to examine in full. Their study gives a clear result (EoR's emphasis):

Professor Rosalie David, at the Faculty of Life Sciences, said: “In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare. There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.”

But what about those ancient cases of cancer that clearly aren't modern?

Professor David – who was invited to present her paper to UK Cancer Czar Professor Mike Richards and other oncologists at this year’s UK Association of Cancer Registries and National Cancer Intelligence Network conference – said: “Where there are cases of cancer in ancient Egyptian remains, we are not sure what caused them. They did heat their homes with fires, which gave off smoke, and temples burned incense, but sometimes illnesses are just thrown up.”

She added: “The ancient Egyptian data offers both physical and literary evidence, giving a unique opportunity to look at the diseases they had and the treatments they tried. They were the fathers of pharmacology so some treatments did work

[...]

She concluded: “Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.”

Finding cancers in ancient Egypt does rather seem to dispute the conclusion that cancer is 'man[sic]-made' and a 'modern' illness, while the dismissive "sometimes illnesses are just thrown up" is simply misdirection.

New Scientist examines these claims, noting that there are multiple natural and genetic causes of cancer, that many modern cancers are a result of lifestyle choices rather than a toxic environment, and that many modern cancers are due to increased longevity.

Cancer Research UK discuss the history of cancer, noting that dinosaurs probably suffered from it, and the earliest record of tumours (in the breast) is found in an ancient Egyptian papyrus. Hippocrates also wrote about cancer.

Natural and healthy

Goodbye Charlie.

A chimpanzee famous for smoking cigarettes has died at a South African zoo, aged 52.

Charlie the chimp started smoking when some visitors to Mangaung zoo, in Bloemfontein, threw him lit cigarettes.

[...]

Mr Khedama said he did not believe the addiction had ended Charlie's life prematurely, as he had lived around 10 years longer than the average chimp.

Which just goes to prove those assertions made by doctors that smoking is good for you. Since smoking has now clearly been demonstrated to increase life expectancy by 25%, EoR expects that smoking as a natural, healthy alternative to pills will form part of Dr Dingle's seminars on "How to live to 101 happily and healthily".

Trust

The enforced exile to Siberia is over, the political rehabilitation continues, and our favourite health adviser is back.

This month's edition of Nova (with the theme, appropriately enough, of trust) features the return of Dr Peter Dingle PhD advising us of the facts regarding our health.

Over the last year I have researched and written widely on how pharmaceutical companies fool the public into thinking cholesterol lowering drugs work when, in fact, that's not the case. These companies benefit enormously from huge profits made by depicting high cholesterol as the cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, this emphasis on lowering cholesterol has resulted in a deviation from the underlying problem of CVD and its real risk factors. It is not cholesterol levels that can cause harm to our hearts, but instead excessive inflammation and oxidisation of cholesterol that causes damage to the cardiovascular system. The problem is one of lifestyle and diet and needs to be fixed, not with a lifetime supply of drugs, but with lifestyle changes anyone can begin today.

Don't you just hate it when you're fooled by companies whose only aim is to sell you stuff and increase their profits? Dr Dingle, however, fails to mention that he's got a new book out he's selling. Nor does he seem cognizant with the fact that independent medicos, in fact, advise rather differently about cholesterol than the Big Pharma Conspiracy scenario he believes in. Of course, he's not a medical doctor, and he's also been busy with other things over the last year as well so it's probably not appropriate that EoR expects him to be an expert source in offering health advice as well.

CVD is a multidimensional disease, yet modern medicine looks at it through a one-dimensional microscope.

EoR has no idea what dimension this bizarre belief comes from. And using a loaded word like 'multidimensional' in a woo magazine like Nova is just asking for misinterpretation...

It cannot be treated with a single magic bullet — none of the chronic illnesses can be.

Erect strawman argument. Demolish strawman. Gloat.

But a multidimensional approach incorporating diet, environment, attitude and lifestyle will work.

Hmmm... Diet, environment, attitude and lifestyle. That wouldn't be another undisclosed clue to conflict of interest, would it?

Two pages later there's an advertisment for "Dr Peter Dingle" and his new book, The Six-Week Healthy Eating Planner, co-authored with Martine Dingle, ND in which, presumably, health advice is provided.

The only change is in the disclaimer in small print at the very end of the article:

Dr Peter Dingle PhD is an associate professor and researcher who has researched nutritional toxicology for the past 10 or more years. He is not a medical doctor. After completing his honours in environmental toxicology in 1988, he went on to complete his PhD in the same field in 1994. The information he presents is based on the research he and his students carry out at Murdoch University where he is Associate Professor in Health and the Environment.

So, hidden away in the middle of the paragraph is the fact that he's not qualified to give medical advice.

This game is easy, and EoR could play it as well if he wanted to. If he wanted to suggest that Dr Dingle's exhortations to eat more fish oil were dangerous advice from someone who was selling books and seminars and so on to make money on the basis of those claims, he could pull up a recent study suggesting fish oil may cause colon cancer (something EoR feels would be close to Dr Dingle's health concerns) and that scientists are working towards better drugs to control atherosclerosis. There, that's put the fear of God into everyone. Now you can buy EoR's new book Healthy Eating is Killing You!.

So who would you trust to give you medical advice? Someone with no medical qualifications? Someone who apparently can't find the time to research medical journals when his wife's life was at stake, but apparently finds the time to do so when his new book is coming out?

Professor Dingle admitted he did not "comprehensively" research the range of treatments for colorectal cancer to find what the best option was.

"There is so much research, it's very complex and time consuming," he said.

Mr Hope asked why he did not access reliable medical journals in terms of rectal cancer.

"That can be a full lifetime just looking at that," Professor Dingle said.

Someone who admits he is so woefully inexperienced in health matters it's impossible for him to comment on them?

When he was asked whether he'd analysed the substances she was taking, he said he did not because he was an indoor air quality expert and unless the substances were thrown in the air and breathed in he would not know what to do with them.

Someone who applies double standards by refusing to condemn the failed modality that led to his wife's death because it might work for someone somewhere, but condemns cholesterol drugs en masse even though they might also help someone somewhere?

Earlier, Mr Hope asked why Dr Dingle did not use his writings to highlight the dangers of accepting alternative cancer remedies.

Dr Dingle said he was wary of dismissing alternative treatment altogether in the event it was successful for someone else.

Someone who was dropped by 6PR because they felt their duty of care was threatened by having an indoor air quality expert provide health advice to listeners?

The best evidence is no evidence

Science is based, ultimately, on evidence. Unfortunately, 'evidence' is not a monolithic construct and there are varying levels of evidence from the weak to the stronger. Based on your understanding of science, in what order would you put these various forms of evidence?

• Meta-analysis


• Clinical trials


• Case studies


• Anecdotes

If you guessed that they're ordered from weakest to most powerful evidence, then you're in good company.

EoR has already noted that glucosamine and chondroitin provide nothng more than a placebo effect. Some vets, however, argue that this doesn't apply to horses (where the use of such products is extremely popular).

Vets and supplement manufacturers have said there is no evidence that two dietary supplements declared ineffective for humans last week are also ineffective for horses.

That's an interesting stance to take: absence of evidence is proof of effect. Of course, drugs ('neutraceutical' and 'dietary supplements' are weasel words) for humans don't necessarily function the same way in equines. The fact that they don't work in humans, however, doesn't automatically mean they do work in equines but this is the argument being put forward.

"Humans and horses have different digestive systems and absorb substances differently," she said. "I like to have scientific evidence of efficacy. But people like to do something, and, as far as we know, glucosamine and chondroitin do no harm."

Other than wasting money, of course. As far as EoR knows, psychic healing also does no harm. Presumably, "leading vet" Sue Dyson would also recommend that. The continued support for a drug with no evidence for its efficacy is based on the claims of manufacturers:

Eliane Bennington of Healthspan, which owns VetVits, said: "We are not going to stop selling it — people who use it know it helps joints."

And personal anecdote:

And H&H forum users last week spoke out in support of the substances — the majority saying they found joint supplements effective. Vet Andrew McGonnell added that anecdotal evidence that the products work should not be "written off". "Many of my clients have seen benefits, and, crucially, have seen deterioration when treatment stops," he said.

Of course, if a Big Pharma company was selling a massively popular drug that had no evidence trials (indeed, trials indicating it was ineffective), EoR wonders whether the reaction would be similarly supporting.

Helen-The-Pooh

Helen Frost has been keeping a relatively low media profile of late, and EoR had suspected she'd gone away, but it appears she's still pushing her particular worldview to schools and anyone else who thinks the appellation "Nutrition Educator" actually indicates any sort of training, qualification or skills in that area.

Given her preternatural obsession with faeces (or 'poo' as she terms it) EoR couldn't help clicking on the link to find out What Poo Type Are You? to be sadly disappointed that the page consists only of this:

What Poo Type Are You? Special Report

Coming Soon

EoR imagines Helen Frost is closeted away somewhere private, straining mightily to produce a movement of great import.

Meanwhile, for those who enjoy various madnesses, here is Helen Frost's Poo Fairy Song (543 kB).

That Inner Chocolatey Glow...

Mmmm... Chocolate... Laced with radium... What could be better, or healthier?

Is a rejuvenation of the body possible?

Numerous scientists have struggled with this issue. In various ways previous efforts have been attempted. High hopes have been fulfilled only to a small extent. That is why people have become more or less dulled against rejuvenation commendations.-All relevant sections of science agree, however, in the view that rejuvenation is only possible from the inside out. The organs of the body - when allowed to purify themselves - are then returned to their normal activities. The complex chemical factory - termed 'body' - works quietly and safely, health and youth are restored. So, the toxins, acid residue, deposits in the chemical centers of the body, in the cells and humour channels - these are what interfere with the operation of the works, causing disease and age. Our lifestyles, our work, food and drink favor the occurrence of such imbalances - If it would be presumptuous even to think that we can eventually extend life to infinity, then nature gives us some hint for the preservation of life, and the art of researchers, the sons of nature, have in hot rings have many secrets Unveiled and opened our eyes to great progress. One of these discoveries, the full significance of which only future generations will see clearly, was the discovery of radium by Madame Curie, Paris.

Radium is an all-pervading primal force element.

All the energies of the soul of the world are contained contained in it. Testing the healing power of radium is considered the foremost duty of medicine and chemistry. It has been found that, for example, radioactive water delivered to the various organs of the body promotes activity, thus truly having a rejuvenating effect. Now it has been possible to produce radium, this precious material is also available as a nutrient. The renowned food chemist Dr. Senftner, Berlin, has taken a patent on a method to actively bind radium to chocolate. It is known that chocolate is one of the highest quality nutrients and stimulants. To join such components to miraculous radium, was certainly a great idea. And it's lucky for the healthy and sick that the world has in the patented process with the quality of their famous products, led to the cocoa and chocolate factory Burk & Braun in Cottbus implementing the practice.

Burkbraun-radium chocolate for eating and drinking is made of delicious ripe cocoa beans. The radium is added in an absolutely clean way keeping the taste. The secret of their rapid, instant action is based on the fact that radium come from this precious chocolate without delay into the bloodstream and so in all the organs, into the central nervous system, in the glands, the nerves, to the last branchings and cells. The health-giving, health-preserving, rejuvenating effects of Burkbraun-RADIUM-CHOCOLATE is thus quite sure. Therefore: You too can enjoy it regularly or for breakfast, dinner, travelling and sports.

If you're healthy, so you keep this precious commodity, if you're suffering, you can raise your chances of being healthy again!

Of course, back in the early twentieth century, the somewhat deleterious effects of radium on the body were not known, but that still didn't stop the quacks selling it as the new miracle product to eliminate toxins from the body, restoring the body's natural healing ability, and increasing its health and vitality.

Which are still the same buzzwords used for any new research that might hint at health. Antioxidants, for example. Or astragalus to stop aging even though that, too, might actually lead to an increase in cancer.

As this quaint page of bizarre products shows, the wonder cure radium was used in toothpaste, water, suppositories ("A man must be in a bad way indeed to sit back and be satisfied without the pleasures that are his birthright!") and in many other ways. Who knows. In a hundred years, there may well be a similar page showcasing Photonic Therapy, EMF Blockers, detox foot pads, various biofeedback devices, Q-Link pendants and sundry other current miracle marvels.

Still Not A Doctor, Still Providing Health Advice

'Dr' Peter Dingle is out spruiking his forthcoming book on the Great Cholesterol Deception, as evidenced by a recent spate of posts on his (normally hibernating) blog:

6 April 2010: More Cholesterol Deception

6 September 2010: Cholesterol debate

8 September 2010: Even more on cholesterol

EoR had a really good laugh at the first post, where 'Dr' Dingle reveals:

Unfortunately it is another example of statin statistics where they are not giving you all the real information and what they are giving you is designed to mislead everyone (especially doctors who don’t know how to read stats).

Quite apart from the false sweeping generalisation, isn't 'Dr' Dingle a doctor (it says so right at the top of his blog)? Therefore he is obviously part of the set that "don't know how to read stats". So he clearly admits that he doesn't know what he's writing about.

'Dr' Dingle discusses the difference between relative and absolute risk (an important point and one which is normally misunderstood) but then goes on to make ridiculously hyperbolic claims:

My option [of feeding the population almonds] of course would not only reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke a lot more but also reduce all chronic illness and save hundreds of lives out of 500 people. Where has all the common sense gone.

All chronic illness? Really? EoR would love to see the supporting trials for that. Clearly, the common sense has not fled to 'Dr' Dingle. Nor is his understanding of economics all that brilliant:

At $3.50 a pill, to prescribe the statin for 500 people for a year would be $638,000 to prevent one heart attack. At that price you could have free almonds for everyone, gym membership and personal coaching thrown in for a year.

Well, it wouldn't be free 'at that price' because the money would still be spent, except in this case it would be on the magic mung beans that 'Dr' Dingle prescribes.

Also annoying is 'Dr' Dingle's final exhortation to spam:

Please copy this blog and send it on to everyone you know.

'Dr' Dingle's second post makes many claims, but provides no references at all, not even vague names of researchers, so it is impossible to determine whether or not he is interpreting data correctly (or what data) when he claims that "the cholesterol hypothesis" is only a hypothesis. Indeed, the fact that new evidence is discovered, and the science refined and corrected (a major principal of the scientific method) is actually evidence that the science is fake, according to the eminently scientific 'Dr' Dingle:

First it was just saturated fat and cholesterol, then it was cholesterol, then it was LDL cholesterol, then LDL and HDL ratios, then VLDL, then HDL and the number of changes just keep happening.

'Dr' Dingle's form is to include at least one unsubstantiated accusation per post, and this is not ommitted:

if a hypothesis is tested and it fails it is no longer considered a valid hypothesis except in medicine where money and the volume of media whitewash it all.

'Dr' Dingle doesn't seem to realise that such sweeping generalisations weaken his argument. It could just as well be argued that all Associate Professors believe six impossible things before their breakfasts of muesli and yoghurt. It would equally be (probably) untrue.

Oh, and encourage that spamming to continue folks:

Also note that this information is exactly what the pharmaceutical companies don’t want out there so please spread it around.

'Dr' Dingle really is getting into the tin foil hat brigade here, claiming this is the "greatest lie that has ever been sold to the public". Surely there are other contenders for that claim? Such as the baseless claim that homeopathy can cure cancer, for example?

'Dr' Dingle's most recent post does include full references to two papers. It seems he's only prepared to reference selected papers. But that's probably scientific and independent according to his particular standards, because he's an enemy of Big Pharma (but a friend of Big Altie) and clearly independent and just ignore the fact that he's hawking his new book.

Cue the baseless accusation again:

It could save a lot of pain and suffering (because of the serious side effects) and a lot of money? Why? All the major political parties get donations from the big pharmaceutical companies. Yes I have a chapter on that too.

And the call to spam on and on:

Please circulate this information to everyone you know it might save their life and money.

It might, of course, just waste their time and money.

Despite his protestations that he has never claimed to be a medical doctor, 'Dr' Dingle gives health advice to two commenters suffering serious health problems. They could have got as equally qualified information from their plumbers. Or their homeopaths.

There probably is a debate about the effectiveness of statins (or any drug or intervention for that matter) but 'Dr' Dingle's approach of baseless accusation, cherry picking data, and pushing his beliefs in a book are far from the 'scientific' approach he urges.

Peter Dingle is not a medical doctor. People who believe he is are treading on dangerous ground.

Unlike 'Dr' Dingle, who clearly knows the full (and suppressed) truth about statins, the Mayo Clinic is more level headed:

Already shown to be effective in lowering cholesterol, statins may have other potential benefits. But doctors are far from knowing everything about statins. (...) Whether you need to be on a statin depends on your cholesterol level along with your other risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

And, in contrast to 'Dr' Dingle's conspiracy theories about Big Pharma's control of mathematically illiterate doctors who are all in the pay of faceless controllers, the Mayo Clinic says lifestyle changes are the most essential component of cholesterol control. Oh, how will they ever get their Big Pharma pay cheque now? The Mayo Clinic also provides lengthy information about side effects.

Patient UK advises:

Note: a statin is just one factor in reducing your risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. Just as important are: eating a healthy diet, not smoking, taking regular exercise, losing weight if you are overweight, reducing blood pressure if it is high, and taking a daily low dose of aspirin if advised to do so.

Isn't it strange how Big Pharma is failing to control these balanced viewpoints? Isn't it strange how considered these discussions are, in contrast to 'Dr' Dingle's hyperbole and conspiracy theories? Isn't it strange how not having a commercial interest means you're more likely to get independent information? Isn't it strange how 'Dr' Dingle continues his crusade to provide health advice to the world (even though he's not a medical doctor)?

Glucosamine: Still Doesn't Work

There is a $2bn worldwide market for a pharmaceutical drug that has no evidence for its efficacy beyond a placebo effect, as reported in the British Medical Journal, yet the alties remain remarkably quiet about this abuse of global corporate power to push a pointless pill for, presumably, no other motive than profit. Could it be because they are only interested in accusing the opposition, but remain silent when the drug in question is glucosamine?

Professor Jüni and colleagues analysed the results of 10 published trials involving 3,803 patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. They assessed changes in levels of pain after patients took glucosamine, chondroitin, or their combination with placebo or head to head.

They found no clinically relevant effect of chondroitin, glucosamine, or their combination on perceived joint pain or on joint space narrowing.

Despite this finding, some patients are convinced that these preparations are beneficial, say the authors. They suggest this might be because of the natural course of osteoarthritis or the placebo effect.

"Compared with placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not reduce joint pain or have an impact on narrowing of joint space. Health authorities and health insurers should be discouraged from funding glucosamine and chondroitin treatment," they conclude.

The researchers argue that there is, however, no harm in taking the supplements as long as they are not covered by health authorities and insurers. This, of course, assumes that a financial loss for no purpose is not a 'harm', nor is believing any claim made by a pharmaceutical manufacturer (whether Big Pharma or Big Altie).

The Higher Mathematics of Idiocy

EoR is thankful that Chevrolet UK has finally come up with a desperately needed piece of science that the world has been suffering for centuries without. Not a cure for cancer. Not an answer to global warming. Not a Unified Field Theory. No, far more important than that, the formula for the perfect handshake.

PH = √ (e2 + ve2)(d2) + (cg + dr)2 + π{(4<s>2)(4<p>2)}2 + (vi + t + te)2 + {(4<c>2 )(4<du>2)}2

(e) is eye contact (1=none; 5=direct) 5; (ve) is verbal greeting (1=totally inappropriate; 5=totally appropriate) 5; (d) is Duchenne smile - smiling in eyes and mouth, plus symmetry on both sides of face, and slower offset (1=totally non-Duchenne smile (false smile); 5=totally Duchenne) 5; (cg) completeness of grip (1=very incomplete; 5=full) 5; (dr) is dryness of hand (1=damp; 5=dry) 4; (s) is strength (1= weak; 5=strong) 3; (p) is position of hand (1=back towards own body; 5=other person's bodily zone) 3; (vi) is vigour (1=too low/too high; 5=mid) 3; (t) is temperature of hands (1=too cold/too hot; 5=mid) 3; (te) is texture of hands (5=mid; 1=too rough/too smooth) 3; (c) is control (1=low; 5=high) 3; (du) is duration (1= brief; 5=long) 3.

It's 'developed by scientists' so it must be real (even though the press release also states it was only developed by one (psychological) scientist.

EoR expects that, by the time you've worked out all those variables and come up with your answer, your punter will have wandered off to another car yard.