Newcastle Quayside

Revelation TV & Felicity Corbin Wheeler

In a previous blog post, I wrote about Revelation TV promoting Felicity Corbin Wheeler and her views on diet and health. I made reference to her lack of scientific background and my concern that she was advocating the use of unproven therapies and treatments for the prevention and treatment of cancer. I emailed the channel to express my concerns but, undeterred, they have broadcast two more programmes featuring the reverend doctor once again giving her a platform to tell viewers how cancer can be cured by diet. More of that later. First of all, a little more about Corbin Wheeler.
A section of her website is titled 'Scientific Research'. Purveyors of woo are always keen to legitimise their claims by using science but by so doing, they highlight their ignorance. Trying to validate the use of laetrile for cancer treatment Corbin Wheeler's website contains the extraordinary statement,

In the mid 1950’s, the American biochemist called Ernst Krebs, known to all medical students for the “Krebs Cycle”, took up the research in Nevada.  He was studying the absence of cancer in certain non-industrialised peoples.    There are tribes on earth now such as the Hunzas, who do not have cancer.   When these people start to eat a western diet, high in animal protein, they succumb like the rest of us.

The Krebs Cycle is, of course, named after Nobel Prize winning biochemist Sir Hans Krebs. Ernst Krebs was a quack. Hopefully no medical students would make such an elementary mistake.
Back to Revelation TV. The programmes were hosted by presenter Howard Conder who is quite happy to tell viewers about his lack of science education. He sets the background by declaring that the programme will look at 'both sides'. The 'other side' turns out to be reading from a print-out of the CancerResearch  UK website. Next we have the staple of 'alternative' therapies - YouTube videos. A succession of naturopaths and chiropractors give their views about cancer and diabetes being lifestyle choices. Both programmes ramble through an assortment of quack therapies but fortunately Revelation TV has provided a handy downloadable summary rather oddly called Gary Tunsky on Cells with header.(pdf) In this document Corbin Wheeler sets out the steps we need to take to prevent and treat cancer, complete with scientific explanations. Let's take a look at a few examples:

• All disease originates at the molecular and cellular level, not at the organ or system level as we're led to believe by Western medicine. This is a meaningless statement but the use of the term 'Western medicine' sets the scene for what's to come.
• We need photon light and electromagnetic energy, and our cells need photon light and electromagnetic energy. Photon light? 'Photon' is a sciencey word - that's why it's there.
• The DNA helix coils act as transmitters and receivers of cellular information in the form of electromagnetic pulse energy sent to neighbouring and distant cells, similar to a radio antenna that receives and transmits frequency messages. Absolute gibberish!
• A healthy body functions best when it's slightly alkaline. To measure the body's pH you'd have to put it through a blender first. That's not recommended. There follows a lengthy explanation of how we must have an alkaline body achievable by eating alkaline foods. This nonsense has been thoroughly debunked by Quackwatch.
• Over 90% of western population is dehydrated through over-consumption of acidic and dehydrating foods and beverages ..... . Over 90% of people have kidneys that don't function?
• It's my conclusion based on years of research that cancer and AIDS are nothing more or less than a cellular disturbance of the electromagnetic balance. This is stupidity beyond words.

So Corbin Wheeler has the answer to virtually all our health problems. It is of course, eating raw foods, a vegan diet, juicing, colonic irrigation and an alkaline diet. Scientists, oncologists, and doctors are prevented by their ignorance and the influence of the drug companies from treating us in the appropriate manner.
Howard Conder said the programmes would be looking at both sides. He obviously visited the CancerResearch UK website. He must have missed the pages which show that:

• Half of people diagnosed with cancer now survive their disease for at least five years.
• Cancer survival rates in the UK have doubled in the last 40 years.
• Almost three-quarters of children are now cured of their disease, compared with around a quarter in the late 1960s.

(Source: CancerResearch UK)
These results haven't been achieved by quack diets. They've been achieved by hardworking, dedicated scientists using evidence based medicine to relieve suffering.

The Popularity of Homeopathy

I came across Anarchic Teapot's blog post on homeopathy a few days ago. Titled "At least the title's not misleading - Impossible Cure", it's well worth a read. It deals with the claims of a proponent of homeopathy that almost everything under the sun, including autism, can be treated by this particular form of quackery. I don't need to spend any time examining the claims on the site - Anarchic Teapot does a thorough job of eviscerating the content of the website and the claims made by its author. (For those interested the site can be viewed here.)

I stumbled on the website some while ago after googling 'homeopathy and autism' and like Mr Teapot, was appalled by views expressed. Much of the content is devoted to promoting a book, 'Impossible Cure'. The website features a preview of Chapter 1, Homeopathy Revealed. Part of this deals with the'popularity' of homeopathy and contains the statement,

........ in England, 42 percent of physicans refer patients to homeopaths

Really? Almost half of the doctors in England refer patients to homeopaths? That doesn't fit with my, albeit limited, experience. I sought out the source of this statistic and found it in a paper published in the British Medical Journal. The authors were R Wharton and G Lewith. George Lewith's Wikipedia entry says he 'is a professor of complementary medicine at the University of Southampton, where he leads the Complementary and Integrated Medicine Research Unit. He is a prominent advocate of complementary medicine in the UK.' He was involved with the now defunct Prince of Wales' Foundation for Integrated Medicine and is now vice chair of the inappropriately named College of Medicine.

The full text of the BMJ paper can be viewed here (pdf). The 'research' consisted of sending a postal questionnaire to 200 general practitioners in Avon of whom 145 responded. The questionnaire was made up of twelve questions, one of which asked about referral patterns. 68 GPs (42%) of the sample reported referring patients to homeopaths.These results were published in the BMJ in 1986 and this is the source of the much vaunted claim that nearly half of the doctors in England refer patients to homeopaths. The report itself reads like a poor piece of GCSE coursework and I'm staggered that it ever reached the pages of the British Medical Journal. I can summarise it quite easily,

Over a quarter of a century ago, a shoddy piece of research found that a few GPs in a small part of England  sent a handful of patients for treatment by homeopaths.

Such is their desperation, this bogus statistic appears regularly on the websites of homeopaths. It has been used by Dana Ullman and Nancy Malik. Knowing the weakness of their position, they crave respectability and resort to Argumentum ad populum.

The reality is of course that homeopathy in the UK is in rapid decline. According to the British Homeopathic Association, in 2011 400 GPs used homeopathy in their everyday practice. That's 400 out of 41 000, or 0.98%.

0.98% is a long way short of 42%

A Burzynski Of Red Flags

In the skeptic community, the term 'red flag' is used to denote something which gives cause for alarm, a warning sign that things may not be what they seem. Science-org presents a useful guide to red flags as applied to Quackery. Note that of the sixteen featured, Burzynski has one all to himself. Short and Spiky takes it one stage further and devotes an entire blog post to the red flags raised by the Burzynski Clinic.

The shortcomings, ethical,medical and financial, of Stanislav Burzynski and his clinic, have been extensively blogged and tweeted ever since the Observer published an article about a family in the UK raising money to send their daughter for treatment to the Burzynski Clinic. This was followed by  an article in the London Evening Standard  and a feature on ITV's Daybreak programme seemingly endorsing the work of Burzynski. Anyone wishing to follow the timeline of events should go to Joesphine Jones excellent blog which has a record of posts and blogs about the issues.

Burzynski has been in business for almost thirty years. During that time he has had a number of run-ins with the authorities but nothing has stopped him exploiting the sick and vulnerable. Until now. Andy Lewis has revealed that a former patient of the Burzynski Clinic is sueing Burzynski for, amongst other things, "bilking her of nearly $100 000". The Courthouse News Service gives further details about the nature of the former patient's complaints and Peter Bowditch has posted the court filing on his site. These documents make horrendous reading and justify all the red flags raised by bloggers and tweeters over the last few months.

Can Burzynski survive? Burzynski is a last resort for the desperate and vulnerable who may not be influenced by the proceedings in a Texas Courtroom. They may be unaware of what is happening. We cannot be confident that the Observer, Evening Standard and Dr Hilary Jones will give the publicity to these latest developments that they gave to the 'pioneering researcher'. Burzynski is due to appear in front of the Texas Medical Board in April 2012 and hopefully that will seal his fate.

Edit.

The submission to the Leveson Inquiry on theCulture, Practice Ethics of the Press by the Association of Medical Research Charities, Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust contains the following paragraph:

10. Secondly, and more worryingly, it can often raise false hope among patients. This is particularly true and damaging where it concerns treatments for incurable diseases that are not proven, yet which are portrayed as “miracle cures”. This can lead patients to spend life savings on treatments that are most unlikely to work, or on occasion to eschew the most effective known therapies in favour of alternatives that are untested or disproved.

Observer, Evening Standard and Dr Hilary Jones - please take note.

I'm Offended.

This cartoon appeared on the Facebook page of University College London Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society advertising a pub social. Some people found it offensive and complained to the Students' Union. The Union responded by asking the atheist society to remove the cartoon. You can read the full story here. This in turn provoked a response from many skeptics and bloggers including Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, who came to the defence of the atheist society and free speech.

It doesn't end there. Rhys Morgan has written about the Jesus and Mo affair in his blog. If you follow the link you will see that what he has written has resulted in a flood of threats and abuse from those who feel that their religion has been affronted. For the most part those who wrote those comments are revealed to be ignorant, illiterate bullies barely capable of stringing two words together much less making a coherent  argument explaining their position. Their case seems to be, "I am offended by the cartoon. Remove it because I say so."

I am offended.

• I am offended by their wilful ignorance and stupidity.
• I am offended by their assumption that they are entitled to force their religious views on me.
• I am offended by their wish to censor what I can read and what I can think.
• I am offended by their attempts to drag this country back to the Dark Ages.
• I am offended by their readiness to resort to threats and violence.
• I am offended by their refusal to recognise that their behaviour is unacceptable in a modern, democratic society.

Worryingly, this sort of response doesn't seem to be unusual. A proposed talk about Sharia law and human rights had to be abandoned after threats of violence.

If anyone reading this is offended by what I have written, what follows is especially for you.