Tag Archives: pseudoscience

Vaccination saved us from…what, exactly?

Posted in AVN, Health, Judy Wilyman, Meryl Dorey, Science by

So goes one heading over at the No Compulsory Vaccination blog, leading to a screed of disturbingly accusatory silliness borne of the confidence from one graph.

Dr Raymond Obomsawin is one of the few to knock up a bogus graph that cites decreasing incidence of measles infection rather than the boring old general mortality we’ve come to expect from antivaxxers. The obvious conclusion of course is that lethal viruses were being tamed by clean water, less wandering poo and yummy food.

Robert Webb succinctly explains where the problems lie here and also points to a further mincing of Obomsawin by David Gorski at Science Based Medicine. I quite like Gorski’s sub-heading. Intellectual dishonesty at it’s most naked.

What surprises me still however, is just how many angles these purveyors of fiction will try. As I touched on in some satire recently, Meryl Dorey’s hilarious poker face revelation on Radio 3CR whilst chatting (or rather, lying) to Helen Lobato pre Woodford was a beauty.

A lot of the credit that’s been given to vaccines for the decline in deaths and infectious diseases has nothing to do with vaccines. Because it all happened before the shots were introduced. Engineers did more to improve the health of Australians than doctors ever have.

Whilst antivaxxers have been a little more vocal of late, they seem to have really only dug their hole deeper. If not attacking those who ask questions of them, engaging in a bit of fraud or libel, it seems to be silliness as usual. Judy Wilyman is a splendid offender with this myth, claiming there is “no historical evidence” for the success of any vaccine schedule. Her trick is to use mortality rates. Usually Judy just plonks up infant fatality rates from 1900 onwards and uses the rapid decline up till 1950 to mount her case.

Let’s ignore what two World Wars did to the birth rate and consequently infant fatalities in English speaking nations over that period, and just focus on the absurdity of mortality alone. There’s no doubt improvements in sanitation, hygiene and quality of food improved our health vastly. But did it also impact on viral behaviour and immunity as is being suggested?

Bogey sites such as Child Health Safety with Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 centuries of official statistics excel in exploiting this myth of “mortality = disease”. As amusing as such nonsense may be, it shows the lengths some go to in protecting the vaccine-autism myth. That blog provides graph after graph of fatalities which are virtually irrelevant to disease incidence. It is only once vaccines enter the timeline do we see disease incidence almost vanish.

To me, a drop in mortality coinciding with a healthier population indicates improved rate of recovery from illness. It doesn’t say much about infection other than to hint at better general immunity that comes with better health. But better immunity is not specific immunity, and this is what antivaxxers are really claiming – even if they don’t realise it.

More so, this claim would also demand rising herd immunity before widespread vaccination programmes, on a trajectory that would have matched the herd immunity achieved by mass vaccination. Acceptance of the value of herd immunity refutes the claim infection control arose from better living. That’s one reason antivaxxers deny it. Strangely, there is silence about success of the Hib vaccine, which they should be able to explain.

Being the lovers of science they claim to be, Hib has falsified the claim of improved living standards, not vaccination, controlling certain diseases. In time, perhaps shortly, we may see this repeated with a hepatitis C vaccine and I predict the antivaxxers will have just as little to say by way of explanation of their “theory”.

Yet ultimately it is antivaxxers themselves who debunk this nonsensical myth. If improved living standards controlled or wiped out vaccine preventable diseases then how do we explain this present resurgence on the back of low immunisation rates? Surely living standards haven’t dropped, anymore than they improved over the 12 years from 1993 in which Hib vaccination demonstrated it’s efficacy. Added to this is the bizarre belief that children are meant to catch these diseases. Which by the way we’re told, are harmless, even “marvellous”, in the case of returning measles.

Simply put, if improved living standards can suppress these diseases we should see them eliminated, not returning. Nor does the rise of chiropractic, homeoprophylactic, herbal and other “immune boosting” hanky panky make real sense. All of this exposes the fact that it is herd immunity sustained by vaccination that largely protects those who refuse vaccination. That’s another reason to deny the value of herd immunity.

As the lie becomes harder to sustain new myths are fabricated. The pertussis vaccine has caused the outbreak. Vaccination causes the disease it is meant to prevent. “Vaccine shedding” places the unvaccinated at risk. Viruses are intentionally released into the community. Vaccination causes immune dysfunction leading to later infection. Vaccination doesn’t provide proper immunity.

It would seem it is approaching the End Game in more ways than one for this myth. It isn’t hard to answer Ms. Dorey’s question.

Vaccination saved us from the returning diseases children are not being vaccinated against.

Vaccination And Improved Living Standards

Vaccine induced autism – how Meryl Dorey misled her Woodford audience

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Legal, Scam, Science by

Meryl Dorey is shown to have presented material to the audience at Woodford that in two cases argues vaccine induced autism where there is clearly none. In one case the word “autism” has been inserted, additionally, in a descriptive or qualitative fashion on her slide yet it is not present in the court ruling or transcript from where she sourced her text. In another instance there are no cases of autism following, or because of, vaccination. One awaits an explanation from Meryl Wynn Dorey.

There is an awful amount of misinformation on Meryl Dorey’s Woodford slides. Let’s examine the fatally flawed attempt to exhume the “vaccines cause autism” corpse. This is the heading of slide 18:

Meryl Dorey’s Woodford slide number 18

Not much ambiguity there I’d say. But there was seemingly intentional manipulation of a source document providing more misinformation on that slide. Dorey has usurped the case of Bailey Banks.

Bailey was indeed compensated for a vaccine injury. Was it autism, as alleged on Dorey’s slide? No.

The US Court of Federal Claims case file states clearly in it’s opening index: “Non-autistic developmental delay”.

A search of the Claims case file yields a very similar text to that which Dorey provided to her Woodford audience. There is only a one word difference. “[Autism]”. Here is the original text on page 27 of the claims file:

The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

That is all. It seems Meryl Dorey needs to explain this striking addition that quite plainly seeks to falsify the court ruling. The evidence is damning indeed.

On page 2 the fact that compensation is not for autism is stressed implicitly [Bold mine]:

Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) is a ‘subthreshold’ condition in which some – but not all – features of autism or another explicitly identified Pervasive Developmental Disorder are identified. PDD-NOS is often incorrectly referred to as simply “PDD.” The term PDD refers to the class of conditions to which autism belongs. PDD is NOT itself a diagnosis, while PDD-NOS IS a diagnosis. The term Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS; also referred to as “atypical personality development,” “atypical PDD,” or “atypical autism”) is included in DSM-IV to encompass cases where there is marked impairment of social interaction, communication, and/or stereotyped behavior patterns or interest, but when full features for autism or another explicitly defined PDD are not met.
It should be emphasized that this ”subthreshold” category is thus defined implicitly, that is, no specific guidelines for diagnosis are provided. While deficits in peer relations and unusual sensitivities are typically noted, social skills are less impaired than in classical autism.

On page 6 [Bold mine]:

Among the physicians treating Bailey, a neurologist named Dr. Ivan Lopez personally examined Bailey and diagnosed Bailey as follows:

This patient has developmental delay probably secondary to an episode of acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis that he had at 18 months of age after the vaccine. He certainly does not ___ [sic] for autism because over here we can find a specific reason for his condition and this is not just coming up with no reason.

And [Bold mine]:

As Petitioner’s testifying expert witness, Dr. Lopez maintained, reiterated, and elaborated upon this threshhold diagnosis.

Dr. Lopez’s diagnosis appears to conflict with the diagnosis given by Bailey’s pediatrician on 20 May 2004, who saddled Bailey’s condition with the generalized term “autism”; however, that pediatrician later acknowledged that use of the term autism was used merely as a simplification for non-medical school personnel, and that pervasive developmental delay “is the correct [i.e. technical] diagnosis.” Another pediatrician’s diagnosis noted that Bailey’s condition “seems to be a global developmental delay with autistic features as opposed to an actual autistic spectrum disorder.”

A footnote on page 16 reads [Bold mine]:

Respondent seems to have abandoned the earlier argument that Bailey suffered from autism, instead of PDD. The Court notes the various similarities between Bailey’s condition and autism as defined above, but nonetheless rules that PDD better and more precisely describes Bailey’s condition and symptoms than does autism. Respondent’s acknowledgment serves to reaffirm the Court’s conclusion on this point.

So, what does all this mean? The opening text of the ruling informs us that the court accepts that Bailey, “suffered a seizure and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis” leading to PDD. The court also accepts that compensation should be paid because the court is of the view the seizure and condition would not have occurred without the administration of MMR.

Is the court right? It doesn’t matter. The legal decision must be respected. What we can clearly see is that PDD is considered quite different from autism. Bailey suffered a single traumatic event – not a gradual decline into autism as the customary antivaccination lobby tale goes. Autism is a collection of symptoms with a genetic component. Clearly in this case Bailey does not fit, nor has been found to fit a diagnosis of autism.

This makes his case no less tragic. I can’t stress that enough. What I will stress is that Meryl Dorey sourced her one liner from the same document I have quoted above. She is certain to have read that this child does not have autism and was not compensated for autism brought on by vaccination. She would have read that PDD is not the same as autism. But Meryl Dorey chose to select one line and alter it fallaciously to mislead her audience into believing compensation had been paid for autism brought on by MMR.

Meryl Dorey has again committed plagiarism and fraud in her quest to mislead the Australian public. Her disdain for this young boy is clear. Her disrespect for court proceedings and this ruling is manifest. Her callous disregard for Aussies at Woodford Folk Festival is exposed for all to see.

You may wonder where are all the other Baileys? Well, let’s meet 83 similar cases – an old trick of Meryl’s debunked back in May 2011 and covered here in June 2011. Just like PDD may produce symptoms like autism, so do many other types of brain injury. Add these to autistic children who are vaccinated and the language in VICP case files is easily abused.

Also on Meryl’s slide was this ambiguous claim. I’ve made it kind of easy to spot the semantics. “Associated”? Where is the cause? So, here we are almost 8 months since it was debunked and the best Meryl Dorey can manage is a semantic trick. The URL leads here to a PR Newswire article that has the same heading as on her slide.

It’s a SafeMinds.org media release. Safe Minds is non scientific and partisan. Led by parents of autistic children they seek to increase research into neurological damage from exposure to mercury in medical products.

I for one find it strange that Dorey was billed as an expert on autism yet was unable to source the original paper I’ve linked to below. Is this because she gets more bang for her buck with the tone of this heading? The article is biased in the extreme. There appears to be little doubt that the Safe Minds media release colours the issue in Dorey’s favour and away from the cautious approach of scientific inquiry.

Just how unreliable is this source from our self appointed vaccine expert? Back on June 7th, 2011 I wrote a piece called The “Groundbreaking” Vaccine-Autism Investigation Release of May 10th 2011. It addresses this caper which can only be described as an insult to her audience.

I focused primarily on the pseudoscience and demonstrably false fear mongering cobbled together under the auspices of “research scholar” Mary Holland. Mary is a vaccine-autism profiteer and co-author of Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed Biased Science and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human rights, Our Health and Our Children.

I also exposed Meryl Dorey’s stupendous deception a full week later on 102.9 KOFM that “hundreds perhaps thousands of families” had been compensated because their children “have become autistic after vaccination”. That it was “a fact” that vaccines cause autism.

There had been ample media prodding in the lead up to May 10th with the word “groundbreaking” popping up quite a lot. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) had been “quietly” and “secretly” working in the shadows it seemed “paying off” vaccine injured children with autism. On May 10th itself, Meryl Dorey claimed:

You cannot hold the truth back forever. And when that dam breaks, the flood will wash away those who have suppressed these facts to the detriment of our kids. It is time for the piper to be paid.

Oh my!

The “groundbreaking investigation” turned out to be an enormous flop. As promised at high noon on Tuesday May 10th 2011 Holland’s team assembled on the steps of the US Court of Claims at 717 Madison Place in Washington DC. They were presenting a paper of sorts, Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A review of compensated cases of vaccine induced brain injury. By the end of the lengthy live press statement, the caper had been largely dismissed and debunked as wordplay.

As you can read in the post linked above, certain media outlets were contacted by Pace Law School students, using the Pace Law School name. This was of course, news to Pace Law Administration. From Lisa Jo Rudy writing for About.com [bold mine]:

I just heard from a representative from the Public Relations department at Pace University School of Law. She wondered why a press release cited in my earlier blog would say that members of their law school had been involved with the investigation into and presentation of “Unanswered Questions From the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury,” when there was no such involvement in either the investigation or the presentation.

I did respond to Danielle Orsino, who sent out the press release, asking the question:
Were there cases in which the vaccine court awarded a settlement for damage that manifested itself as the symptoms of an autism spectrum disorder? Was the term “autism” ever used to describe the outcome of vaccine damage (eg, “the child suffered from neurological damage resulting in autism”)?
Danielle responded quickly, saying “The study strongly suggests a link between autism and vaccines. The study found that of those who had been compensated for brain damage due to vaccines, a much-higher-than-average number also had autism. The study makes an extremely strong case for the vaccine-autism connection, which is why the study’s authors are urging Congress to investigate the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”
This response seems to suggest that the simple answer to my question is “no”.

I wrote at the time, Reading the document reveals ample use of terms such as “settled cases suggesting autism”, “language that strongly suggests autistic features”, “published decisions that used terms related to autism”, “payment of vaccine injured children with autism”, and not – as Seth Mnookin pointed out – “because of their autism”. More so, the authors spend some time arguing why there should be no distinction between autism and autism-like symptoms. This is a major concession they award themselves. The paper includes caregiver opinion, parental opinion, phrases from doctors who gave evidence at hearings and provides a case table of “Language suggesting autism or autistic-like symptoms”.

It further emerged that only 21 cases came from the VICP case files. 62 were gathered by phone calls and social communication questionnaires with other compensated families. It went as far as referencing The Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine and a Manmade Epidemic [2010] by Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill. There was no ethics approval, and no independent evaluation. Many were children with autism who received a vaccination and reacted. Others were children with mitochondrial enzyme disorders known to lead to encephalopathy. Most were genuine cases of encephalopathy following vaccination at the rate of about 1 in 1 million. That’s up to 1,000 times less than measles induced encephalopathy.

For our purposes, we need to note that Meryl Dorey was claiming “possibly thousands” of compensation cases when only 21 already dismissed cases could be found. Then before heading to Woodford Meryl spoke to Helen on 3CR and, whilst now aware of the sample size, still falsely claimed:

Um, autism is I believe, related very strongly to vaccination… and in the United States they’ve actually paid compensation to at least 83 families who children became autistic after vaccination whilst claiming that vaccines can’t cause autism.

Meryl’s other slide – number 17 – can be dismissed instantly. Her claim on that slide is that diagnoses are rising. This has nothing to do with vaccination and everything to do with diagnostic technique. Her cited South Korean study sampled students in mainstream schools managing 12 hour days six days per week. This is indicative of how wide the spectrum is. The autism rate in Australia is officially 1 in 160. In the UK and USA it is 1 in 100 – 1%. Some research suggests 1% in Australia also.

There are five reasons posed for the rise in autism. None mention vaccination.

  • The actual frequency of autism may have increased, meaning more children have it
  • There is increased case reporting, leading to greater findings, better use of funding and hightened awareness
  • Changes in the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV diagnostic criteria may account for more cases
  • Earlier diagnoses have essentially added a new younger demographic to the the existing demographic of children – ie; it spans more years
  • When we examine rising autism figures we find a corresponding drop in other types of mental disability and retardation, meaning they are now within the autism spectrum

Research using modern diagnostic criteria on adults also finds a 1% rate in adults, suggesting changes in mode of diagnosis play a huge role in perceived “epidemics”. In Brugha’s survey [ doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38] he found not one adult diagnosed with autism knew they had the condition. This tells us the criteria to diagnose them a generation ago did not exist.

All up it seems Meryl Dorey has a lot of explaining to do. Debunked scams, fraud, a useless “association” and unverified musings. It’s nice to know some things remain predictable.

For Aussies, the news remains good. Vaccines do not cause autism.

Drug Free Australia’s attack on Insite really an attack on individual scientists

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Drug Free Australia, Human Rights, Illicit Drug Policy, Legal, Religion by

A close look at Drug Free Australia’s recent attack on research supporting Vancouver’s Safe Injecting Facility, Insite, suggests a long planned attack on individual authors, not evidence.

Recently I wrote a piece on Drug Free Australia’s selective and misleading use of peer reviewed publications, government reports and pseudoscience to mislead readers with the claim of academic fraud and professional misconduct in the Lancet.

Their target was Insite, Vancouver’s Supervised Injecting Facility. Yet more specifically three authors of the Lancet piece, Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr have earned the retributive ire of Drug Free Australia’s parent body, Drug Free America Foundation. DFAF’s “division”, the Institute on Global Drug Policy fund the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, which is not a journal but a vehicle for lobbying against progressive drug policy primarily that which targets HIV control. The JGDPP was initially funded by the US Department of Justice, presently under investigation for corruption.

One of the co-authors of the paper was Robert DuPont. Present DFAF board member, past White House Drug czar and former first director of NIDA, DuPont’s history is “impressive” but shamefully controversial. A champion of drug war tactics, the long debunked random drug testing of kids in schools and suppression of individual rights suggest he’d be better suited to the role of a cat-stroking super villain in a Bond movie.

The scale of human rights abuses and the litany of egregious conduct orchestrated by the ultra-conservatives drawn toward DFAF and the morally bankrupt satellite groups they inspire, is impressive indeed. DFAF was founded by Betty Sembler. Betty and husband Mel, both lacking any qualifications founded Straight Incorporated in 1976. Over 15 years this “coercive” rehabilitation programme, based upon the infamous and crime riddled Church of Synanon‘s approach, racked up hundreds of accounts of abuse of clients and their families. Synanon called it a day in 1989, by which time tax evasion, civil suits and attempted murder cases had eventually outshone their claims of Divine Detoxification.

Neither Drug Free America Foundation nor it’s pretend “Institute” on Global Drug Policy is a scientific organisation. The purpose of the IGDP is spelled out on the DFAF website:

The Institute is charged with creating and strengthening international laws that hold drug users and dealers criminally accountable for their actions. It will vigorously promote treaties and agreements that provide clear penalties to individuals who buy, sell or use harmful drugs. […] The institute supports efforts to oppose policies based on the concept of harm reduction.

Over recent years some rather spectacular junk science was produced by Dr. Colin Mangham, (then) president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada. Whilst harm reduction initiatives save countless lives per year Mangham’s DPNC claims it “leads to terror, degradation and the eventual death of the addict”. Consequently Mangham writes accordingly and publishes in the discredited Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. In volume 1, issue 2; Summer 2007, Mangham wrote a critique of Insite’s “parent philosophy”.

In a stunning display of self sabotage he churned through 20 peer reviewed articles from journals including The New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet and The British Medical Journal. All articles had published positively on Insite’s potential. Primarily Mangham used largely belief, irrelevance, moral outrage and assumption to mount his criticisms. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (at that time opposed to Insite) had commissioned the review and later dismissed it themselves because it “did not meet conventional academic standards”.

It’s impossible to miss Mangham’s primary evaluation targets on his self-annointed meandering journey to Super Scientific Autonomy. Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr.

Conservative health minister, Tony Clement, desperate for even a hint of science to uphold the government’s case against Insite seized upon it as validation. In Canada’s National Review of Medicine, September 2007, Clement is quoted as saying to the Canadian Medical Association:

There has been more research done, and some of it has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite.

The article continued:

But extensive research has shown Insite is successful at reducing crime and overdoses, getting addicts into treatment and saving money.

Asked what research Mr Clement still needs to see in order to make his decision, Erik Waddell, a spokesman for Mr Clement, answers, “To see if Insite is getting people to programs to help them get off drugs.” However, the NEJM study, published June 9, 2006, concluded that Insite increased admissions into detoxification programs and addiction treatment.

The piece, written by Colin Mangham, PhD, argues that the studies carried out by researchers from the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and elsewhere have been flawed and misleading. Questions about the article’s trustworthiness have arisen. Dr Mangham is the president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, an organization run by former Conservative MP Randy White, and has previously written commentaries criticizing the philosophy of harm reduction….

Writing in Open Medicine on September 7th, 2007 Thomas Wood noted the unscientific nature and discredited status of Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. He further highlighted that the non scientific conservative lobby group Drug Free America Foundation and it’s ill disguised front shop (the so-called Institute on Global Drug Policy) were behind this ambitiously named “new research”. Wood calmly observed:

We stand by the published findings from the evaluation and believe that the limitations of the research are well described in these published reports. We agree with Colin Mangham, however, that there are many instances where media reports go beyond what is described in scientific studies. A colourful example of this is the large amount of media attention given to Mr. Mangham’s recent essay in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice which was funded by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

As scientists, we are strongly in favour of scientific debate and academic critique, but we believe what is contained in Mr. Mangham’s essay falls well short of this. The paper is fraught with a host of outright factual inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, which we would be happy to list should the readers of Open Medicine wish. We strongly encourage the readers of Open Medicine to read Mr. Mangham’s essay alongside the various reports examining Insite’s impacts and to judge for themselves the state of the science in this area.

Yet Dr. Colin Mangham was beyond saving. None would come to his aid. From mountain top to valley floor, from deep blue sea to desert sand, from darkened ghetto to opulent penthouse from… okay, you get the idea – his demise was complete.

By September 30th, 2007 Wood, Montaner, Kerr and Mark Tyndall had submitted to The Global Journal on Drug Policy, an article questioning the conservative Canadian government’s treatment of the scientific process and evidence. The abstract includes [bold mine]:

Although the recommendations of scientific review bodies have traditionally been free of political interference in Canada, there have recently been growing concerns raised about Canada’s new federal government’s treatment of scientific processes and evidence. This concern is relevant to the scientific evaluation of Canada’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility… […]

This commentary describes what may be a serious breach of international scientific standards relating to the Canadian government’s handling of the SIF’s scientific evaluation, and the circumstances which eventually led to a moratorium on SIF trials in other Canadian cities.

The genesis of such striking criticism was the government’s observance of a single cancer in illicit drug policy. One that had metastasised into Colin Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada, DFAF’s unscientific Institute of Global Drug Policy and the dumping ground for all conspiracy pieces by those opposed to progressive HIV control and human rights observance, the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. The Australian arm of DFAF is Drug Free Australia.

Added to this was a petition signed by over 130 physicians and scientists. Released the day after Clement’s speech noted above, it condemned the government’s “potentially deadly” misrepresentation of evidence for harm reduction programs. This misrepresentation encompassed “the overwhelmingly positive evidence” of Vancouver’s Insite safe-injection site.

In September 2008 The Lancet Infectious Diseases, published Illicit Drug Addiction, Infectious Disease Spread and the need for an evidence based response, by Wood, Montaner and Kerr. It included:

To our knowledge, this is the first time a lobby group such as the Drug Free America Foundation has created for itself a venue for the dissemination of opinion essays, which to the untrained eye could easily be mistaken for a scientific journal

There is no doubt that in just a couple of years, Montaner, Wood and Kerr continually exposed and dismantled a politically driven, pseudoscientific ideology and it’s masters simply by addressing the evidence at hand. One could be forgiven for thinking these chaps might be upsetting a certain group of fundamentalists.

By this time a suit had been filed with the BC Supreme Court arguing closure of Insite would violate the Charter right of Insite patrons regarding “security of the person.” As late as May 2011 the federal government was still claiming indecision of whether to keep Insite open or not. As this was in contrast to Clement’s previous statements everybody had heard enough from the government. On May 12th the Supreme Court reserved it’s decision on whether the government could close Insite or not. On September 29th, 2011 the Canadian Supreme Court ruled unanimously to uphold Insite’s exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, allowing indefinite operation.

A win for human rights, humane disposition and indeed for evidence based public health.

Almost certainly planning revenge for months prior was a team under Drug Free Australia’s Secretary, Gary Christian. Consisting of three Aussies of biblical repute: Joe Santamaria, Stuart Reece and Gregory Pike. Also included was present DFAF board member yet past White House Drug czar and former first director of NIDA, Robert DuPont. Finally, none other than one disgraced PhD holder, Colin Mangham.

The Lancet report, Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study published in April 2011 was compelling evidence on reduced overdoses in a vicinity around Insite, and accepted by the Supreme Court. The problem for DFAF was that three of the five authors were Kerr, Montaner and Wood. The same three who had demolished so much of the amateur ideologists and DFAF’s non scientific lobby groups.

On September 13th hoping to besmirch the reputations of these men, the team struck. They released a collection of misleading claims cobbled together in a free range “analysis” enveloped in thunderously accusatory tone. It was designed to rebuke harm reduction in general and injecting facilities specifically. In this light it inexplicably republished many of Mangham’s already debunked criticisms as if new, misrepresented existing reputable studies by comparing unrelated data sets and publishing outright falsehoods.

If we dig up Clement referring to Mangham, from the National Review of Medicine September 2007, we can almost hear the echo:

There has been more research done, and some of it has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite

Fortunately history did not repeat. This re-choreographed material has been addressed more than once and found to be entirely baseless on each occasion. Despite the pollution of the material by Colin Mangham’s unprofessional accounts it becomes stranger when we note the “analysis” was conducted for Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada and REAL Women of Canada (the only supporting interveners for the government during the Supreme Court hearing).

Predictably published in the DFAF funded opinion rag Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, it’s accompanying media release included:

Three Australian doctors are part of an international team which has exposed major, inexcusable errors in a highly influential 2011 Lancet study on Vancouver’s Insite injecting facility, errors which nullify the study’s claim that it has demonstrably reduced overdoses in its immediate surrounding area.  The international team’s analysis has been sent by the Drug Prevention Network of Canada to the Ethics Committee of the agency which funded the Lancet study with questions regarding research fraud and professional misconduct.

The article was influential in the Canadian Supreme Court hearings of May 12 this year, where the court reserved its decision on whether the Canadian Government is rightfully able to close the facility.  The Canadian government has been trying to close Insite since 2006, but has been hampered by court action by harm reduction activists.

A full two more paragraphs are spent attacking the individual researchers for acting dishonestly, much of which relies on the already debunked material from Mangham 2007. Using bitterly crude figures to inflate “overdose” deaths – including suicides and homicides – they maintain the authors “knew” they were acting dishonestly. They challenge the findings by increasing the sample area by a factor of 10, and hold this against the original sample area.

Christian’s team selectively quote the Lancet authors earlier work on displacement of users from the area due to an increase in policing. This would be a splendid point were it not that “this policing initiative ended within weeks of Insite’s opening and was not ongoing throughout the study period”. This claim was also a resurrection of Mangham’s still unpublished and disgraced 2007 academic corpse. The vicious “media release” finished:

Drug Free Australia’s Research Coordinator, Gary Christian, said, “…. Inexplicable errors and memory lapses is the price the Canadian government has paid for entrusting injecting facility lobbyists with its scientific evaluation. Activists are never likely to provide objective science and there are dozens of other Insite studies that must now be under a cloud as a result.”

A complaint was lodged with the University of British Columbia by Mr. Christian. This and the JGDPP piece were independently reviewed and found to be “without merit”.

Yet so many questions arise as to why this apparently devastating material was not presented in court. When I first asked Mr. Christian on December 2nd he took a superior tone claiming that they could not because they did not have it available until September 2011. “It would have been a good point but for you not checking your facts”, he replied. Let’s review these facts I supposedly failed to check.

On June 8th, 2011, the (new) President for Colin Mangham’s Drug Prevention Network of Canada, Gwendolyn Landolt insisted that data supporting Insite is flawed. In an extraordinary claim (for June) she asserted in a letter to Canada’s National Post that OD’s had actually increased around Insite in most years since it had opened and thus, Thomas Kerr was in error for accusing DPNC as presenting misinformation (as he had earlier done):

Mr. Kerr tried to discredit a report from the B.C. government — which stated that since the site opened, the area has seen an increase in drug-induced deaths every year — by claiming that it included deaths unrelated to drug use

I say! That claim seems to be lifted straight from Christian’s September debacle. The one they didn’t have… until, er… September. And what do we read on page 2 of Christian’s piece about “a report from the B.C. government”, also mentioned above?

The claims of this article are very curious from the outset, simply because a review of the statistics by the British Columbia Coroner’s Service, found at clearly indicates the contrary – since Insite commenced operations on 21 September 2003 illicit drug deaths have very clearly and unmistakably increased, not decreased.

Okay, the same claim. So they had access to this data 2 1/2 years before the Supreme Court sitting in May 2011. Every other accusation – the impact of policing, the supply of drugs, criticisms from Mangham go back to 2007. Other papers and studies used are also well before 2011. That the president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada is shooting off unpublished material in response to a May 30th statement by Kerr suggests they were keeping their powder dry.

I put this to Mr. Christian on the same day he dismissed my poor fact checking (December 2nd). He replied on December 10th as follows:

I have received an e-mail back from Gwen Landolt of Real Women of Canada explaining that Colin Mangham’s work was not admissable to the Supreme Court because it was not available for lower court hearing. The truth, Paul, is that there were court-imposed limitations on evidence which have nothing to do with your fanciful fabrications here.

Okay. So the material was available (despite his earlier claims it wasn’t), but could not be submitted due to “court-imposed limitations on evidence”. My “inability to check facts” had disappeared in a puff of reality, but was now replaced with my “fanciful fabrications”. Oh dear!

Of course before the Court in May, the government was armed with the figures mentioned, but had stated it had “no evidence” to submit. So, a day later on December 11th, 2011 I replied in part to Mr. Christian:

The time to strike was in the Supreme Court. Exactly why information from 2007 (Mangham) and 2008 (BC report on OD’s) was not admissible for lower court hearing in 2011 is a question best answered by your colleagues, Mangham and Landolt. If there is a genuine technical reason I would be grateful if you could provide it.

Otherwise it must remain possible, indeed probable, that it was excluded due to a.) the paucity of evidence presented by Mangham in attempting to debunk 20 peer reviewed studies from esteemed journals, and b.) that the BC report on OD’s was irrelevant as a variable effecting the efficacy of Insite and thus the SC sitting itself.

If so, this renders Landolt’s comments to the media and your own use of both sources impotent.

Failing this, you must explain… exactly why it was unavailable given 4 and 3 years respectively to craft an effective rebuttal of Insite’s success with these figures.

What were those “court imposed limitations” and why were they not mentioned in your article or your media release which explicitly referred to the [Supreme Court] decision as influenced by the Lancet article and “harm reduction activists”?

As one may expect those points have never been addressed. No-one is any more the wiser as to why this apparently cutting edge demolition of the court accepted Lancet article, was not itself either in total or in substance, presented to the Supreme Court. Are we to believe an ambiguous and unmentioned “court imposed limitation” prevented the exposing of “research fraud and professional misconduct” by five authors in one of the world’s most prestigious journals, the Lancet? That these supposed academic crimes were overlooked by the Supreme Court of Canada, as they examined the material in question itself?

Or shall we accept the demonstrable trend and tone exercised throughout the ideological attempts to sabotage Insite, is now manifestly clear as an attempt to smear researchers and their work? As the media release claimed, “dozens of other Insite studies that must now be under a cloud as a result”.

The anti-drug brigade may be cruel but they are not stupid. I point this out to Mr. Christian very clearly above, and still await a cogent reply. An academic mirage supposedly good enough to undermine the work of five authors. But not offered in objection to their work. What then was it’s purpose?

It was clear any such opinion from known offenders would have no bearing against over 30 papers in 15 peer reviewed journals. The singular attack upon Kerr, Wood and Montaner is striking. Christian has never answered my queries, preferring to accuse me of “imaginations and suppositions” without facts. Exactly why this argument was not published anywhere until after the Supreme Court hearing has never been made clear.

Why it was not raised by DPNC or REAL Women of Canada (both for whom the final “analysis” was supposedly written) in court is unknown. “No evidence”, was the official position.

Yet Gary Christian gives the game away himself. On November 30th, 2011 I had written in response to his refusal to accept his ploy was found to be “without merit”:

You write as if Montaner and Kerr are under scrutiny. You had your chance. It and the complaint have been found to be without foundation.

He replied on December 19th suggesting conflicts of interest assumed on his part override the independent analysis of his attack. He offered two mundane sources and extraordinarily suggests intentional favouritism on the part of the University of British Columbia and independent reviewer, Dr. Mark Wainberg toward the Lancet authors:

Of course our complaint to the University of British Columbia was not progressed because Dr Mark Wainberg absolved Dr Montaner, Dr Kerr and Dr Wood of any errors in their Lancet article, claiming that it was exemplary science.

However, if you look at the relationship between Wainberg and Montaner, I think that you will find that the relationship breaches the most liberal guidelines in the corporate or political world as to who is qualified to conduct an independent inquiry. […]

Now tell me that the University of Britush Columbia’s ‘Independent Advice’ was absolutely according to the common understanding of independence.

More accusations of corruption. More suggestion of conspiracies. More of the same junk.

What were these devastating pieces of insight? At a meeting of the International AIDS society, 2009 Julio Montaner congratulates, “my friend and colleague, the esteemed Dr Mark Wainberg” on getting the conference to Durban in his capacity as IAS president. The other is a humdrum op-ed piece written with Stephen Lewis on urging the Canadian government to ensure HIV/AIDS therapies remain central topics.

To this day Gary Christian remains unapologetic and impervious to volumes of criticism and questions generated by his single opinion piece. There has been no apology, no explanation nor any correction of demonstrable falsehoods.

Attacks on Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr however, continue apace.

The “drug free” ideology is as free from compassion and evidence as it ever was.

Skeptic Shoppers’ Victory Over Noble Slime

Posted in Alternative "medicine" scams, Big Placebo, Health, Scam by

Following our exclusive report yesterday on the bloody gangland SensaSlim war coming to the Melbourne Laser Skin and Wellness Clinic at Chadstone, investigations today indicate a partial victory.

Skeptical Shoopers swung into action standing up to underworld associate and SensaSlim dealer, Julie Grinberg. After going on record publically and assuring the consumers of Australia she had removed advertisements for SensaSlim we revealed yesterday this claim was in fact a complete fugazi. Chadstone Wellness were continuing to sell their Full Sliming Solution claiming it was backed by a Noble prize.

Despite this victory, we have only cracked open the door into this massive criminal enterprise. Underworld figures are known to seamlessly shift from one income source to another, coldly eliminating competition on “their turf”. The page on Noble Slime has been replaced with a replica of the age old scam of cellulite treatment. This advertising is quite misleading even on the face of it. A visit to the website yields a link to “Cellulite Therapy”. This takes you to a page with the psychologically damaging and completely misleading fearmongering:

Anything that can make us look awkward or out of shape can be considered as a problem

Do not ignore cellulite, it is very likely to get worse if you don’t do anything about it

Yet following the link Slimming Solution Weight Loss offers the same page, the same treatment [http://www.chadstone-wellness.com.au/sensaslim.html]. Documented, unproven, invasive treatment. Again we have misleading advertising but now on two fronts. The TGA clearly state they must “ensure advertisements are socially responsible, truthful, appropriate and not misleading.” But we have one treatment being sold as two. You can access the complaints page here for that reason alone or as we’ll see below for the clearly false advertising on “cellulite”.

Today’s models might wear less but the techno-scam beauty industry is now in full regalia

Of course the claim that any such cellulite treatment works is utterly bogus and serves only to drain money from hard working women who have been hoodwinked by the phrases above. A search for cellulite myths may come in handy and remember shoppers, all cellulite snake oil is backed by no research. Liposuction will produce results for some clients, and make it worse in others. The best non invasive approach, skeptical shoppers, is ongoing exercise for muscle toning and loss of adipose (fat) tissue.

Even then, it’s important to remember what’s going on. “Cellulite” itself is really a made up term to draw marketing attention to perfectly normal cellular changes and histology. It’s proved a boon to gadget makers and charlatans pushing massage, creams, lasers, lymphatic drainage, vacuums, injections (mesotherapy) and now the oxymoron scam “needle free mesotherapy”. “Wellness” itself is a made up term meaning absolutely nothing, but acts as an umbrella term which unproven scams and con artists make liberal use of to avoid in depth explanation of any real purpose.

There is a lengthy critique here of the many scams peddled by Wellness Warriors such as Melbourne Laser Skin and Wellness Clinic and Chadstone Wellness. It actually leads to another pitch for ridding yourself of cellulite via exercise. It may be a sneaky and competitive tactic but is in fact, quite accurate for most women. I will stress I’ve no problem with wanting to feel better about oneself. But do be aware that we’re often told there’s something wrong with us that leads to the belief initially. Body image is a part of us and even mild body dysmorphia is a problem for which some scams have a helpful short term placebo effect. Yet, like the “Seven Signs Of Ageing” skeptical shoppers, “Cellulite” was born to make the cosmetic industry and associates money.

In essence cellulite is nothing more than a description imbibed with negative connotations by the “Wellness” industry to shatter self confidence and take your money. The subcutaneous fat (just under the skin) is bound by connective tissue (collagen). These collagen fibers can and do tear away (or herniate) from other body tissues particularly dermal. Thus with the cells no longer bound smoothly to the underside of outer dermal tissue  – or the inside of your skin – we have the traditional dimple appearance that is misleadingly known as cellulite. With herniation away from deeper tissue and other fatty deposits we have bulges of larger mass.

The reality shoppers, is with tearing of connective tissue comes more collagen. There are different types of collagen cells with different purposes, but we know them better as connective tissue or scar tissue. After a time there is nothing apart from surgery that can alter it’s structure. More to the point the notion of repairing or altering the collagen changes that produce what’s called cellulite is from the beginning absurd. This brings us to fat cells. As very young toddlers and children we go through a period of adipose hyperplasia – the growing of new fat cells. They increase in number in response to the growing body’s need to store energy as fat.

At a certain point this process of readily growing new fat cells slows notably. Thereafter extra fat is laid down in the main via hypertrophy – an increase in size of the fat cells. These cells can swell to enormous proportions, dwarfing the original size. Also with obesity levels today hyperplasia is playing a greater role in adults. It follows that the more adipose tissue one has, the more fat one can store. Rubbing in a well marketed cream or using spas and electrical stimulation will not burn off stored energy. Remember Revitol? Promising you’d be in a bikini in 6 weeks.

And yet, skeptical shoppers, the quick thinking folk at Chadstone Wellness would have you believe One of the biggest problems that can ruin our silhouettes is of course cellulite. Predictably they roll out a warehouse of discredited, dangerous, unproven and very expensive scams. Even the research free Bowen Therapy invented by Aussie pseudoscientist Tom Bowen in the early 1950’s is offered with a straight face. I cannot stress this enough.  Have nothing to do with Bowen Therapy Scams. It has no body of supporting evidence. So shoppers, what is it? According to the ABC (believe it or not):

Bowen Therapy asks the body to recognise where it is out of balance and bring itself back into balance. A Bowen therapist gives a few succinct messages and the body does the work itself. A therapist rolls their hands in a specific way across the muscle fibre, giving the brain a message to help it heal a particular area.

A therapist may leave the room or sit quietly for 2-3 minutes after each movement to allow the body to process the information. Once the body has had a good treatment, it remembers the moves and each following treatment enhances the healing process. There is no ailment you wouldn’t address with Bowen – a therapist does not cure anything but asks the body to recognise the problems and correct itself.

Ah, it’s sheer Quackery shoppers! But Chadstone Wellness manage to plonk in complete falsehoods that sound sort of sciency:

Bowen Therapy works on the unique structure in the body called connective tissue. These connective tissue fibres, through injury, illness, stress (both physical or emotional) become “dehydrated” or “glued” causing imbalances to occur in the normal functioning of the body.

In applying the Bowen Move, the therapy works to release the “glued” or “stuck” connective tissue fibres in the body allowing them to re-hydrate naturally as connective tissue has the capacity to transform from a glued state to a more fluid state. Blockages are freed. Reconnections are made. From the first move, the body is sent a message that the emergency is over.

Bowen therapy naturally brings about the best rate of healing based on the individual’s own body resources and their level of injury. Over the last 45 years, it has successfully helped thousands of people suffering from a wide variety of conditions.

Yes. A magic touch and scar tissue heals itself! The body does the rest, knowing the “emergency is over”. Can you believe that skeptical shoppers?! 45 years eh? “Successful… thousands of people…suffering… wide variety…”. Be sure to include that in your complaint to the TGA. They’ll want to see documented evidence of these helped people shoppers, evidence! Let’s put this myth of healing connective tissue (collagen) in the trash where it belongs.

Anyone who has been through orthopaedic surgery or suffered an injury that threatens to reduce range of motion or leave a huge scar will remember the painful physiotherapy or occupational therapy that seemed to begin at a cruelly early stage. The threat of losing range of joint motion due to scar tissue gives us some insight into why all cellulite scams are bogus. The tearing of muscle tissue and ligaments in joints leads to the laying down of collagen. The first cells to begin the repair might be thought of as scaffolding or framework. More so, it responds morphologically to mechanical stimuli.

It is this process that offers a window of opportunity to regain range. As this “scaffolding” collagen tissue is laid down the tendons, ligaments or muscle it’s repairing can be forced into as great a range as possible. Then when the next type of collagen begins to form – that which is unyielding – it complies with the range that’s already on offer but provides a much stronger unyielding scar tissue. When the collagen associated with adipose herniates it simply hardens. If “cellulite” is visible the tearing is done and there is nothing that can “reconnect” the fibers that gave integrity before.

Even if there was a technique, it would be flying in the face of collagen histology and also assuming some incredible microsurgery is occurring. So combined with what we know about adipose, we now have some decent evidence as to why all the rituals and tricks are never going to remove the reality of human histology and physiology. One of the most common cellulite scams listed shoppers, is No Needle Mesotherapy. Dr. Lionel Bissoon seems to be the most vocal critic claiming on many a website:

This is truly an oxymoron, since one cannot perform Mesotherapy without injections. This procedure utilizes a technology known as iontophoresis which was used in physical therapy with very little success. It is now essentially repackaged with a new name for cellulite.

Others are a little more scathing of the concept. Some of you will know of the S.A. Mesotherapy Alert concerning Wellness Industry Guru, Monika Milka. Injecting stuff under the skin seems pretty extreme so perhaps we should give Chadstone Wellness a thumbs up. Regarding no needle mesotherapy, they claim:

There are four components to the technology. Let’s take a brief look at each of them.

Activating Current – Promotes greater vascularisation ensuring maximum amount of active ingredient is absorbed uniformly. As a positive “side effect” can reduce appearance of spider veins and enlarged capillaries.

Hydroelectrophoresis – Help active ingredients in water solutions to penetrate inside the skin tissue and transports molecules across the dermal barrier.

Electroporation – Promotes electropermeability of the cell membrane which helps the passage of substances. (This is “virtual needle” part of the discovery).

Cryophoresis – Application of cold temperature to lock the active ingredients into the skin cells. It also moves substances into lower layers under optimum conditions so that more is reabsorbed. This improves the performance of the solution’s active ingredients.

What an amazing library of evidence they must have ready to send to the TGA to back all that up, skeptic shoppers. The TGA are within their rights to demand all evidence that substantiates any claim made. So I’m mighty impressed at what these guys must have ready to hand out. Be sure to copy each one down accurately now. Virtual needles, activating currents, locking cold temperatures. That data must be impressive! And all for your cellulite riddled silhouette.

At least they aren’t jabbing stuff under the skin. Are they? What’s Lipodissolve?”

This is the first clinically proven way of fat reduction without liposuction

Many people see Lipodissolve and Mesotherapy as the same procedure. The major difference is that Lipodissolve is the treatment of the body’s fat layer with PC (Phosphatidylcholine) to permanently dissolve away fat cells…

Phosphatidylcholine has been used intravenously for many years to remove fat blocking the circulatory system and to protect the liver during severe liver illness. When injected into your fatty tissues the PC concentration destabilizes the PC membranes of some of your fat cell membranes, resulting in cell destruction and the release of their fatty contents into the fatty tissue.

Another natural component within Lipodissolve chemical cocktail, Deoxycholate (DC) dissolves the fatty contents into a “milky” emulsion. Your body’s scavenging cells slowly remove this milky emulsion over the next 2-3 months in the same way that they also remove a bruise. The removed fat is partly eliminated from your body via the intestines but it doesn’t cause any discomfort, nausea or diarrhoea. It is also partly used as preferential source of fuel for your body. This means that Lipodissolve forces your body to burn and utilize your unwanted fat.

Wow! Just like walking does! Or any exercise skeptical shoppers! But how safe is it? Shouldn’t there be at least some warnings? I mean Deoxycholic acid is a bile acid here guys – an ionic detergent. Some researchers think Phosphatidylcholine acts to break down fat. It can also rupture cells. Phosphatidylcholine/deoxycholate was banned in 2003 in Brazil from the exact practice described above for safety concerns and lack of efficacy as documented here in Quackwatch (Reprinted from Mortality & Morbidity Weekly Report November 11, 2005 / 54:1127-1130, 2005). Deoxycholate is regarded as the more dangerous and should not be used until a much larger body of evidence supports it.

Stephen Barrett also investigates Phosphatidylcholine/deoxycholate treatment thoroughly, delivering an extensive and not good report, a fraction of which shoppers, includes:

Adverse reactions to cosmetic mesotherapy have been reported…. A major British law firm is representing a young woman who is suing a surgeon who injected her with Lipostabil.

Professional groups representing plastic surgeons and dermatologists in the United States have warned against mesotherapy.

  • In 2005, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ Device & Technique Assessment (DATA) Committee published a report advising patients to be wary of mesotherapy until the safety and effectiveness of the procedure are confirmed.
  • In 2006, The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery concluded:
    • Despite the growing popularity of mesotherapy there is a paucity of available data and no randomized, double-blinded controlled studies unequivocally establish that the procedure is safe and efficacious for medical or aesthetic conditions.
    • Mesotherapy may ultimately prove to be a viable adjunct or option for these concerns, but further study is warranted before this technique can be endorsed.
    • Controlled research to determine the optimal formulation and treatment regimens as well as the safety, efficacy and further insight into the mechanism of action of this procedure is strongly encouraged.
  • In 2007, the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery warned against using injection fat-loss procedures until sufficient data are available to demonstrate safety and effectivess.

Clearly “Lipodissolve” is a high risk and potentially very dangerous therapy skeptical shoppers. One should speak only to their GP before considering any such pseudo-technique and be availed of all the risks in a proper clinical setting. Do not believe these advertising claims that seek to lighten you by $750 five times over. Also sold as an oral wonder treatment one would be wise to exercise extreme caution in the presence of anyone wielding a syringe of something not known to be safe or effective and that has a history of complications.

Melbourne Laser Skin and Wellness Clinic (cough) aka Chadstone Wellness also use Pressor Therapy which runs on the myth that as the body is 63% water that’s terribly important. By using scientician jargon and pressure cuffs fluid is forced away from it’s most unsightly location helping with “lymphatic drainage disorders and other organic filtering mechanisms” as you lie horizontal only to redistribute within minutes of you ending “therapy”. It’s actually recommended for 10 conditions so when you see it did nothing for one, you have nine more lives… so to speak, shoppers. It does have uses for bedridden or severely incapacitated patients. Don’t be fooled and ask for a physiotherapist to confirm your need.

There is of course and endless stream of hokus pokus going on down there. And I do mean, down there shoppers. They have struggled yet finally succeeded to find a cure for the hideous condition known as “normal anus”, through a brief yet highly unnatural process of Anal Bleaching:

Just as were losing our home (sic) and were about to take this page off the website we came across a lovely formulation that actually worked. The formulation contains a proprietary patented blend of natural skin lightening ingredients which bleaches your skin, even on most sensitive areas, without causing any irritation except for occasional dryness which can be easily treated by an application of a suitable quick absorbing moisturiser.

Ah, just “occasional dryness” for which they can sell you a moisturiser shoppers. Being inflicted with normal anus may not ruin your silhouette like cellulite does but just think of the confidence as you strut your bleached anus about to your friends’ envy. The pride when you drop the soap in the Fernwood gym showers to gasps of jealousy. Smirk confidently at your colonic irrigationist. Imagine all those hours when you can contort yourself in front of the mirror and admire your new BA in Beauty. Not to mention immediate friendships sealed over your next colonoscopy. Should you end up incapacitated in hospital you’ll be the talk of the nurses office. As for all those worries about what to get Grandma for Christmas…

But wait! There’s more!

Melbourne Laser Skin and Wellness Clinic proudly announce on another page, Nobody’s done what we’re about to do !!!. What?! You mean other people are successful anus bleachers?! But it’s true. Curing normal anus is nothing it seems. They don’t just do anti-aging – they do Speed Anti-Aging! The superiority of Speed Anti-Aging is proven in this table of complex data below. You, shopper, are the green bit:

How can this be possible you’re wondering? Simple:

Our unique five corner approach consists of the following:

  • Modern scientific methods in combination with natural formulations
  • Naturopathic involvement to take care of food cravings, deficiencies etc
  • Self Empowerment therapy to help your mind set
  • Acupuncture to enhance and speed up the process
  • Bowen Therapy to help eliminate toxins and waste from your body

A unique blend of modern science and debunked charlatanism at an incredibly inflated price will actually make you live longer. Incredible skeptical shoppers, just incredible. What are you waiting for?! And acupuncture can speed up Speed Anti-Aging! More years with your bleached anus and adverse effects from the mesotherapy that’s better known as Lipodissolve.

Truly, if you aren’t satisfied with these eminent Wellness warriors poking lasers at you, injecting you under the skin, defending your silhouette, bleaching your anus or extending your lifespan newly imbibed with “the body and mindset of a champion”, then you must check the menu on the website.

Sick of putting on makeup? Then perhaps cosmetic tattooing – or “permanent makeup” – is for you. Never wake up looking… well, normal again. After flashing your bleached anus to the girls in the shower at Fernwood you can scare them witless by washing your face and emerging unchanged! Swim laps fully made up and when you’re old, white haired and dying in hospital you’ll double as a clown for other folk. Kids will come from everywhere just to visit!

Of course most of the scams at Melbourne Laser Skin and Wellness Clinic will do nothing of much consequence bar drain your savings and raise your credit bill. That’s not too bad. Unless you want to trust “a talented artist” called Moira to tattoo your face or let someone stick you full of acidic cell destroying compounds. Then shoppers I can guarantee you’ll never forget.

Simply pick your scam from the many on offer and visit the TGA complaints page. It may not come to much because speed anti-aging is in no way misleading or socially irresponsible. Bleaching your anus to the point of dryness needing moisturiser is certainly “quality use of the product”. Everyone needs their organic filtering systems fired up by an over sized blood pressure cuff. Virtual needles are essential in every girls life and in no way deceptive. Bowen therapists will publish evidence any day now.

I’m sure everything’s completely above board.