Tag Archives: pseudoscience

Drug Free Australia manipulate, misrepresent data to discredit Insite

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Denialism, Drug Free Australia, Health, Illicit Drug Policy by

In April 2011 the Lancet published an article written by authors from the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the UBC Faculty of Medicine, the UBC School of Population and Public Health and Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

The title was Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study, by Brandon D L Marshall, M-J Milloy, Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner, Thomas Kerr was followed by a media release from The University of British Columbia which included:

Researchers compared nearly 300 case reports from the British Columbia Coroners Service documenting all illicit drug overdose deaths in Vancouver between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005.

Compared to the 35 per cent reduction in overdose deaths in the immediate vicinity of Insite following its opening in September 2003, overdose deaths in the rest of Vancouver declined only nine per cent over the same period. No overdose deaths have been recorded at Insite since the facility’s opening. The researchers also noted that there was no evidence of significant changes in drug supply or purity during the study period.

“This study provides the first unequivocal scientific evidence of the benefits of supervised injection facilities, and clearly demonstrates that facilities such as Insite are saving lives and playing a vital role in reducing the harms associated with illicit drug use,” says co-author Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the BC-CfE and Chair of AIDS Research at the UBC Faculty of Medicine.

The Abstract can be read here. Insite which opened in September 2003 has also been the subject of more than 30 studies in 15 peer reviewed journals. These have cited a number of benefits including increased access to rehabilitation services, detoxification, reduced syringe litter, reduced public injecting and most importantly reduced needle sharing which serves to reduce blood borne virus spread.

Background

In 2006 the new Conservative government which did not support the initiative threatened to let the site’s legal exemption lapse before the project was complete. On September 1st 2006, Health Minister Tony Clement cited a need for more research as he deferred his decision to extend the site’s legal exemption. On the same day the Government cut all funding for future research. In August 2007 two addicts and the Portland Hotel Society filed suit in the B.C. Supreme Court arguing violation of rights – “security to the person”. What followed was from a legal and human rights perspective remarkable including the May 2008 strike down of sections of the Canadian criminal code on drug trafficking and possession as a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The struggle between progression and conservatism continued with the federal government appealing this legal advance in human rights. The B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed this in a 2-1 ruling. The government announced a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. There were nine interveners in the Supreme Court Case. Only one supported the stance of the conservative government to close Insite. That group was the socially conservative, anti-women’s rights lobby group REAL Women of Canada.

National vice president of REAL Women…, Gwen Landolt, argued against the Canadian Medical Association and other supporters. She claimed that Insite would allow users to get “worse and worse until they die” and that such facilities “are assisting in the suicide of drug addicts.” The government had to admit it had no credible research to show Insite was not working. There were no valid data to show Insite was not reducing drug related harm. In essence the government and REAL Women of Canada were mounting non evidence based claims.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously on September 29th, 2011 to uphold Insite’s exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This allowed the site to stay open indefinitely. The ruling was highly critical of Health Minister Tony Clement’s application of the CDSA to Insite stating it was grossly disproportionate and undermined “the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety”.

Drug Free Australia’s Bogus Critique

Drug Free Australia (DFA) is a conservative right wing prohibitionist lobby group of loosely affiliated extremists masquerading as a quasi-official body critical of Australia’s illicit drug policy. Regarding Injecting Facilities they have a discredited history (indeed presence) in maintaining the highly flawed opinion piece Case For Closure attacking Sydney’s Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. The Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment (MSIC Bill) was passed in October 2010 with considerable support from then Premier Kristina Keneally, The Australia Medical Association and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. All three along with countless other individuals, MPs and organisations rejected the efforts of Drug Free Australia under the auspices of Secretary Mr. Gary Christian to sabotage over a decade of trial success.

On September 17th 2011, perhaps in a final effort to sway the Supreme Court of Canada (at that time yet to hand down it’s decision) DFA presented a media release claiming to have “exposed major, inexcusable errors” alleging “research fraud and professional misconduct” in the Lancet paper by Marshall et al. They cited an article headed Analysis of the 2010 Lancet study on deaths from overdose in the vicinity of Vancouver’s Insite Supervised Injection Facility published in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP).

The authors were familiar names. Dr. Greg Pike co-author of the Case for Closure, and already profiled here. Dr. Stuart Reece and Dr. Joe Santamaria, also both co-authors of the Case for Closure of the Sydney MSIC. Prohibitionist Robert DuPont, former “White House Drug War Czar” under Richard Nixon and present board member of Drug Free America Foundation and finally Dr Colin Mangham, Director of Research, Drug Prevention Network of Canada. Their coordinator was anti-Harm Reduction campaigner Gary Christian.

In a comprehensive response the Lancet authors note their methodology and data was subjected to extensive scientific peer review and that this independent process “confirmed the appropriateness of the data and methods that we employed”. They further note Mr. Christian’s source has not been subject to peer review nor published in any scientific journal.

Nevertheless this formed the basis of a complaint by “research coordinator”, DFA Secretary Mr. Gary Christian to the University of British Columbia. The media release included:

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.

Mark Wainberg, professor of medicine and director of the McGill University AIDS Centre was called upon to independently review the matter. Wainberg reviewed DFA’s analysis, the Lancet paper and the author’s response. He concluded in part:

In my view, the allegations that have been made by ‘Drug Free Australia’ are without merit and are not based on scientific fact. In contrast, it is my view that the work that has been carried out by the team of Thomas Kerr et al is scientifically well-founded and has contributed to reducing the extent of mortality and morbidity in association with the existence of the safer injection facility. . . . The University of British Columbia should be proud of the contributions of its faculty members to the important goal of diminishing deaths due to intravenous drug abuse.

The JGDPP analysis and complaint were found to be entirely without merit and the complaint was dismissed.

Drug Free Dishonesty

Along with the Lancet author’s response and the independent review there are a number of elements which render this amateurish attack particularly offensive. As noted above the “analysis” is not peer reviewed nor published in any recognised scientific journal. It was published in the JGDPP which is a collection of non peer reviewed articles and opinion pieces. Described as a “glorified blog” by The Media Awareness Project, the JGDPP is run by DFA’s parent body Drug Free America Foundation (on whose board sits DuPont). It was initially funded by the US Department of Justice which is presently under investigation for corruption. It has an international reputation for hosting articles seeking to sabotage human rights oriented policy initiatives successful in controlling the spread of blood borne viruses. Many authors hold extreme and archaic religious and/or anti-science views.

Essentially the JGDPP piece argues that the 35% reduction in overdose deaths in a delineated area following the opening of Insite and documented in the Lancet by Marshall et al. is flawed. Tactics by which this is done obfuscate context and manipulate the import of data in such a way as to misrepresent it to the reader. By using flawed population analysis and failing to state the nature of deaths across a much larger area it seeks to claim overdose deaths increased. The JGDPP team also suggest the Lancet authors should have dismissed an entire year as irrelevant because doing so decreases the overall decline in mortality. Thus it was, in their minds, only included by Marshall et al. to skew results.

The Lancet authors note the JGDPP report:

[U]ses crude Vital Statistics data, which included all accidental poisonings to define its estimate of overdose deaths, and it did not exclude deaths unlikely to be affected by a supervised injecting facility (e.g., suicides, adverse effects of drugs in therapeutic use). We note that the REAL Women/DPNC (JGDPP) critique seeks to call into question the Lancet paper’s findings using these crude data, and then goes on to argue that the Lancet paper’s findings cannot be relied upon because they use similarly unrefined death counts. We would argue that you cannot have it both ways.

The JGDPP article also fails to admit it used crude death counts and not population-adjusted mortality rates. This fails to account the relevance of death rates in a changing population. The Lancet study used annual population estimates from Statistics Canada to conclude on overdose mortality. Most shocking however was the increase by the JGDPP authors in area consulted by around a factor of 10. The Lancet studied mortality in 41 city blocks. The JGDPP article refers to mortality in a 400 block area. This further obscures the fact that the greatest reduction in overdose is within 4 blocks of Insite and significantly decreases outside that area.

The area in green is that studied by the Lancet authors showing a 35% reduction in overdose mortality. The area in red is that used by the JGDPP authors to misrepresent the Lancet finding.

The JGDPP article was written as an analysis for REAL Women of Canada and the Drug Prevention Network of Canada (DPNC). It is demonstrably a collation of highly selective, misleading, out of context and academically discredited material. The “analysis” relies time and again on a 2007 “critique of [the Insite] parent philosophy” written by co-author Dr. Colin Mangham of the DPNC. The DPNC holds a highly partisan irrational anti Harm Reduction position claiming it “leads to terror, degradation and the eventual death of the addict”, refers to supporters of HR as “enablers” and presents a grossly distorted misrepresentation of HR on it’s website.

They are dedicated to:

…advance abstinence-based drug and alcohol treatment and recovery programs, to promoting a healthy lifestyle free of drugs and to opposing legalization of drugs in Canada.

Their Mission Statement freely includes, Lobbying in the media, at the community level and in government for the support of our stated principles. At no point does the DPNC propose to hold to an evidence based approach or accommodate advances in scientific consensus. Not surprisingly the previous 2007 article by Mangham is critical of research which supports harm reduction and Insite. Even less surprisingly it too is published in Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice.

Along with accusations of fraud, professional misconduct and research errors directed at the Lancet authors, the media release From Gary Christian also expanded on the supposed impact of the work of Marshall et al:

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.

This is extraordinary. The JGDPP analysis that has so emboldened Mr. Christian was written for REAL Women of Canada and the DPNC. REAL Women of Canada were interveners in the Supreme Court in favour of the Canadian Government. The JGDPP analysis relied significantly upon material critical of Insite produced by the DPNC in 2007. The same DPNC with a mission statement to lobby community and government. Surely the time for accusations and presentation of evidence was in the Supreme Court itself. Yet the reasons why the government could produce none of this flawed “evidence” are manifestly clear.

The JGDPP piece cites the 2007 critique of Mangham in formulating the claim that changes in policing, “could account for any possible shift in overdose deaths from the vicinity of Insite”, arguing this was intentionally ignored by Marshall et al. Mangham is also cited as refuting Insite as having any impact on public crime or public disorder. Yet the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who had commissioned Mangham’s 2007 report claimed it, “did not meet conventional academic standards”.

Although every injection within Insite is sterile and safe from contraction of blood borne viruses, Christian’s JGDPP analysis further cites Mangham 2007 in arguing:

Added to this [the impact of policing] are the spurious claims by Insite researchers that the facility has impacted HIV and HCV transmission, despite the claim being possible only if ALL injections by those HIV or HCV positive are hosted by Insite, which has rarely been the case.

Unsurprisingly Mangham’s 2007 report was ignored by Canada’s Expert Advisory Committee on Injecting Site in formulating their own report. This doesn’t stop the JGDPP piece from citing data from Canada’s Expert Advisory Committee on Injecting Site that Insite statistically saves only one life per year. It’s argued that “this would not be detectable at the population level. This estimate is backed by the European Monitoring Centre’s methodology and avoids the error of naively assuming overdose rates in the facility match overdose rates in the community.”

At first blush this sounds compelling but is in fact a rogue construct manipulating entirely different methodologies, which yield entirely unrelated data sets, to imply naivety on behalf on Marshall et al. Regardless of what is “detectable at the population level”, neither study is relevant to the other. Citing the European Monitoring Centre’s methodology is simple weasel wording applied to distract the reader from the straw man of “one life per year”.

In truth the “one life per year” comes from person to person intervention in a clinical facility. It actually underscores the safety of the Insite environment in averting dynamics which may predicate a potentially fatal overdose. Community overdose rates considered by Marshall et al. cover 41 blocks surrounding Insite. The Lancet authors seek to quantify the impact of Insite’s presence on these rates.

Canada’s Expert Advisory Committee on Injecting Site is in no way at all dismissive of the “one life per year”. They write plainly [bold mine]:

INSITE staff have successfully intervened in over 336 overdose events since 2006 and no overdose deaths have occurred at the service. Mathematical modelling (see caution about validity below) suggests that INSITE saves about one life a year as a result of intervening in overdose events.

Marshall et al. write in their abstract [bold mine]:

We examined population-based overdose mortality rates for the period before (Jan 1, 2001, to Sept 20, 2003) and after (Sept 21, 2003, to Dec 31, 2005) the opening of the Vancouver SIF. The location of death was determined from provincial coroner records. We compared overdose fatality rates within an a priori specified 500 m radius of the SIF and for the rest of the city.

Furthermore it is interesting that the EMCDDA 2004 report notes such rooms can be expected to reduce high-risk behaviour beyond the consumption room setting itself and reduce exposure to and transmission of drug-related infectious diseases [p.25]. On public order and crime the same report lists two main objectives of 1.) to reduce public drug use and associated nuisance and 2.) to avoid increases in crime in and around the rooms [p. 61].

It should be noted each of these four points is in dissonance to the position of the JGDPP authors and every point they cite from Mangham 2007. More so, as noted during the Supreme Court Case the Canadian Government and the government’s only supporting intervener REAL Women of Canada, chose not to produce Dr. Mangham’s 2007 report. They effectively admitted they had no evidence to support their case to close Insite. As such it is remarkable Mr. Christian relied so heavily on Mangham to argue there were, “questions regarding research fraud and professional misconduct.”

Mr. Christian’s problem is not that the Canadian Government, “has been hampered by court action by harm reduction activists” since 2006. It is the simple reality that despite having had five years in which to produce convincing evidence in a court of law to close Insite, the Canadian Government has been unable to do so all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Apart from criticising Clement for undermining the purpose of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act the ruling also acknowledged the dysfunctional nature of the prohibitionist mindset, stating:

…the potential denial of health services and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users outweigh any benefit that might be derived from maintaining an absolute prohibition on possession of illegal drugs on Insite’s premises.

Other shonky tactics employed by Christian’s team include intentionally misrepresenting the findings and recommendations of other research. In attacking cost effectiveness of sterile injecting the JGDPP report states:

The 2009 Andresen and Boyd cost-benefit study calculated savings to government from 35 supposed HIV/AIDS transmissions averted by Insite annually, despite the most authoritative international review to date not finding any demonstrated effectiveness of clean needle provision reducing HIV transmission via needle exchanges.

This is a misrepresentation of the cited IOM review. Preventing HIV Infection among Injecting Drug Users in High Risk Countries: An Assessment of the Evidence, states:

The report provides evidence-based recommendations regarding drug dependence treatment, sterile needle and syringe access, and outreach and education. The report urges high-risk countries to take immediate steps to make effective HIV prevention strategies widely available.

Page 2 of the report brief includes [bold mine]:

Avenues for making clean injecting equipment more widely available—and thus reducing drug-related HIV risk—include needle and syringe exchange; the legal and economical sale of needles and syringes through pharmacies, voucher schemes, physician prescription programs, and vending machines; supervised injecting facilities; and disinfection programs….. Multi-component HIV prevention programs that include sterile needle and syringe access are effective in reducing drug related HIV risks such as the sharing of needles and syringes.

Gary Christian also claimed in his media release as part of the allusion that policing, not Insite had caused a reduction in mortality:

These researchers cannot truthfully claim they knew of no policing changes in the immediate area around Insite when some of their number produced an indignant study condemning the changed policing.

Yet in their response the authors indicate that the police initiative referred to ended “within weeks” of Insite opening. It was not ongoing during the study – which is what Christian’s team had falsely suggested. More so if the crackdown was the cause of a reduction in mortality after Insite opened then it was the cause of an increase in overdose deaths in the area prior to Insite opening. Even more crushing for Gary Christian, is that this means the decline in drug related overdose clearly demonstrated in the Lancet occurred because the policing initiative ended.

Perhaps most scurrilous as mentioned above is the suggestion by Gary Christian’s JGDPP team that the Lancet authors included 2001 in their methodology in order to skew results in favour of overdose reductions. The JGDPP report suggests a review from 2002 onwards would show an increase. Yet the Lancet authors had written an earlier report in 2009 showing stable use from 2001 to 2005:

As shown in a figure from that report (below), although the proportion of IDU reporting daily heroin use declined from 1998 to 2001, the proportion of IDU reporting daily heroin injecting remained stable from 2001 to 2005 (i.e., the period considered in our Lancet study).

Figure showing that daily heroin use from 2001 to 2005 remained stable

Whilst this is a look at the most prominent manipulations and misrepresentations authored by Gary Christian’s team a quick reading of the Lancet author’s response – below – reveals a more comprehensive overview. Accusations of careless assessment are put to rest and a read of the original paper shows the lengths gone to in the Discussion to acknowledge other factors that may contribute to a reduction in drug induced mortality. There are also many other absurdities presented in the JGDPP article (such as “recommended reading” and citing a speech by “Christian voice in politics”, Gordon Moyes) that must condemn Christian and his team even further.

Of course like an antivaccination lobbyist Christian has not budged an inch, still insisting he is completely correct and that peer review and science itself is flawed. Now, in the shadow of their complete demolition we can review the hypocrisy and misplaced confidence of Mr. Christian in his ability to scam the public and academics alike.

 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.

Drug Free Australia has never produced any science and peer reviewed research. This shows their inhumane prohibitionist world view as without merit, and data supporting Insite as entirely safe.

Meryl Dorey’s Supercalifragilistichomeoprophylaxis 2011 W.A. tour

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, AVN, Denialism, Legal, Meryl Dorey, Skeptic by

Even though the sound of it
Is something quite atrocious
If you say it loud enough
You’ll always sound precocious
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay

Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network hasn’t been her usual fun loving self since returning from her W.A. 2011 Tour.

Things, it would appear, did not go to plan. It was supposed to have been all so simple. Meryl Poppins was going to float in with her carpet bag of all singing all dancing vaccine myths and in just 15 days tear up the stage in an extravaganza of adoration over a very special seven performance tour.

All of W.A. would turn out to hear one of Australia’s most loved fairy tales. Toils and struggles of the real world would be left behind for two weeks as fantasy and magic came to town. Scarred, battered and exhausted from the toxins in vaccines, this is just what this entire state of sickly people needed.

The favourites were eagerly anticipated.

Supercalifragilistichomeoprophylaxis, would have the kiddies tongue tied and flushed.

The delightful song and dance duo with Big Pharma Myth Conspira Conspira Conspira-see would have the adults on their feet. And everyone of course would sing along to Just A Spoonful of Oscillococcinum.

Step Back In Time with backing vocals from the very talented myths, Diseases Are Harmless and Vaccines Cause Disease were billed as “mind blowing”. For the totally unvaccinated, Meryl planned to team up with Diseases Provide Immunity and finish each show with the moving favourite that any parent can sing to kids, Stay Alive. She would be loved, adored by the media and interviewed at length on air.

But things seemed to go wrong almost immediately. Channel 10 withdrew sponsorship of The Conscious Living (or Lying) Expo after seeing Meryl Dorey’s name on the list. She summoned the Flying Monkeys. She published a piece on Dr. Peter Dingle who was there presenting his Great Cholesterol Myth. This conspiracy theory is a favourite of David Icke, so Meryl was certainly in good company. Dorey – self appointed defender of free speech – then spent two lengthy pieces on her blog whining about Liberal MP Barry Haase for having his say in defence of vaccines – below. Dorey twice more summoned the Flying Monkeys.

In a rushed round up, Meryl Dorey herself reported on the “smallish groups” to turn out to the Meryl Poppins shows. Despite billing herself as a “vaccine expert” Dorey was completely lost when it came to the rubella vaccine in Australia. In a piece that sounds half made up Dorey recounts testimonials from nameless people. At one of her shows Dorey spoke with a midwife who told her of a 22 week pregnant woman who was found to have low rubella antibodies “so her doctor just gave her a rubella vaccine on the spot”.

Here’s why you should never listen to Meryl Dorey and why her misplaced confidence and immediate conclusions are potentially dangerous.

First of all, rubells (sic) is only a risk for women in their first trimester of pregnancy (the first 12 weeks) so there was no need to panic about rubella levels for someone who was already 22 weeks pregnant.

According to The Australian Immunisation Handbook, regarding rubella:

The risk of damage declines to 10 to 20% by 16 weeks’ gestation. After this stage of pregnancy, fetal damage is rare but has been reported up to 20 weeks’ gestation.

Meryl Dorey:

Second, this vaccine has never been tested for safety during pregnancy and except in the case of an emergency, it should not be used at that time.

According to The Australian Immunisation Handbook, under Groups with special vaccination requirements:

The need for… rubella vaccination should be assessed as part of any pre-conception health check. Although the use of most vaccines during pregnancy is not usually recommended on precautionary grounds, there is no convincing evidence that pregnancy should be an absolute contraindication to the use of any vaccine, particularly inactivated vaccines.

Meryl Dorey:

Last, there IS no rubella vaccine in Australia – there hasn’t been for ten years or more since the monovalent rublla(sic) vaccine, Meruvax, was withdrawn and rubella is now only available as part of the combined MMR shot. This woman was vaccinated without being given any of this information and was told outright that she was getting a monovalent vaccine when in fact, she received a three-in-one shot!

Australian Immunisation Handbook, on rubella vaccination:

Rubella vaccine is available as either MMR vaccine or as a monovalent rubella vaccine. Monovalent rubella vaccine: Meruvax II – CSL Biotherapies/Merck & Co Inc (rubella virus vaccine).

I’ll wage good money you can keep returning to Meryl’s post to read, “This woman was vaccinated without being given any of this information and was told outright that she was getting a monovalent vaccine when in fact, she received a three-in-one shot!” for a long, long time. Wrong, wrong, wrong and making up stories. That’s our Meryl.

Then there’s an assumption another person was “misinformed”. Needing a tetanus shot the woman was offered the ADT Booster which has diptheria and tetanus toxoid, or dTap which is diptheria, tetanus and pertussis. You can read the Immunisation Handbook on tetanus here. The woman seems to remember being offered “tetanus and pertussis” which doesn’t exist. Even Dorey realises the potential for patient confusion, but we get:

Whether she misunderstood what she had been offered or the staff member had no idea what was in the vaccine, I’m not sure. But if she had been misinformed, it would not have been the first (or hundredth) time someone had told me a similar story.

Yes, yes indeed. Just like the rubella story above.

Hepatitis B vaccine is to be administered within 72 hours of birth, but Meryl heard from a nurse it is being given as early as 10 minutes. There is no issue here but Dorey seems to think it should be given “three days later”. To make this more absurd, information on the HBV vaccine being given within 72 hours of birth is available on the AVN website. Oh, Meryl!

She also spoke to someone representing someone else who Dorey claims has Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Apparently the person was vaccinated for H1N1 and “within days” was hospitalised. Dorey writes:

She tried to ask the staff if this could be related to the flu vaccine and they all insisted that there was no link…. This link has been known since 1976 when the flu vaccine was first brought into disrepute…. For staff today to be either so ignorant of this link or, even worse, to lie about it and cover it up, is unforgivable.

She finishes off by reminding readers that this is why the AVN exists. So, why you may ask. To publish without checking facts? To spread fear? To make up fallacies and draw impossible conclusions? To insinuate wrongdoing? So it would seem. To be sure however, there’s more to her ranting.

After the 2010 Fluvax debacle in which 3.3 per 1000 children suffered seizures, the appalling conduct of manufacturer CSL coupled with the TGA’s poor response to both, Dorey assumed she’d be welcomed with open arms. Only a year earlier she let Judy Wilyman loose to tell an audience that, “We’re being educated by the media who have pharmaceutical interests”. Time and again Wilyman claimed the media, as part of the Government, Pharma, Media triad, “run fear campaigns” such as “reporting the deaths of three babies from ‘flu”. In this way the community are “coerced into vaccinating”.

The Fluvax issue was why “hundreds of families” as Dorey claimed this year had children in hospital. Comparing all media reports it appears 23 were hospitalised, 47 taken to hospital and over 60 children effected. This is a serious matter deserving it’s own post to sort the concerns from the hysteria. Meryl made – and still makes – incorrect claims about the suspension in 2010 of paediatric flu vaccines by Australia’s chief medical officer.

She claims that parents were unaware their children were being used in a secret trial. As serious as the W.A. event was, this in no way gives Dorey an excuse to be libellous, falsely suggesting that:

[No] parent who gave permission for their precious child to be vaccinated in this campaign was informed that their babies were being used as guinea pigs in a trial that was paid for by the drug companies involved.

Being welcomed as some anti-vaccine Messiah with a magical carpet bag was not exactly how things flowed. Cathy O’Leary, medical editor for The West Australian reminded readers of how much trouble the AVN was in and brought up the “rape with full penetration” analogy to vaccination that Meryl strongly stood by at the time. The article included:

Australian Medical Association WA president Dave Mountain said the group was trying to whip up anti-vaccine hysteria again.

“They are zealots who pick and choose bits of information to make it look like they’re presenting real evidence,” he said. This led to parents refusing to get children and themselves vaccinated, which affected everyone, particularly the most vulnerable who benefited from herd immunity and, in that respect, they were a danger.

Liberal party member and Federal Member for Kalgoorlie, Barry Haase wrote a piece in The Kimberly Page on immunisation and the impact of the AVN. He noted:

Recent reports state the Australian Vaccination Network, an anti-vaccine lobby group; have been holding meetings in Western Australia. I find it illogical that sane parents would pay $15 to hear why they should not save the lives of their children.

For some, obscure to me, reason, this group has a snout on about saving lives. Vaccination has all but wiped out a number of childhood illnesses.

This radical group, based at Bangalow, near, of course, Byron Bay, was stripped of its charity status by the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, after health authorities found its information to be biased.

This led to an opinion piece in The Kimberly Page from Ken McLeod, who has had his complaint against the AVN upheld resulting in a NSW HCCC order for the group to publish web site warnings. The HCCC have further published their own public health warning about the Australian Vaccination Network. Ken has also been instrumental in urging the OLGR to pursue the AVN over what became 23 legislative breaches.

As already noted here another W.A. article quoted Dorey as admitting to pro bono legal help in her appeals against the HCCC and OLGR. This raises more questions of what may have happened to pledges or donations secured for legal funds.

Then just recently Cathy O’Leary reported on the fact Consumer Protection is investigating the AVN’s grab for donations in W.A., in light of the OLGR NSW revocation of their charitable fundraising licence.

All in all the Supercalifragilistichomeoprophylaxis W.A. Tour 2011 was a big flop for Meryl Dorey.

Footscray City Primary well rid of Steiner “education”

Posted in Education, Religion by

Every word and gesture in my teaching as a whole will be permeated with religious fervour…
Such things show us that instruction and education must not come from accumulated knowledge…
What we have educated in children very naturally in a priestly way – what is really a religious devotion – we must now be able to reawaken at a higher soul level during the second stage of life…

Rudolph Steiner The essentials of education pp. 65-69

I can scarcely agree with Jewell Topsfield writing in The Maribyrnong Weekly expressing concern that parents “… at Footscray City Primary have been left reeling…” after the Education Department moved on Thursday to sack the school council and dump the First Class cult driven Steiner (or Waldorf) “education” program. But then maybe I shouldn’t be surprised because Topsfield inexplicably misleads her readers with:

… the Steiner stream, [which] emphasises learning by play rather than formal classes in the early years of school.

Ah, the “early years of school”. And who could fault “play rather than formal classes”? But is that really what’s going on in Steiner’s secretive descendent program? In brief Steinerism (Anthroposophy cult) propagates the belief that human evolution marched on with survivors from a doomed and fictitious Atlantis who inexplicably made it to other continents.

Generations survived through Persian, Greek and Egyptian civilisations – or epochs – eventually into Germanic tribes which, maintaining their Atlantean heritage culminated in the early 20th century with the Aryan civilisation as the pinnacle of human evolution. Those that survived with Atlantean heritage have largely spiritual forces of body and soul that must be “reawakened”, or developed “in the right way”. It is here that Steinerism as a belief system, a religion, and Steiner Education become inseparably entwined.

In one of his Practical Advice to Teachers lectures Steiner offered:

The subjects you teach will not be treated in the way they have been dealt with hitherto. You will … have to use them as a means with which to develop the soul and bodily forces of the individual in the right way.

Steiner teachers don’t so much reject other races, as pity their clumsy inferiority. Asians whilst ancient and wise are vitiated and cannot invent anything. African races are improperly formed, youthful and childlike. How this goes down in history or biology class – or the “narrow homogenised way of teaching” – as one Steiner parent suggested I can only guess.

Childhood development must follow an analogue of evolution as it’s viewed by Steinerism. That this is done by teaching only further blends the mystical aspects with the purported educational aspects. Steiner Cult teachings divide childhood development into 0-7, 7-14 and 14-21 years.

Thus the “early years of school”, as Topsfield so innocently puts it, is also the “second stage of life”. Whereupon the little darlings should be “able to reawaken at a higher soul level religious devotion” that cult members have drilled into them “in a priestly way”. Of course this is no run-o-the-mill reawakening. Each of these stages is under the influence of either the animal, vegetable or mineral Kingdom. Directed by the Principles of thinking, feeling and willing. Controlled by one of three body parts – head, chest and limbs.

But please spare a thought for the cultists cum teachers who must juggle this with the three Aspects of the human being – body, spirit and soul – which are further sliced by thrice into astral, etheric and physical bodies. Just as well they are experts in the art of Spiritual Science. Or rather Steiner Spiritual Science. I don’t want to get out of tri-sequence here.

On top of this they must accept that conventional science is rubbish, homeopathy is real, diabetes is treated with bee stings because, “anthroposophically logically” honeybees like sugar, the body has energy channels and fields (akin to chi, meridians and chakra) that are treatable through more pseudoscience. They are influenced by karma which comes into being by Lucifers’ effects upon their astral body. Lucifer then evokes Ahriman who effects from without, “working upon and in us by means of all that confronts us externally”. Reincarnation is real.

With all this on their mind, teachers appear to forget to inform parents of Steiner’s key revelations that he could encounter a super-sensible reality. This super sensible chap was behind ordinary objects in the world but as “a so to speak divine being” could give Steiner knowledge acquired about these everyday objects. This knowledge was, most fortuitously, secrets of their activities and existence previously revealed to the super-sensible reality. Steiner seemed to take this in his stride and later ascended through etheric and astral consciousness, eventually arriving at the karmic level.

When he ascended to the karmic level Steiner must have had a better view than from Eureka Skydeck

The karmic level must be even better than the Eureka Skydeck because from up there Steiner saw an amazing spiritual panoramic view including all recorded spiritual events in the history of the whole wide world. He probably couldn’t believe his luck, and it turned out this history had a name. The Akashic Records. Akashic is Sanskrit for “Sky” or “aether”. Through these records he could access the known history of the earth. Not his “known history” but the real known history. There were some other nifty tidbits in there as well it turned out, gleaned from clairvoyance. If anything trumps scientific fact, it’s clairvoyance.

With clairvoyance “Anthroposophists can scientifically investigate mysteries in both the spiritual and physical realms” – and this is scientifically proven, not an article of faith according to Steiner teachers. Steiner knew that islands “swim in the sea”, that the Earth (nor Venus and Mercury for that matter) does not orbit the sun, but “follows it” whilst Mars, Jupiter and Saturn precede it and clearly the heart does not pump blood like scientists say, but attracts it. Sleep is “exhaling the astral body… awakening is inhaling it”, the earth is a living being and much, much more. This can be discerned through “powerful clairvoyance”.

For Spiritual Anthroposophists (fellow cultists), evolution began on the fictitious continent of Lemuria which was situated where the Indian Ocean stubbornly seems to be today. Evolution was a highly spiritual process overseen by the likes of Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel and positively assisted by other spirit beings. The Christian Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost “is a reality deeply bound up with the whole evolution of the cosmos”, Steiner wrote in 1922. On Lemuria and Atlantis, Lucifer and Ahriman respectively were the bad guys who held back evolution. Spiritual evolution.

For the mythologists out there you’ll recognise Ahriman as a principle evil doer in the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism. According to Steiner in An Outline Of Occult Science:

These two figures — Lucifer and Ahriman — must be clearly distinguished from each other. For Lucifer is a Being who detached himself from the spiritual hosts of heaven after the separation of the sun, whereas Ahriman had already broken away before the separation of the sun and is an embodiment of quite different powers.

The site Overlords of Chaos – that New World Order extravaganza – has much the same in the second paragraph on the Ahrimanic Deception, the Atlantean epoch and destruction of Atlantis and some “insight” into mans ability to manipulate the forces of air and water on Lemuria. What these deviations from Steiner’s teachings and work show us is that Steiner did not break entirely new ground.

Rather, Steiner mixed junk science with ancient mythology that actually went very well with the Aryan supremacy theories of the early 1900’s and the German Nationalist Socialist movement of the 1920’s. Although I rush to add there is no link to Nazism. Steiner’s views on Aryan supremacy were spiritual, not material and benign not malevolent. His schools were closed down by the Nazi party. At the time many Anthroposophists in Germany headed to Switzerland. Dornach, Switzerland was the location of 26 of Steiner’s 38 fabled Esoteric Lessons, allowing entrance into his First Class Cult. Hitler did persecute Theosophists, Freemasons, and Rosicrucians also, arguably as surety against threats to Nazi rule.

Steiner was accused by Hitler of being a tool of the Jews. Other sources claim he was murdered by the Thule Society. Nonetheless, there were secret lodges and occult societies aplenty in Germany in the early 1920’s. The secrecy of Steiner’s First Class Cult happenings is demonstrably impervious even today, though online texts exist (sorry about the eye zap). But persecution and quaint secrecy relate exclusively to the past. Today the realities of multiculturalism have had an eroding impact on attendee genealogy, if not Steiner philosophy.

Spiritual teachings include the belief that Lucifer caused a volcanic destruction of Lemuria ending the Lemurian epoch. The strongest survived and settled on fabled Atlantis. Here they developed a superior and intuitive grasp of the environment and speech. As hinted at above, their nemesis here was Ahriman who sought to lure them toward the material from the spiritual and intuitive. Still today criticism of a material understanding of the world or education remains and plays a major role as to why parents have little say in their childs’ education. Put bluntly, Steiner education is about stomping out critical thought before it takes hold.

As Roger Rawlings writes in My Experience As A Waldorf Student, about a discussion with his Steiner teacher:

Once he asked me whether he should fire the school’s Latin teacher, and he quickly added “Don’t think about it with your brain”—I should give an instinctive response, not a considered reply. (Which raises the question, what organ should be used for thinking, if not the brain?)

Whilst Steiner’s notions on the linguistic meaning of speech are insightful, valid and at times fascinating, the religious and mystical overtones of his teaching are inescapable. From his first Practical Advice For Teachers lecture:

We could ask why these things are as yet not included in science, even though they offer real practical help. The reason is that we are still working out what is necessary for the fifth post-Atlantean age, especially in terms of education. If you accept that speech in this sense indicates something inward in the vowels and something external in the consonants, you will find it very easy to create images for the consonants.

You will no longer need the pictures I will give you in the next few lectures; you will be able to make your own and establish an inner connection with the children. This is much better than merely adopting an outer image. In this way we recognize speech as a relationship between the human being and the cosmos. On our own as human beings, we would merely remain astonished, but our relationship with the cosmos invokes sounds from our astonishment.

Speaking of making sounds from astonishment. During Atlantean times man could command the creative forces of plant (vegetable), animal and mineral kingdoms, which is mirrored in Steiner Education of children – perhaps your children – today. It was Ahriman the second distinct incarnation of evil, who gradually misled some inhabitants of Atlantis to misuse the power of Earth and Water which led to the divine powers of Nature flooding Atlantis in a particularly nasty storm. So it was that the Atlantean epoch ended and the Persian, Egyptian, Indian, Hebrew, etc epochs followed, right up until the Germanic epoch.

Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophy is a religion in every way and should not be tolerated in a serious education system. Fixation with the numbers three and seven is plainly religious. Avoiding the wearing of dark colours is a Steiner religious expression relating to dark forces and the dark side of humanity. The “play” we hear of in place of “lessons” is nothing of the sort. It is designed to avoid structure, reasoning, choice, calculating cause and effect, or indeed any materially oriented activity.

Rather it’s a primitive “play” to reinforce the supposed intuitive correlates to the latent Atlantean self and thus “reawaken” the Atlantean powers as dictated by this religious cult. The most famous are the watery paint blobs kids churn out. Designed to expunge the thought, care and even correction needed to apply straight lines and geometric thinking that children develop with traditional drawing, painting helps to tap into the “forces” of body and soul.

As you may have noticed selling an evidence base for this hanky panky is a big ask. Showing a bit of flare even Scientologists must admire, Melbourne’s Rudolf Steiner School dodges Australian Government guidelines. Although controversial, all schools are to make publically available the performance of their students. This includes the percentage of students meeting reading, writing, spelling and numeracy skills for years 3, 5, 7 and 9. Amongst a cornucopia of feelgood cuddly wuddly spiritual warmth, the Rudolf Steiner School response (item 6) is:

As 98% of parents chose to remove their children from participation in these tests, it did not allow for a large enough sample to be indicative of the School’s Performance. Therefore results are not available.

So what’s the score? Given all the above, Victorians can be grateful for the Education Department action in removing what I confidently predict (without any Steiner clairvoyance) was a school council heavily weighted in favour of psuedoscience and religion dressed up as education. Simple cult observance.

Children are fairly robust and can sort silly parental views from the real world with remarkable skill. Still, that there is such a strong and vibrant abuse of our education guidelines, thus Victorian children, played out in Steiner annexes and at the main campus in Warranwood is concerning. Perhaps the Department should extend its reach.

Clearly Steiner education is designed to propagate religious beliefs. Parents are given no say in their childrens’ “education” under the Steiner banner. Steiner School curricula cannot possibly comply with Government regulations. The inherent racism in Steiner’s teachings are manifest. We need to accept that Waldorf schools hide the truth of their extreme religion from education authorities and prospective recruits alike. In respect of the previous point Steiner Education is to be regarded as a cult.

Yet more specifically is the High Court definition of a religion given in Victoria October 27, 1983 during the Scientology case. Church of New Faith vs Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax:

We would therefore hold that, for the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief… Those criteria may vary in their comparative importance, and there may be a different intensity of belief or of acceptance of canons of conduct among religions or among the adherents to a religion. The tenets of a religion may give primacy to one particular belief or to one particular canon of conduct. [….]

According to this legal definition Steiner Education, which follows on from and is presented strictly as relevant to a system of belief as outlined above, is clearly a religion.

Steiner education is anti-science and certainly anti-critical thought. Anthroposophy itself offers a non evidence based, completely ineffective alternative to medicine. The inherent dangers of these practices and the thinking it nurtures are well documented. To allow expansion of such illusory beliefs and high risk conduct under the watch of any Education Department, state or federal, is patently irresponsible.

More so, the volume of work produced by Rudolph Steiner goes far beyond belief and ritual to a universal and “cosmic” world view that at it’s heart is demonstrably void of any grounding in reality whatsoever. It is fantasy. Our education system should teach fantasy as fantasy, not permit our corridors of learning to be used for the telling of fables palmed off as fact. The growth of this new age cult belief in adults is at variance to, and an unwelcome intrusion upon, the natural development and educational needs of children.

Any parent who spends some time understanding the purpose of Steiner Education would no doubt, to borrow Jewell Topsfield’s phrase, be left reeling.

Blackmores, Pharmacy Guild saving face

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

Last we visited the Blackmores, Guild Alliance there were serious doubts about evidence from Blackmores or understanding from the Guild.

Not much has changed on admitting fault, even with the removal of the Gold Cross endorsement. Which, by the way, was the fault of “ill informed and inflammatory” media reporting leading us goofy consumers to exhibit a “strong level of public concern”. I wonder where the Guild gets off trying this one on. There’s something missing from this sudden awakening in which “the Guild has listened to these concerns and accepts – mutually with Blackmores… to withdraw the endorsement arrangement”.

For example the AMA, according to president Steve Hambleton, considered the deal “outrageous” and that, “There’s no place for commercial interference in the clinical decision making of the pharmacist”. This was and is reflected in GP’s responses, including some writing notes with scripts to not include the “companion range”. Professor Paul Glasziou, director of Bond University’s centre for research in evidence-based practice had, on ABC, called Blackmores’ bluff on supporting evidence.

Chemist Warehouse had publically and loudly protested, promising to not participate in the deal. “Our pharmacists recommendations are not for sale” and “Professionals Practicing Professionally” stated their defiant flyer. Ouch!

Many individual pharmacists were, to put it mildly, infuriated and appalled at the Guild’s total stuff up which effected the integrity of all pharmacists.

Stuart Baker, a pharmacist from Western Victoria quit the Guild in protest. In view of the decision to drop the Gold Cross endorsement he still won’t be returning. Damage done there it seems. In light of the Guild’s inability to accept responsibility for such poor decision making the damage could be both more widespread and persistent.

Jane McCredie recently wrote in MJA Insight:

PHARMACISTS have long felt like the poor relations in the broader family of health professionals when it comes to status and respect, if not monetary reward.

In recent years, their representative bodies have lobbied for expanded prescribing rights, for recognition of their role as front-line “clinicians” and against allowing pharmacies in supermarkets for fear this would undermine the quality of health care provided.

It’s going to be a lot harder to make those arguments convincingly in the wake of the spectacularly ill advised deal between the Pharmacy Guild and Blackmores that created such a media furore last week.

October 5th saw the Pharmacist Coalition call on the Guild to dump the scheme. AusPharm News reported in part:

The Pharmacist Coalition for Health Reform (PCHR) has called on the Pharmacy Guild of Australia to axe their deal with Blackmores, following the Guild’s admission that the computer prompts to upsell dietary supplements were a pilot only and would be reviewed.

PCHR spokesperson and Chief Executive Officer of the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA), Chris Walton, said that pharmacists had rejected the deal and it was now time for the Pharmacy Guild to scrap the pilot. “A Pharmacist Coalition poll of over 460 people has shown that 94 per cent of community members, including pharmacists and pharmacists-in-training, disagree with the Blackmores’ deal and believe ‘it undermines the professionalism of pharmacists’.

“This has been further supported by The Age online poll which revealed that of over 2,000 voters, 94 per cent do not approve of the ‘Pharmacy Guild of Australia’s deal with Blackmores to recommend Blackmore’s supplements’. [….] PCHR spokesperson and Chief Executive Officer of The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA), Yvonne Allinson said The Pharmacy Guild has lost credibility and a failure to scrap the pilot would damage their reputation further.

Gold Cross is a fully owned subsidiary of the Guild. Now that the Gold Cross endorsement has been cancelled their logo, if you like, won’t appear on Blackmores companion range. Nor will the pilot project of software prompts at point of sale go ahead. The decision was “made in conjunction with Blackmores”.

The mutual decision has been taken in view of the strong level of public concern about the proposal, based on some media reporting of the endorsement which was ill-informed and inflammatory.

The last thing the Guild would ever want to do is deplete the credibility of community pharmacists, or damage the trust in which they are held by Australians. That trust and confidence is of paramount importance to the Guild and to our Members. The Gold Cross endorsement arrangement with Blackmores was entered in good faith, with absolutely no intention of undermining the professionalism and integrity of participating pharmacists. [….]

Additionally, an optional prompt containing clinical information for the patient to consider in relation to one product of the Companions range was to be available through the dispensary IT programs, on a pilot basis. The software pilot was not intended to commence until at least November, and will now not proceed.

Chris Walton CEO of APESMA Pharmacist division said in response:

This is a pathetic back down by an out of touch organization. The Guild has been dragged kicking and screaming to the decision and still will not take responsibility. They describe their decision to enter the deal as one made in good faith. Good faith must now be code for a bag of coin.

The profession should never forget that the Guild was willing to trade on the good reputation of pharmacists for commercial gain. While the same people are in charge why would we ever trust them again. Any pretence that they represent the pharmacy profession is over.

Still insisting that the “need for these natural health supplements for some consumers is underpinned by a body of scientific evidence”, Blackmores released a statement also with soothing noises about having listened. But they go one further and point out the “considerable confusion” in waking up to their scam. Hmmm. Perhaps they have a supplement for that? Either way, also from October 5th:

We have listened to the feedback on the Companions range and it is apparent that there is considerable confusion regarding the positioning of this range which we believe is detracting from the potential underlying benefit of these products to consumers.

As a result, and following discussions with Gold Cross, Blackmores will remove the Gold Cross endorsement from the four products, we will not feature these products on the proposed IT dispensary software and we will update the product names to reflect the key ingredients, under the Companions brand.

Blackmores have published research on their professional page for “health professionals” which is well summarised here. I suspect in response to the NPS review of evidence to sustain (cough) claims made in defence of the “companion range”. Christine Holgate opens her heart here about “misconstrued” information and accurate representation of “integrity”. Basically, it’s all good and they’re doing Aussies a favour. No, really.

All up, it’s rather shameful. The Guild haven’t in effect admitted being at fault. At most they seem to grudgingly admit to a type of PR blunder. Blackmores is sticking to it’s guns pleading misunderstanding on the part of the public and a raft of health professionals. Marcus Blackmore bemoaned that a full scale assault on complementary medicines had grown out of the same misunderstanding. ABC have a comprehensive write up with audio and video.

Jane McCredie finished her MJA Insight article in style:

The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia is due to release a new code of ethics for its members — along with a vision for the profession’s future — at its annual conference later this week. It would be nice to think that code might require pharmacists to disclose the level of evidence for any non-prescription medication they sell — hardly an unreasonable demand of people who want to be recognised as clinicians.

I’m imagining the conversations now if this code is implemented. Pharmacists selling homoeopathic remedies will be required to tell each and every customer: “There’s not a skerrick of evidence this works, but if you want to throw your money away…”

Therein lies the very source of the problem. Blackmores’ deal stood out because it officiated upselling and would have included entirely unwarranted prompts. Both the Guild and Blackmores knew it to be a grab for money. So did everybody else. Yet pharmacists do recommend and sell junk to consumers. Assistants do little if anything to dissuade from spontaneous buying.

Doctors will testify to patients at times admitting to taking large amounts of useless supplements. It’s documented that patients are reticent to admit to doctors they use alternative products. In the main doctors are missing out on vital information they need to properly treat their patients.

The only durable solution is for the TGA to move forward with sharp teeth and legislation to call CAM what it really, in the main is.

Unproven and unnecessary.

Time for Blackmores to pull that evidence out of a hat

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

Where are all the people dying in the street from complementary medicines?

Marcus Blackmore – September 2011

Although a seemingly innocuous if not arrogant turn of a logical fallacy called Begging The Question (and a few others as well) I was surprised at how gullible Blackmore may actually take Australians for. Four deaths in two years and 40 serious adverse reactions reported. But, not in the street to my knowledge. Forget the lead, mercury and arsenic poisoning from imported Chinese herbs.

In this case he’s trying to dismiss the vast vacuum of evidence for efficacy of Blackmores hanky panky, by confusing no medicine (or placebo) with a bad medicine. Confusing no effect with malignant effect. It’s also an inconsistent non-sequitur in that he’s applying the logic we would apply to real drugs (or consumer products under fire) to propose the absence of an outcome that by definition, cannot follow. Regardless of how you see this nonsense, it’s a pearler. It encapsulates so much of what’s wrong with regulation of alternative medicine today, in just a dozen words.

Fortunately for consumers it makes Blackmore look quite the villain. It has zero to do with the problem at hand. Namely the current Pharmacy Guild deal done during an evolving awareness of unsustainable claims and corresponding outrage. Although he hasn’t said this in response to recent criticism, he has been scathing of sound criticism, using this phrase before. More to the point it’s a taunting, if rather melodramatic version of What’s the harm? which to skeptics is a huge clanger. Professor Alastair MacLennan head of obstetrics and gynaecology at Adelaide University, cites “four harms of ‘harmless’ therapy”.

In the recent Trick or Treat article by Gary Tippet, MacLennan is summed up:

Probably most important is delay in seeking effective therapy, if there is one; increasing evidence of side effects and drug interactions, which are under-reported; a placebo effect that wears off within months and sees people ”becoming disappointed, disillusioned and depressed as they move along the health food shop counter seeking placebo after placebo”; and a multibillion-dollar industry that is a waste of the scarce health dollar, if they’re not doing any real good.

Interestingly, Marcus Blackmore’s Dirty Dozen words resonates more or less with each of those points. But back to the fallacy. Just because something isn’t doing harm doesn’t mean it’s doing good. Nor can potential benefits (such as supplements suitable for malnutrition) justify wide scale use or the – quite frankly – astonishing prices of Blackmores’ concoctions. Had he asked the question, “Where are all the people wasting money on complementary medicines?”, one could just steer him toward customer exit of any large store.

Fairfax Poll Today

Chemist Warehouse have made their position plain. But don’t abandon your trusted pharmacy/pharmacist. These guys are about slicing trade from competitors. Including (in my suburb) with the 30 plus metre aisle of junk potions bulging with Blackmores’ goods.

Their grab for the “integrity dollar” was written up today in The Age. The Life and Style section included a poll. Of note, the article continued:

However, in a sign the guild is backing away from the deal, it wrote in its latest newsletter that the Blackmores’ prompts in its computer system were a pilot only, which would be reviewed.
”Contrary to some media reports, there is no compulsion whatsoever on pharmacists to sell these products, nor is there any direct incentive to any pharmacist to sell them,” the guild’s newsletter said.

Fortunately the lack of evidence is now evident. In a great interview recently on ABC is Professor Paul Glaziou of Bond University from the Centre for Research in Evidence based practice. He went looking for and couldn’t find the evidence one would expect from Blackmores. He’s asked for them to make it available. He shouldn’t have to – nobody should be left looking for evidence here.

Or download here.

The clash of reality catching up with an industry that survives on social psychological trends such as the need to take control of ones health, distrust of pharmaceutical companies and a prevailing zeitgeist of choosing something – anything – natural in an environment we are erroneously told is highly toxic is getting louder. Marketers of this junk know this and they’ve been fighting a semantic battle against the growing doubts of efficacy, trying to head off reality at the pass.

We’ve gone from “natural”, to “alternative”, to “complementary” and now we’re getting scammed with Integrative. As though this cockypop mix of potion and ritual actually has a place waiting for it within the current model of evidence based medicine. Purveyors of naturopathy, vitamin therapy, supplemental, acupuncture, reiki, massage, kinesiology, meditation, homeopathy, chiropractic (the one stop shop for self-health sabotage) have delighted in maligning “allopathy” for years.

The paucity of evidence to defend the need for unproven products is summed up well by Dr Wendy Morrow, chief executive of the Complementary Healthcare Council:

Quite frankly, if complementary medicines didn’t work it would have been a fad that was here and gone in the blink of an eye. Their increasing use shows they’re not a fad, they do work if used appropriately, and I don’t see that people are going to stop using them.

Which could also be said about any of the useless rituals above which also come bundled with attacks on vaccination, antibiotic therapy, medication in general and ample conspiracies about “allopathy”. However, late on Friday Blackmores did publish a research summary. Bear in mind however that claims made in advertising are subject to the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code which is something I wish to look into shortly.

Pharmacy news items reported on Monday October 3rd:

Blackmores reports that while there is evidence to suggest that some medications can affect how the body uses nutrients, this is ‘unrecognised or overlooked by many healthcare practitioners’. Blackmores says that the evidence was compiled in line with the TGA’s Levels of Evidence Guidelines for Listed products and demonstrates that ‘some prescription medicines diminish nutrients and that supplementation can improve nutritional status’, adding that the evidence for its Companion range was reviewed in consultation with ‘leading [unnamed] pharmacists’.

NPS have published Examining The Evidence and looked into each of the four “companion medicines”. They find evidence was “absent” except for the probiotic option, which was “limited”. To summarise each area:

  • Supporting evidence for using Co-enzyme Q10 with statins (none)

Evidence does not support the use of Co-enzyme Q10 to prevent myalgia (muscle pain) during treatment with a statin. No trials have shown that taking a Co-enzyme Q10 supplement with a statin prevents myalgia.

Randomised controlled trials of Co-enzyme Q10 to manage statin-associated myalgia have conflicting results and do not support routine use with statin therapy.

  • Supporting evidence for using magnesium supplements with PPI therapy (none)

Magnesium deficiency or ‘hypomagnesaemia’ has been associated with long-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Case reports indicate that stopping the PPI is the best way to normalise magnesium levels. Taking a magnesium supplement with the PPI may not be enough to correct the magnesium deficiency.

No studies have investigated the use of a magnesium supplement to prevent magnesium deficiency during PPI therapy. A magnesium supplement should only be considered if a PPI has caused a deficiency in magnesium that requires treatment. Evidence for using a supplement with a PPI to treat magnesium deficiency is based on case reports.

  • Supporting evidence for using zinc supplements with antihypertensives (none)

Routine use of zinc supplements is unnecessary for people taking blood pressure lowering medicines (or ‘antihypertensives’). There is evidence that long-term treatment with certain types of antihypertensives may reduce zinc levels, but it is unclear how often this causes zinc deficiency.

  • Supporting evidence for using probiotics to alleviate antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (some)

There is some evidence from trials that probiotics may prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in some adults and children. But limitations with the trials mean that the true effect of probiotics is uncertain, as is the most effective product or dose.

58 million prescriptions per year. Coke and fries. 90% non-compliance with regulation. No regulatory enforcement because it’s not “cost effective”. A recent audit finding the TGA has failed for decades to counter deceptive, false and misleading advertisements. If compound X is today found to be unable to make claim Y proper policing applies only to new products coming onto the market. Products already on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods cannot be edited.

Given what’s been leaking out about the industry and the paper tiger apathy of the TGA, it shouldn’t be surprising Blackmores’ “Coke and Fries” is geared for consumers money, not health benefits.