Oot and Aboot with Some Canadian Skeptic

Remember the other day when I posted about the Straight.com advocating homeopathic preparations to contain the H1N1 virus? Remember how I pointed out that the article was written by a practicing homeopath? I didn't want to point it out at the time of writing because I was a little unsure of the veracity of the claim, but it turns out that the author of the article, homeopath Sonya McLeod is indeed the daughter of the the paper's owner, Dan McLeod.

I so far see at least 2 conflicts-of-interest: 1) The financial conflict of having a homeopath advocate that everyone should protect their health with homeopathy and 2) The blatant nepotism of allowing the owner's daughter (who has no medical expertise) to dispense medical advice about a very serious health issue. An anonymous commenter on my previous post offered a great idea: we could issue a complaint to the British Columbia Press Council because of these breaches of journalist ethics. But hold off on that until you have read the rest of this post.

Well, we got their attention, because the Straight.com has responded. The response was written under their "Blog-Politics" heading, and was written by one 'Charlie Smith', whose other articles seem to be otherwise regular news/commentary. Charlie, it seems, is rather unhappy with the response received by the skeptic community. Charlie blames medical science for more deaths. Charlie wonders if skeptics would be so outraged if we knew how many people died on a hospital bed.

Charlie, is mad.


Let's deconstruct. I've got my baloney-detection-kit ready for this one.

The study also reported that 9,250 to 23,750 preventable deaths occurred.

You read that correctly: up to 23,750 preventable deaths took place in acute-care hospitals in Canada in a single year, according to the CMAJ study.

Well, not exactly. The numbers 9250 to 23,750 were an extrapolation, not a confirmed body count. So yeah...a little dishonest, Charlie. Not as bad as having a homeopath advocate homeopathy instead of medical science, but still....a little dishonest. More to the point, science-based medicine knows of its flaws. That's why that report was launched in the first place: to look into the ways to improve healthcare in Canada. Have homeopaths ever done a look into the deaths caused by homeopathic-exclusive care?

Last week, the Georgia Straight published an article on homeopathy, which is an alternative approach commonly used in Germany, India, and other countries.

Argument ad populi: It's popular, so it MUST have something working! It's similar to the argument from authority, which the original author, Sonya McLeod loves to use on her clinic's website by saying, "Many famous people have used homeopathy successfully. They include: Mark Twain, Mahatama Gandhi, Paul McCartney, Cindy Crawford, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Tina Turner. The entire royal family uses homeopathy. Prince Charles especially is a very vocal advocate of homeopathy." Oy. Well, anything used by both Prince Charles AND Tina Turner MUST be great medicine!

We published a disclaimer at the bottom of the piece saying it didn't necessarily reflect the views of the paper.

This is true. There was a disclaimer at the bottom. But, when you're publishing medical advice, it goes far beyond the realm of a simple opinion piece! It was published in the headings: ""Lifestyle >> Health >> Health Features". Once you publish something in the health-section, the onus is on you to get the science right, otherwise you are offering health advice, in the section of your paper reserved for offering health advice! Imagine that! This was not an opinion piece, and a disclaimer does not get you off the hook.

In addition, while you assert that the disclaimer shows that the article does not neccessarily reflect the views of the paper, your unmitigated support for homeopathy and condemnation of even going to the hospital suggests otherwise.

For that, we’ve been pilloried by some readers and members of a local skeptics' group...

No, Charlie, you've been pilloried because of a) the conflict-of-interests, b) H1N1 is a very serious public health issue and your paper (or rather, the author's father's paper) is going to get people killed because of the advocacy of people not going to seek science-based medical treatment. Yet still, you continue in this vein...

...even though there is no evidence that homeopathic remedies have any dangerous side effects.

Two points on this: 1) Homeopathy is water. Smelly, funny tasting water (I know). It's a little hard to get a dangerous side effect when you have diluted the active ingredient into nothingness. But since you brought it up, when people use homeopathic remedies instead of science-based medicine, people die. The Homeopathic remedies themselves are rarely dangerous, but the article in question advocated homeopathic-exclusive treatment. That kills people.

As I read the comments from outraged readers, I asked myself: “Do these people ever raise their voices in protest against the frequency of medical errors, which actually kill people? Do they ask what the B.C. government or the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. are doing about this situation? Or do they just get in an uproar about alternative health treatments?”

Ah, the old "Tu Quoque" logical fallacy: another way of saying, "Well, YOU did it too!". Unless of course Charlie was accusing skeptics of apriori behavior. Sadly, it's ultimately a distraction, because THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE! I wish I didn't need to spell it out for Charlie so plainly.

Charlie: this is about non-qualified people offering bogus (yes, bogus) health advice in the health section of a news outlet, written with two egregious violations of journalistic independence. Don't try to make this about skeptics being mindless drones of the medical community when you know perfectly well what our argument is. An argument, which, I should point out, you still haven't responded to.

The medical community loves its peer-reviewed research, which is often underwritten by drug companies. But when Toronto physician Nancy Olivieri tried to publish some of her research that threatened the industry's profits, she was shut down.

This peer-reviewed research is more-often 'underwritten' by independent watchdog organizations and universities which receive public funding. There are laws in place that limit how much medical research an interested corporation can fund a medical study. The Nancy Olivieri case is still under review (by independent parties), and if true, it's indeed sad.

However, and I want to make this absolutely clear: No one is suggesting we all give the pharmaceutical industry a hot stone massage with a happy ending. Charlie, yours is a non-sequiter, AND a straw-man. Nicely done! Way to accuse us of something that no one mentioned, and is outside the scope of our accusations. Come to think of it, that's also special pleading on your part!

But since you mentioned profits, try $466 million euros in 2008 by Boiron, the homeopathic mega-company that Sonya McLeod pimped for in the original article. Still want to go down this road, Charlie?

The reality is that some people doubt the effectiveness of flu vaccines because the virus mutates so rapidly. Some wonder if their vaccine will have any efficacy against the particular flu virus that they might contract months down the road.

Of course there is doubt. That's what science does: it doubts itself. But we have ways of figuring out what doesn't work...in case Charlie hasn't figured it out yet, that way is science. Also, you can't get the flu from a flu vaccine because the shot you get is of a de-activated virus....it is physically impossible to get the flu. That's not suggesting there can't be a reaction, but the flu? No.

Some of these flu-vaccine skeptics might be inclined to consider homeopathy as an alternative.

Kind of jumping the gun, a little here? Talk about your a prioris! So, there is still no data supporting that the H1N1 vaccine is going to be harmful, and you're already advocating homeopathic treatment as opposed to the vaccine?

Judging from the CMAJ-published research, the biggest threat to human health isn't homeopathy; it's that trip to your local hospital.

Wow. You heard it, folks. The biggest threat to human health is not H1N1, HIV/AIDS, Malaria, or cancer...."it's that trip to your local hospital". I hope you remember that when you get in a car accident, need to have a baby, or a bone breaks while playing baseball.

Judging by Charlie's poor understanding of the CMAJ's research: statistically speaking, you're more likely to die or get disfigured of getting treated for an infection than if you stay at home and hope the infection goes away, and the hospital is far more likely to kill you.

Straight.com: You are now a danger to public health. You are complicit.

Readers: I think that now is a good time to issue complains to the BC Press Council.

**UPDATE, 11:24 pm EST** Well, it seems that TheStraight.com is not a member of the BC Press Council. Looks like they don't want to be accountable to journalistic ethics.

Thanks to Scott for letting me know about the Straight.com's response. Anxiolysis also has some information related to the post, and so does the Asshole Skeptic (who is actually quite nice!)



Website Hit Counters