Tweet

The story concerned a study in progress from well known anti-vaxer Judy Wilyman (for more background see Dave the Happy Singer’s blog post).

ABC Science presented her views in a completely credulous fashion omitting any context that she has lectured with the sometimes-president of the AVN Meryl Dorey and has close affiliation with the AVN. (In response to my complaint about this lack of disclosure, the ABC apparently asked Ms Wilyman if she was affiliated with the AVN and when she said no, they were satisfied with her response).

As you’ll see below, they have also taken out of context my complaint that her views should have been reported along with a declaration that she does have anti-vaccine affiliations to say I don’t think her views should have been reported at all. This was not what I was trying to say and I don’t think my complaint conveys this (it’s reproduced below so you can decide for yourself – let me know in the comments if you think it does).

Overall, I am extremely dissatisfied with this response. I wouldn’t care if her piece was presented as opinion – but it was presented as science with comments from Prof Booy (one wonders why he keeps getting quoted in such articles – it only serves to boost the legitimacy of the anti-vaxer and does nothing for his reputation).

It also comes off as rather patronising in my opinion, beginning with addressing me as “Ms” when my correspondence was from “Dr”. You’ll also note below that ABC neglected to address my comment about an internal ABC memo which stated that any material or interviews which involve the AVN or affiliates must be published in context so that readers are aware the information is not based on evidence.

I think this was a rather important point which the ABC decided to gloss over.

There is much more to say on this, but I am currently at a conference which has been going for 12 hrs so far today and I haven’t had dinner yet. I’ll get back to this later.

Thanks to Ken and Carol for the tip-off to this poster. I’ve annotated it for the ABC just so they can understand.

To: Audience & Consumer Affairs
From: Rachael Dunlop
Subject: ABC Science HPV story
Date: 14/10/11 17:20

Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Rachael Dunlop
—————————————————————————
ABC program: ABC Science

Response required: true

Date of program: 131011

Contact type: Complaint

Location: NSW

Subject: ABC Science HPV story

Comments: Yesterday ABC Science online published an article questioning the safety of the HPV vaccine.

The PhD student interviewed is a well known anti-vaccine campaigner who is affiliated with the Australian Vaccination Network.

The AVN was investigated by the HCCC in 2010 who issued a public warning about their website here

In short: The Commission?s investigation established that the AVN website:

• provides information that is solely anti-vaccination
• contains information that is incorrect and misleading
• quotes selectively from research to suggest that vaccination may be dangerous.

Indeed the ABC issued a warning to staff in July 2010 stating that “it’s vital that programs provide adequate context to ensure listeners clearly understand the AVN is a lobby group”.

Why were the affiliations of Wilyman not made clear? A declaration should have been published stating she is an anti-vaccine lobbyist.

Perhaps a better headline for this story would have been “Evidence for HPV vaccination questioned by anti-vaccine campaigner”. That this anti-vaccine nonsense was published on an ABC science website is a disgrace.

Network – ABC Online
RecipientName – Audience & Consumer Affairs
Referer – Complaint
—————————————————————————

My comments in bold (more comments to come)

Dear Ms Dunlop

That’s Dr to you thanks

Thank you for your emails regarding the ABC Science story ‘Evidence for HPV vaccination questioned’, published on 13 October.

In accordance with the ABC’s complaint handling procedures, your correspondence was referred to Audience & Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. The role of Audience & Consumer Affairs is to investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC’s editorial standards (available here: http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm).

Yeah, thanks for that, but that was where I sent my email you dolts. See
To: Audience & Consumer Affairs
From: Rachael Dunlop
Subject: ABC Science HPV story
Date: 14/10/11 17:20

I also want to add here that our initial complaints were made on Twitter to @ABCScience and the editor of the latter, @ScienceNewsGeek (Darren Osborne).

I did this (a copy of my email to Darren can be found here), I also made a direct complaint to Audience and Consumer Affairs which is addressed in this post.

Contrary to what Darren said about “a few days” I did not hear back regarding my direct email to him. I tweeted to him a few days later to enquire about the status of my direct complaint and was told that apparently all complaints had now been sent on. This was despite the fact that I had already complained to ABC Audience Liaison. I received this (unsatisfactory) response from Darren when enquiring further about this;

Anyway, on with the “defence” of this nonsense by Audience and Consumer Affairs.

—

I understand you believe the story should have disclosed the affiliations of Judy Wilyman, one of the interviewees whose views it reported, and that she is an “anti-vaccine lobbyist”.

In addition, I understand you believe it was irresponsible and disgraceful for the story to report her views.

—-

Taking my comments out of context much? Yeah I see what you did there clever Consumer Affairs Peeps.

In context, I said presenting her “anti-vaccine nonsense” as if it were science with no disclaimer to indicate she has an anti-vax agenda was “totally irresponsible” and “absolutely disgraceful” particularly in the context of a recent resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases. I think I made this quite clear.

Judy Wilyman can say what she likes when it presented as opinion but you presented it as science when it was a purely a grab bag of anti-vax canards thinly disguised as science.

This was clear as day to anyone who has done their research, which apparently ABC Science has not (and is not willing to do so, beyond asking Judy Wilyman herself – see below).

Oh wait! But someone in the comments has. They Googled “Judy Wilyman” and “Meryl Dorey”and got a link to an Australian Vaccination Network blog post describing when they gave talks together. Actually the same link I provided you in my original complaint. Did you not see it?

—

The ABC Editorial Policies do not contain a specific standard requiring disclosure of information about interviewees.

Maybe not, but there was this memo which YOU distributed to YOUR own staff in July 2010 following the public warning about the AVN issued by the HCCC

Excerpt from internal ABC memo sent July 28th 2010 following the HCCC public warning

However, the manner in which factual content – including information about interviewees – is presented is subject to the accuracy standards set out in section 2 of the Editorial Policies:

“2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.

This was kinda my point – you didn’t do this

2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.”

^^^ ummmm this?

In light of your concerns, Audience & Consumer Affairs has reviewed the story, considered information provided by ABC Innovation (the division responsible for the ABC Science website), and assessed whether these editorial standards were met in the presentation of information about Ms Wilyman.

Ms Wilyman was described in the story as someone “who is completing a PhD on the Australian government’s vaccination policy at the University of Wollongong” and “who has a Master of Science in population health”. These descriptions were accurate. As well as quoting from and paraphrasing Ms Wilyman’s views, the story included a direct link to the paper in which her views were outlined in detail.

I note your view that Ms Wilyman is an anti-vaccine campaigner and is affiliated with the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN). Audience & Consumer Affairs has found no evidence indicating that Ms Wilyman has particular affiliations which needed to be disclosed in the story in order for readers to make their own judgements about her claims. We have found no evidence indicating that Ms Wilyman is a member of the AVN, and ABC Innovation has advised that Ms Wilyman has denied being a member of or having any affiliation with this group. (translation – are you anti-vaccination? No? Okay then, thanks!)

In our view, readers were provided with sufficient information about Ms Wilyman to form their own conclusions, and the manner in which she was presented was not materially misleading.

Nonsense.

While we are satisfied that the relevant editorial standards were met, please be assured that your comments about Ms Wilyman and the AVN, and your view that it was irresponsible for ABC Science to report her view…

Again, it was irresponsible to report her views without context and since when has science been about “views” and not evidence. ABC Science – WE DON’T NEED NO STICKIN’ SCIENCE!111),

…have been noted and conveyed to ABC Innovation management. Thank you for bringing your concerns to the ABC’s attention.

Yours sincerely

Simon Melkman
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

–

Do some stinkin’ research ABC. Cause this nonsense make ABC Science seem like an oxymoron.

When this appeared in my inbox yesterday, courtesy of Richard Saunders (who was kind enough to ask me if I was sitting down first) I initially *facepalmed*, then sought about getting the original paper where this apparent break through research had appeared (thanks to @xtaldave for the full text).

The paper that had apparently found homeopathy to be as effective as chemo for breast cancer (according to Homeopathy Plus!, yes those guys), was published in the International Journal of Oncology* and entitled “Cytotoxic Effects of Ultra Diluted Remedies on Breast Cancer Cells.” (Click the link for the full pdf of the study).

The paper examines the effects of ultra-dilute remedies (read:homeopathy) on the induction of cell death in two cancer cell lines (commercially available MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231) and one immortalised control cell line, (HMLE).

The authors use several remedies already in use for the treatment of human breast cancer developed at the P. Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation in India, Kolkata;

Carcinosin, 30C; Conium maculatum, 3C; Phytolacca decandra, 200C and Thuja occidentalis, 30C (for an explanation of how dilute these remedies are see here).

All remedies were diluted in 87% “extra neutral alcohol” and succussed, including the alcohol used as the control solvent.

The authors analysed each remedy with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) to look for differences, then measured cell death in cell culture in response to increasing doses and increasing time of incubation with each remedy. These measures include the MTT assay for cell viability, Annexin V and PI for apoptosis, FISH for DNA breakage and Western blots to measure activation of cell cycle proteins.

Technically the paper is quite well written. The problems lie with the data. And these problems are so massive, I wonder how they got by the reviewers. I don’t know whether they were dozing when they reviewed this paper, but I could immediately see some big fat gaping holes in their results.

First up a few pointers;

“The experiments were conducted in triplicate and repeated at least twice in each case of remedy”

This would not get past me. It is accepted scientific convention that experiments are done at least three times (not two) and also in triplicate, giving you a final “n” number of 9. These studies were done in cell culture, meaning there is plenty of material for experiments to be repeated as many times as you wish. So why were they only done twice? Three is convention because it gives the study more statistical power.

Ah statistics, huh?

There is a distinct lack of statistics in this paper, by which I mean there are none at all. As my friend Jo said; “Nary a p-value nor a confidence interval to be seen”. Which begs the question, how can you get a paper accepted in a peer reviewed journal without doing an statistical analysis?

Really? No, I mean REALLY? This is why I suspect the reviewers were dozing or drunk.

And by not doing any statistical analysis, you can not make any statements about whether the treatments are different to each other. Statistics uses algorithms to calculate mathematical differences with a degree of confidence (usually 95%) so that we don’t rely on visual interpretation, which is notoriously unreliable. But this doesn’t seem to have bothered these authors, or the reviewers.

So let’s look more closely at the results.

Firstly the HPLC.

Oh wait a sec, there are no results shown for HPLC. And neither do the authors say “no results shown”. They just make some rather confused statements about what they think they saw and move on. What?! I need to see the chromatograms. What possible reason could they have for not including this data, especially when they go on to describe it so badly in the text.

“All four remedies had very similar HPLC chromatograms to each other, with only trace amounts of limited number of peaks. They were not significantly distinct from the solvent and they lacked the distinct peak seen in the solvent.

So, this means that all the remedies were the same, ie. no different to the solvent and no other peaks indicating any ingredients. But then they contradict themselves by saying that the remedies did not have the solvent peak? Fail.

And then;

“The chromatogram of the untreated and treated solvents appeared identical, indicating that succussion did not cause chemical changes in the solvent.”

Okay, but don’t some homeopaths claim that succussion does have an effect on the chemical structure of the water/solvent? Isn’t this how they explain that homeopathy works? I can only guess SINCE WE CANNOT SEE THE CHROMATOGRAMS, but what you are saying is the remedies and the solvent were exactly the same, meaning they are solvent.

No surprises there.

What about the cell death studies?

So let’s look at the cell death studies since these constitute the crux of the study’s aims. That is, to determine if these ultra dilute remedies can induce cell death in cancer cell lines.

So here we have results for all three cell lines, two cancerous and one control, and they are all treated with a control (the 87% alcohol solvent) or the remedies and death measured by MTT assay. Here’s how they describe it in the text;

“Interestingly, the inhibitory effects on cell viability of the remedies in both the MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells were distinctly greater for each of the doses tested than those seen in cells treated only with solvent.”

Which translates as the treatments killed the cells better than the solvent alone. Okay, so it looks like it did when you eye ball the histograms, but you have no evidence for this – you didn’t do stats, therefore you cannot say this! Sheesh, where did you learn to write science?

But why not keep the fail going;

“MCF-7 cells were found to be more sensitive to all four remedies than the MDA-MB-231 cells”.

Again no statistics, so this statement cannot be confirmed. When you do science properly and you run statistical analysis, you are entitled to say, “MCF-7 cells were found to be significantly more sensitive to all four remedies than the MDA-MB-231 cells”.

Unless you’re these authors, then you just get a great big FAIL stamp on your work.

Also note that they state that the control treatment (that is the solvent) also induced cell death in all cell types;

“As shown in Fig. 1A, the solvent reduced the viability of all three cell types; the overall reduction in cells at different doses of solvent was about 30% for MCF-7, 20-30% for MDA-MB-231 and 20% for HMLE cells.”

Ummm, hold on a sec.

This is your control treatment, which means it should not be causing cell death. It is designed to be inert, functioning as a carrier of your treatment, in order that you can measure the impact of the treatment alone. If your solvent or vehicle is killing your cells you have a fundamental problem. You need to go back to the drawing board and find a different solvent to deliver your treatment.

This is a very big problem right here.

If the cell death induced by the solvent is significant, then the rest of the paper is worthless. But because there are no stats here, there is no way to tell if death by the solvent is significant. According to the above statement, the alcohol killed ~30% of the cancer cells compared to no treatment at all. Although this effect was increased when the treatment was present, there remains a large problem with your model if your solvent is killing the cells.

Perhaps this explains why there are no stats in this paper? Because they may in fact show that the “inert” solvent also significantly kills the cancer cells? Once again, there is no way for me to know this without access to the raw data, or the statistical analysis.

Man, how the hell did this embarrassment get accepted?

Well now that I have revealed a fundamental flaw in this tripe I have lost the will to continue. There is much more fail herein however, I mean we are only at Figure 1 remember.

So I will cover just a few more things that are also glaringly obviously wrong with this paper, then I will send a large bottle of 87% alcohol to the editorial board and encourage them to keep up the good work of smiting the peer review process and science in general.

General lack of quantitation of results in this paper.

Figure 3, excerpt from Frenkel et al., showing damage to DNA.

Figure 3 (left) shows fluorescent microscopy data for DNA breakage as measured by FISH assay. But where is the quantitation of this data?

The authors show a representative image for each treatment, and this is usually acceptable if you then measure large numbers of cells and report on such changes with numbers (see below).

Dunlop et al., in press. Panels are representative DAPI/FITC overlay images of at least 10 images taken from triplicate wells. Histograms are mean + SD of 3 independent experients, incubations in triplicate, n = 9, p < 0.001 1-way ANOVA. Tukeys post-hoc analysis.

Further, even in the fluorescent images the authors only show a maximum of 14 cells. What the hell can you glean from 14 cells? They even say;

“At least 200 cells from treated and untreated samples were analyzed for mitotic index and telomeric DNA signals with a Nikon Eclipse 80i microscope equipped with fluorescence attachment and a Photometrics CoolSNAP HQ2 monochrome digital camera.”

So where is this data? Not in this paper, I can tell you that.

Next up Western blots.

Then they move onto Western blots. Actually this looks like the most resolved part of the paper. They have normalised everything to beta-actin as convention goes, and they have indicated the time of exposure to treatments. But as I mentioned earlier, if their control treatment 87% alcohol, is killing cells, then what can we glean from this data? Well not much except the effect could be an additive effect of the alcohol and treatment. There is no way to differentiate the impact of the treatment versus the control.

Flow cytometry, not quantitated either.

Sigh. I spend most of my days doing flow cytometry, so I am pretty familiar with how it works and what are the accepted ways to present the data. This is not one of them.

Figure 5, excerpt from Frenkel et al.,

The assay they use (Annexin V and PI) is a common one and I use it often. Standard procedure is to count ~10,000 cells for each condition, then plot your results on a graph, like this (see left below).

Dunlop et al., in press. Flow cytometry analysis of lysosomal destabilisation in THP1 human monocytes with acridine orange as a probe. Mean & SD of three independent experiments, incubations conducted in triplicate (n = 9), ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, 1-way ANOVA, Tukeys post-hoc analysis.

You might also show your scatter plots as they have done above, as a nice visual demonstration of how the cells respond to the treatment, but this is not quantitation.

I’m going to stop there. I won’t even bother dealing with the discussion and conclusions, because by my analysis, they are based on flawed data.

One thing I will say about Homeopathy Plus! yelling “Homeopathy as good as chemotherapy for breast cancer” is not a conclusion you can draw from this study.

For all the reasons I have addressed above as well as the really obvious point that these studies were conducted in cell culture. This is a very different situation to a whole animal.

Cells bathing in a bath of homeopathy is very different to the processes which occur in vivo, for example the treatment must survive the low pH of the stomach, cross the gut, escape metabolism in the liver and get to the site of the cancer then do it’s job. This is a very complex process and very difficult to control. Studies in cell culture can provide data about the mechanism of action of a compound, but rarely do they relate to the processes in a human.

Never extrapolate results from a culture dish to a whole animal. You will undoubtedly be wrong and look like a fool.

Ooh, did someone say Homeopathy Plus!?

Listen to Fran Sheffield from Homeopathy Plus! talk about how homeopathy works here (mp3, 3:19).

*The International Journal of Oncology, impact factor 2.234, fail factor 10^23.

This story appeared on SMH online today. It details plans to establish a register for quacks, apparently in an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. Sounds a little bit like the register set up in the UK recently and blogged about here.

I read this article with trepidation, firstly because I think putting quacks on a register lends legitimacy to their profession and this is undeserved in my opinion.

“The industry’s reputation was dealt a blow this month after the NSW Supreme Court convicted a homeopath of the manslaughter of his nine-month-old daughter, who died of septicemia caused by chronic eczema.”

Yes, the industry was dealt a blow, but this was not because of a shonky homeopath, this was because homeopathy does not work in the treatment of eczema. Or any other illness in fact. A meta-analysis published in the Lancet in 2005 compared 110 conventional and homeopathy trials and the effect of homeopathy was deemed no greater than placebo (Shang et al., Lancet 2005; 366: 726–32).

An editorial which appeared in the same issue of the Lancet stated; “despite 150 years of unfavourable findings…the more dilute the evidence for homeopathy becomes, the greater seems its popularity.” Why we keep wasting money and good science on testing it, to continually get the same answer is beyond me.

The article continues;
University of Queensland researcher Jon Wardle, who heads a steering committee to set-up a register said; “We are making sure that when the public sees a naturopath they have training, act ethically and if something goes wrong, there is a complaints procedure,” he said. Mr Wardle said the lack of formal accreditation meant people with as little as one week’s training could call themselves naturopaths and it is these people who dispense a large quantity homeopathic remedies.

This is where I get annoyed. Firstly, there is a complaints procedure in NSW. It was established with the new Code of Conduct for Unregistered Practitioners which was introduced in August 2008. Section 17 of the code states that practitioners must display the Code and information about the way in which clients may make a complaint to the HCCC if necessary.

Funny that, I went to Mind Body Wallet a few weeks back armed with my code and saw it displayed nowhere, neither at stalls doing invasive procedures such as live blood analysis, or massage or anywhere.

I have to say, I am not convinced that the relevant regulatory bodies/associations or members of them are particularly concerned about following the rules when it comes to legislation. In NSW at least, they seem to have dutifully ignored conforming to this recent legislation. I am suspicious that the establishment of a nationwide register is really just a sneaky way to add undeserved legitimacy to profession where there is scant evidence for efficacy.

But this is not the worst part about this article. The article was penned by 2 journalists, Rachel Browne and Melissa Singer, neither of whom seem to understand much about what constitutes conventional medicine or doctors. They refer to a British podiatrist and homeopath Tariq Khan, as Dr Khan. This is misleading and infers that Khan is a clinical doctor, naturopaths use the title ND, (and referred to by some as not a doctor). They tell us that Dr Khan recommends homeopathy be used in conjunction with conventional treatment. And of course a homeopath is going to endorse the use of homeopathy.

The man apparently had talks with the head of dermatology at St George Hospital, Dedee Murrell, to discuss using homeopathic remedies for an incurable disease, the rare genetic condition epidermolysis bullosa. Let me state that again. Homeopathy as treatment for an incurable disease. This following the beginning of the article where the journalists discuss the parents of Gloria Thomas being charged with manslaughter for shunning conventional medicine and treating their daughter’s eczema with homeopathy. She subsequently died.

This is very poor journalism. To begin an article with charges of manslaughter for a homeopathy-related death and then discuss using it for incurable diseases is just credulous on the part of Rachel and Melissa.

But then this; “The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australasian Integrative Medicine Association have given qualified support to the use of complementary medicine where there is research about its outcomes.”

Precisely Rachel and Melissa. There is research. To show it does nought. Take a look at the Lancet article. Visit PubMed for goodness sake. Do some research, please.

First there was Rebecca Letourneau’s accurate report on the dangers of not vaccinating on Channel 7s Sunday night programme. You can hear my interviews with her on The Skeptic Zone episode 28 and 29.

Further, an update on my most recent post about the ABC Immunisation Fact Files. This was brought to my attention by my blogging colleague, Fuzztwin, who wrote to the ABC to ask them why, on a page purporting to offer sensible advice about vaccination, they had hyper-linked to the Australian Vaccination Network. Testament to the power of Twitter, and the tenacity of those who think the anti-vaxers are doing harm, the following paragraph was modified today. The original appearing below;

“The internet has become a popular source for those seeking further information on vaccination. But be warned, studies have shown that when you type immunisation into a search engine, you will get a disproportionate number of sites that carry an anti-immunisation message.”

has now been modified to say the following;

“The internet has become a popular source for those seeking further information on vaccination. But be warned studies have shown that when you type immunisation into a search engine you will get a disproportionate number of sites that carry an anti-immunisation message. The Australian Vaccination Network is one such anti-vaccination site.”

Thank you to the ABC for listening, considering what we said and making changes for the benefit of the community. Also, thank you to Fuzztwin for alerting me to this and to all who commented, especially David McCaffery.

“..Well done sceptics! Keep working hard to save and protect our babies and community”.

Following on from an equally damning article by Adele Horin from the Sydney Morning Herald in January 2009, the Sydney tabloid newspaper, the Daily telegraph published an article written by Joe Hildebrand about the irresponsible anti-vax movement today.

It has not been a good day for the anti-vax movement in this country. To add insult to injury, the Stop the AVN Facebook page reached over 500 members today, and this has occurred shortly after the AVN Facebook Fan page (can’t show you the link, because I quite simply can’t find it!) has seemingly disappeared off the face of the earth.

Fear not readers, we have many other irons in the fire, which I hope to reveal to you very soon. In the meantime, keep up the fight by signing the Stop the AVN petition and leaving a message of support at Dana McCaffery’s Facebook page.

Also, don’t forget my report from Dr Rachie that started my campaign against this group of scaremongers. Or listen to the audio from Episode 19 of The Skeptic Zone.

The world really has gone topsy-turvy and I couldn’t be any happier!

Whilst discussing the Streisand effect, following the threat of legal action from LBC, he showed a screen shot of this little ‘ol blog.

Thanks Ben for putting tipping your hat to the pooh-pooh!

See the full clip on YouTube here. We appear at 02:48 minutes.

How would you like your pain reduced by 50 -100% in just 2 minutes?

Increase your energy and strength endurance within minutes of use.

Lose weight fast! Remember, if you are overweight, it is not your fault…

Imagine rapid, drug-free sleep…

Elevate your blood glutathione levels by over a whopping 300% in just 24 hours!

The next miracle cure has arrived. Lifewave miracle patches are currently touring Australia giving seminars on how to become a distributor.

The series of five pads are known as Energy Enhancer, Icewave, Silent Nights, Glutathione and Sp6. And like most miracle cures these guys can treat or “assist with” everything and anything.

For example the energy pads, relieve symptoms of fatigue, loss of sleep, nervousness, exhaustion, muscle weakness, drowsiness etc. and support energy production, breathing and stamina.

Icewave is the pain relief pad, and assists with the temporary relief of arthritis related joint pain, general body aches, stiffness; soreness, swelling & bruising due to falls or blows, headaches due to stress, strain or illness, spasms & cramps due to strain or injury from overexertion.

Silent night plus is for symptomatic relief due to exhaustion; inability to fall asleep, restlessness, tossing and turning, sleeplessness, due to stress or worry. Light sleeping, overactive mind, tension/anxiety, nervous exhaustion, and insomnia.

The glutathione booster is anti-ageing (and anti-autism but more on that later) and Sp6 is a weight loss and appetite control patch.

Who are Lifewave?

David Schmidt, Education: Unknown Degrees: Unknown Previous Employment: Unknown Scientific Background: Unknown Nanotechnology Background: Unknown Previous MLMs: BioForce and Vitagenix

Do a Google search for LifeWave and you get a lot of hits for scam websites, pyramid marketing and multi-level marketing (MLM). On the Worldwide scam network website they get an entire page dedicated to their dubious claims.

Lifewave is headed by the patch inventor and president, David Schmidt. He is not a doctor or a scientist. According to WWSN, he has no apparent history, no formal education, no professional experience in his field, no published peer review of any research into any of the so-called technology associated with his patches or any science whatsoever.

But the health and science director of the company, Dr Steve Haltiwanger is a proper doctor with qualifications from the Medical College of Georgia. Dr. Haltiwanger has a public record which establishes him as an educated professional with degrees in psychiatry, neurology, medicine, chemistry and pathology, professional memberships, awards, publications, academic appointments, medical licenses, and an impressive work history that spans 34 years. However he also has a wide range of interests that run the gamut of alternative medicine, unconventional therapies, and radical theories.

Evidence that even highly educated people can believe ridiculous things.

How do the patches work?

Firstly, the patches are self adhesive, round and about the size of a nicotine patch. According to the website, they are a “non-transdermal patch that does not put any chemicals or drugs into the body” but “by stimulating acupuncture points on the body with a combination of pressure and infared energy….what that means is they will reflect specific frequencies of infrared light to the body to improve circulation and relieve pain.”

This sounds a lot like someone has put some sciencey words in a hat and pulled them put at random Mr Schmidt.

Let’s look first at the claims about infared light. Photobiomodulation is a term peppered throughout their material and this is in fact, a legitimate scientific technique. It has been shown to be effective in wound healing, but this requires light to be shone on the wound. I can’t see any evidence for light being chanelled into these pads. It just doesn’t make scientific sense.

Whilst infared light does exist and can be used for some therapies, exactly how these pads apparently do this is not explained.

The Energy Enhancer patches apparently “stimulate acupuncture points on the body for improving the flow of energy and producing drug-free energy enhancement within minutes of use”. This apparently has something to do with light being chanelled down the meridian lines.

Well I’m afraid people have been searching for the elusive meridian lines for centuries and we have yet to find them. There is still no physiological evidence that meridian lines exist.

There is also a patch called glutathione which is supposed to be anti-ageing since it will apparently; “elevate your anti-oxidant levels by over 300 percent in one day”. And the website proudly displays a graph demonstrating this increase (see above). There are articles all over the website under the research tag, but none appear in peer reviewed scientific journals. Sorry to be boring Lifewave but as a scientist, I require evidence for such extraordinary claims.

And I’m not sure how “stimulating acupuncture points through light can increase levels of glutathione”. It’s very difficult to critique this statement, because scientifically it just doesn’t make sense.

Of course there are plenty of testimonials from satisfied customers, even some pretty important people like Olympic athletes and National Football League players. But I will get onto this a bit later.

In any case, none of this is important when you discover that LifeWave products are homeopathic. Which means that they likely have nothing in them. So what’s the point in discussing the science if what we really have here is a piece of guaze and some water, maybe. Mr Schmidt claims they contain amino acids, oxygen sugars and water and it’s the amino acids that do all the work. But all I found on the website was a list of homeopathic ingredients.

So if they contain water and oxygen how can they cure autism?

According to an audio testimonial buried in the bowels of the website, the glutathione patch has been helping kids with autism. There are two testimonials, one from a father of a 6 year old boy who says he has tried everything including foot baths (?) and as a last resort sought a blood transfusion for his son, to remove the mercury from his system deposited following immunisation. I assume the reference to mercury comes from the scaremongering about thimerosal, the organomercury compound used as a preservative in some vaccines (but as I discussed last week, thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines in the year 2000 as a precaution and recently the Autism Omnibus case in the States ruled there is not link between autism and thimerosal).

You might be wondering how Lifewave get away with making such extraordinary claims about a homeopathic patch that likely contains no active ingredients. Well here’s the trick. They don’t officially claim their glutathione pads assist kids with autism – a couple of satisfied customers do. You won’t find this claim in any of their promotional material or on their website. And whilst it is clear from the testimonial that the client was told this by a Lifewave distributor, Lifewave do not have control over what the their distributors say. Whilst they can request they do not say this, ultimately they do not have control. So that’s them off the legal hook.

Dubious and deceitful. Especially when it come to an emotive and debilitating illness like autism for which there is currently no cure.

Lifewave are currently in Australia doing seminars and recruiting distributors.

Stay well away.

———–

Postscript: According to the WWSN, Lifewave backed out of the JREF 1 million dollar challenge because as they said; “the challenge is for testing claims of the paranormal”. Randi responded, “If this thing works as claimed, it is paranormal. There is no scientific principle by which it can work, so it is – by definition – paranormal. In any case, we agree to accept it as paranormal for purposes of the challenge, without reservation.”

A paper from Dr Steve Haltiwanger, entitled The Science Behind Lifewave Energy Patches, not published in a peer review journal, makes for some fairly entertaining reading.

Claims in the ad that “pentapeptides” could reduce the appearance of visible lines and could be used as a substitute for cosmetic surgery were deemed misleading.

In the ad, a voice-over from UK beauty journalist Eve Cameron said: “Women who aren’t ready for cosmetic injections constantly ask me to recommend a skin cream that really works”.

Claims that regenerist cream could substitute for cosmetic surgery were rejected

“So I was excited when this study, revealed at the World Congress of Dermatology, showed that pentapeptides are effective in reducing the appearance of lines and wrinkles.”

The Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint challenging the evidence for the effectiveness of pentapeptides in skin care products.

However, this is not the first time expensive “cosmeceuticals” have been declared a rip-off.

In 2007, a consumer organisation in the UK known as Which? Magazine found skin care companies were “blinding consumers with science” using terms like nanoparticles, pentapeptides, lipopeptides and hyaluronic acid. These are all legitimate scientific words, and whilst some have been associated with skin repair, others are just there to sound sciencey.

For example, hyaluronic acid is a component of the extracellular matrix, the “scaffolding” which supports the cells, and has been used to assist in the repair of burns and wound healing.

Some studies also show injections of hyaluronic acid can relieve mild arthritis pain but the literature remains divided and further research is required.

Hyaluronic acid has replaced bovine or human collagen as an injectable soft-tissue filler, and there are several types currently licensed by the FDA in America.

Aarathi Prasad, a biologist from Sense About Science, said that the claims for commercially available creams were: insulting to people’s intelligence. “There may be evidence to justify using some of these chemicals — but not in products claiming to improve the signs of ageing or having an active effect on the skin. The companies are taking the real science out of context so it becomes bad science.”

But as for the use of nanoparticles? Well, not even customer service representatives could explain what the hell these were doing in the moisturising cream. Which? Magazine discovered that the use of scientific jargon by skin care products, had become so widespread and complex that these “cosmeceuticals” could no longer be explained by customer service.

They contacted customer service for Garnier, L’Oreal and Olay to ask for explanations of their sciencey sounding products. For example, when asked what was the hyaluronic acid contained in the L’Oréal moisturising cream, the company’s customer service representative incorrectly stated:

“It’s not an actual acid,” before adding, “The product replumps, tautens and illuminates to give a radiance to the skin.”

Gary Moss, a pharmacist from the University of Hertfordshire, dismissed this explanation as “utter waffle”.

Hyaluronic acid is indeed an acid, and there is no evidence that it plumps the skin when applied topically, only when it is injected ala botox.

“Nanoparticles” on the other hand, included in some products may actually be harmful, and should be avoided, dermatologists suggest.

Adding scientific jargon to a tiny bottle of cream, is just another way manufacturers can get away with charging you an arm and a leg for a tub of sorbolene and water with some nice perfume added.

Buyer beware.

—–

Thanks podblack for the tip-off to this story

Despite several rounds of chemotherapy and the best treatment available, her cancer has not regressed and the future does not look good. So, understandably, she is desperate – just the type of person likely to fall victim to unconventional treatments. She has previously been a victim of hair analysis, where she was told tomatoes were the cause of her problems and she could drink gin but not red wine (ridiculous). I previously blogged about hair analysis here and here.

Tonight she had a new magic treatment to tell my Mum about – the Vega machine. This thing is so good it can analyse the type of bacteria in your gut by placing an electrode between the toes of your right foot. My Mum called me on the way home to ask me if it was BS. Of course, I strongly suspected immediately that it was, but to be sure in two clicks of a mouse and a 30 sec Google search I was found to be correct.

Vega - the biggest star in the constellation of Lyra. Unlike the Vega machine, a spectacular sight, not a spectacular rip-off.

What is the Vega machine or Vega test?

The apparatus consists of a box containing a galvanometer which compares the resistance between the skin in contact with a hand electrode and the skin tested with a measuring stylus. The other contents of the box are an electrical source. For a more thorough explanation of the electronics behind the Vega machine see here.

Proponents claim; “Over 120 substances which include common foods and drinks and environmental substances are tested during our consultation. The equipment we use is a bio-electronic analyzer which measures the body’s electrical resistance to these substances. If a substance is causing a problem then it there will be a dip or drop in body’s electrical resistance”.

The Vega food sensitivity machine

Does it work? [NO]

A 2003 investigation by the BBC sent subjects to undergo Vega testing at different health food shops in the UK, and reported that test results varied from store to store. The report revealed that one subject was allergic to 33 different types of food, with only three being agreed upon by the testers across stores. Further, one reporter was told he needed to take a total of 20 different vitamins and minerals. But again, the testers couldn’t seem to agree and all three testers advised different supplements.

When the manufacturer, Health Screen International (HSL), were asked to explain themselves they said that the Vega machine is only about 70% accurate and “It does stretch the imagination how the Vega test works…But we have thousands of letters from people saying how much better they feel.”

Oh testimonials, of course. Any regular readers of this blog would know that testimonials do not constitute scientific evidence. The human mind is fallible, memories are remodelled and we sometimes inadvertently attribute an effect of one treatment when our body may have repaired itself naturally. Or we may have done something else to reverse the pain or illness. A red flag should always be raised if you come across a product or service that has no evidence for efficacy apart from testimonials. They are simply unreliable.

Even earlier than the 2003 BBC investigation, a paper was published in the Medical Journal of Australia, which concluded this:

Vega testing (the Vega test method) is an unorthodox method of diagnosing allergic and other diseases. It has no established scientific basis and there are no controlled trials to support its usefulness. Vega testing may lead to inappropriate treatment and expense to the patient and community (1).

And here’s what Quackwatch have to say about the likes of Vega test:

The devices described in this article are used to diagnose nonexistent health problems, select inappropriate treatment, and defraud insurance companies. The practitioners who use them are either delusional, dishonest, or both. These devices should be confiscated and the practitioners who use them should be prosecuted.

At sceptics in the pub on Thursday evening, someone asked me what motivates me to do this stuff, especially since, as he put it, it is largely a thankless task. Well, this is part of the reason. Quacks making a quick buck from sick, vulnerable and desperate individuals really gets my goat.

I know my Mum’s friend – she’s much too vulnerable for me to explain that she is getting scammed. I can only hope that by educating other people like you dear reader, that we can avoid more harm.

—————————-

Postscript: Upon reflection, doesn’t this sound quite a lot like the K-test, featured in LBC radio recently and criticised by Ben Goldacre on Bad Science? Whilst it’s not exactly the same, Kymatica still use the food allergy line, but claim to be able to tell the difference between allergies and resistance, which they explain with a lot of jargon about IgG and IgE antibodies. Ooooh, sciencey!

(1) C H Katelaris et al., Med J Aust 1991; 155: 113-114.

For the story of a nurse’s tale about debunking quack devices masquerading as medical diagnostics, see this article from the Skeptic.

Reports drifting around the internet say she has now deleted derogatory comments from her blog. Also the entire debacle has recently caught the attention of Mr Stephen Fry who twittered about the fuss this morning.

IMHO this chap needs out support http://tinyurl.com/btokam Vaccination scares are SO bloody irresponsible, espesh this sort. Kids have died.

These comments also from Stephen appear on Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science site.

The fatuity of the Jeni Barnett woman’s manner – her blend of self-righteousness and stupidity, her simply quite staggering inability to grasp, pursue or appreciate a sequence of logical steps – all these are signature characteristics of Britain these days. The lamentable truth is that most of the population wouldn’t really understand why we get so angry at this assault on reason, logic and sense. But we have to keep hammering away at these people and their superstitious inanities. We have to. Well done you and well done all you supporting. I’ve tweeted this site to my followers. I hope they all do their best to support you. Publish and be damned. We’ll fight them and fight them and fight them in the name of empricism, reason, double blind random testing and all that matters.
Love

Stephen xxx

Plus a new article appears in the Times today.

I don’t have time to blog this properly now, but fortunately my fellow-bloggers already have.

Please visit Podblack to see the most recent happenings, Quackometer and Holford watch for a concise summary of everything that has happened so far.

Enjoy, or get really angry, as I did. You have been warned.