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.

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.

“[The comments] do not address the debate about the use of MMR and that is the reason for taking the comments off Jeni’s website,” Common said.

Jeni invited people to join the debate about MMR following her controversial broadcast on January 7 th where she spouted misinformation about MMR, autism and vaccinations in general. However, comments posted disagreeing with her stance, no matter how polite, were quickly removed from her blog.

Some of the comments left on the journalism.co.uk blog make this point.

Andy Says:

February 11th, 2009 at 8:08 pm

Whilst I would not approve of any threatening or abusive comments, the vast majority left on Jeni’s blog were simple and robust criticism of her stance and behaviour. Plus the subsequent behaviour of LBC.

As so many people did take the time to explain quite carefully what was wrong, I have reposted these blogs and comments on my own site. Make your own mind up.

Perhaps Jeni, or her agent Robert common forgot about the internet cache, but Andy from Quackometer.net did not. He has posted all the comments, as they originally appeared for us all to see.

One thing that surprised many people posting on this story, was Jeni’s somewhat hypocritical cry that these comments were abusive personal attacks. This is a bit rich when you consider she herself yelled over the top of Yasmin, now identified as an NHS nurse, then later referred to her as “vicious”.

The Biologista Says:

February 11th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

1. Jeni herself described at least one of her pro-MMR callers “vicious” and has been very dismissive of all of her critics. Regardless of the evidence they produced or how mannerly they were, their concerns were regarded as “sarcasm”.

David Jones Says:

February 11th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

Most of the messages have been saved and are on the Internet for all to see. None were personally abusive. On the other hand, Barnett described a perfectly reasonable and concerned nurse who called into the show as ‘vicious’, which is simply untrue. The transcripts are available, read them for yourself, see who’s indulging in personal abuse.

This is precisely the point Jeni. You can put all the spin on it you like but the facts remain. The audio, the transcript and the blog comments as they originally appeared are available for us all to see.

In the meantime, Ben has issued a personal plea on his blog to not send abusive emails to Jeni following a phone call from the programme director of LBC.

As the saying goes, if you give people enough rope….

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.

JB: Amanda, talk to me.

Amanda: Hello! Um, I’ve got eight children,

JB: Mazel-tov! Are you still sane?

Amanda: No! Anyway, and I started off, young, about twenty – did all the things you were supposed to do and presented my daughter and she had all her vaccinations and my second daughter had all her vaccinations. Then my son was born and he reacted very badly to the first, and what I think then was the double or triple jab.

Um, so he then didn’t have any more, although he did then have the MMR, well, he did have some more, but he didn’t have any more Whooping Cough. He then had the MMR, um… and then when he was three he was diagnosed with autism. And so I got quite involved in vaccines, because I wasn’t sure, um, my paediatrician was quite sure that it was the cause of the autism, but I mean, I didn’t know.

And from then on, I decided not to have my children vaccinated – I just thought ‘better be on the safe side’ – I mean, my paediatrician thought it was great, my GPs weren’t; they were always very unhappy that I didn’t have them vaccinated.
TIMESTAMP: 1.00

JB: Why, why though, that the GPs won’t take on what the paediatrician did??

Amanda: I don’t know! I mean, my paediatrician is great, she’s a very holistic paediatrician – she was the of big chief consultants at a hospital down on the south coast, so she’s a very good paediatrician, but she very much believed in … in just sort of holistically looking after the child. Um, she didn’t like giving drugs for things if you didn’t need it.

JB: But you know, people do throw ‘guilt things’, at you, don’t they? They must say to you ‘all right, for you, Amanda’.

Amanda: Um…

JB: How do you cope with that?

Amanda: Well, yeah, they probably do, um, … the main thing I found is that my eldest who has everything, she actually had a really bad case of Whooping Cough, about two years ago. And we did get quite a lot of things thrown at us then but she was the one who had been vaccinated. None of my other children picked it up.
TIMESTAMP: 2.00

JB: Now what would you say – I mean, it’s not my job to say to people ‘don’t do it’, it’s not my job to do any of that. But you’re allowed to have your say. What would you say to people as a mum of eight little lives that you’re deeply responsible for? What would you say to people who are in two minds about it?

Amanda: Um. Well, I would never recommend having children vaccinated, and people think I’m very strange. But all my younger children who have never been vaccinated have been very, very healthy. Um, the youngest had measles, um, now three months ago. And he was fine, he wasn’t very well for about a week, ten days – and then he was fine, and none of my others picked it up. So, I think they must have a certain amount of natural immunity – and I’m far, far happier for them to have developed that ‘natural immunity’ – than to be constantly filled with artificial substances.

JB: Well, thank you so much, my darling, that was Amanda in Hayword’s Heath.

“I was just listening to your show, if people took the time to look at what’s in vaccines, they would think twice about giving them to their children. As well as not being a hundred percent effective, they also have cancer-causing agents.
Timestamp: 3.00
“Also a child’s immune system takes approximately two to three months to fully get up and running from birth. Also, if we look at the countries that have the highest population vaccinated, you will notice that they have the most allergies. I’m not totally against immunisations, but we should be giving children at least a year to develop their own immune system to deal with the onslaught.”

I didn’t say that – I wish you’d given me your name? There’s a third way, says somebody else who’s nameless: “Why don’t we allow children to have the jabs individually?” Why not? It’s half-past two!

END 3.35

[STATION IDENTIFICATION – ADVERT FOR HER NEXT GUEST]

RESTARTS 4.00

I’ve just got one or two announcements, and there are many of you who want to talk about this measles thing – I get so impassioned about it, because I think it’s about freedom – and I think that self responsibility for your body and children and health is top of the list! You know, early to bed, early to rise, makes you HEALTHY, wealthy and wise! The four-square of life: health, wealth, love, and perfect surface expression!

Where do you go from there? About being healthy – and YOU have to make a decision, don’t you, on behalf of your children! It’s the WORST decision you’ll have to make – should you / shouldn’t you! It’s alright when you’re making it for yourself – but I want you to tell me, why you think we have to have this measles jab and why I’ve got several things I’m going to read out in a minute, why you think it’s not necessary!

And I’ll be talking to a doctor in a moment, and somebody who is pro-jabs, I just have to make two announcements…

[the audience for Jeni Barnett advert]

You may not be aware that Ben has taken the audio off his site due to legal threats relating to copyright. As Ben points out below, being this is such a controversial topic (and seriously, except for people like Jeni Barnett and “Andy Wakefield” it needn’t be) isn’t it important to debate the issues, openly and publicly? This is not so easy to do without access to the original audio.

Never fear however, bloggers of the world united today, including myself, the Lay Scientist and WikiLeaks where you can find the mp3, linked to a dozen or so servers across the world. Also just added is a torrent.

Here’s what Ben had to say. Unlike Ms Barnett (or ANNE COULTER – see below), he is polite, succinct and informed.

9. At February 6, 2009 12:12 AM Ben Goldacre wrote:

Hi there,

I feel very strongly that patients should be free to decline medical treatment if they wish. Ideally if it was a serious medical problem, and you felt able to listen, a doctor would have made a good attempt to explain what is known about the risks and benefits of each option.

I am however concerned – along with a great many others – that your recent hour-long campaigning broadcast against the MMR vaccine was thoughtless, misleading, ill-informed, and irresponsible.

I also think it’s enormously inappropriate, I’m afraid, that you describe a polite and informed nurse as “vicious” on your website, in your previous blog post, simply because she called into your show and disagreed with you. She does not have your wealth, she is not a TV or radio presenter, she does not have your platform, and she does not have your legal team. She was clearly not “vicious”, as anybody listening to the audio would be able to tell for themselves. I believe you owe this listener an apology.

Most of all I think it’s regrettable that your company, LBC and Global Audio, have now used legal threats to make me take down the audio excerpt in question, so that it can no longer freely be heard. I have spent a great deal of my time, both writing, and in other activities, in supporting free and open access for the public to medical and scientific information and literature. Yours was a broadcast on the public airwaves, and a review of it, and discussion about it, was important and informative.

If you really felt that access to information was important, and that debates were worth having, I think you would encourage your legal team to reconsider, and simply give permission for this clip to be made freely available, in the public domain, in full, as it was broadcast, so that it can be widely heard, understood, and discussed.

all the best,

Ben Goldacre
www.badscience.net

And just for amusement value, see if you can spot whether the following diatribe comes from a supporter or critic of Jeni. Let’s see; misuse of the caps lock key, check; incorrect use of punctuation, check; lack of spaces after full stops, check; lack of paragraphs, check; an inability to spell, check.

32. At February 5, 2009 11:47 PM anne coulter wrote:

HI JENI, PLEASE DO NOT FEEL GUILTY FOR NOT HAVING HAD YOUR CHILD VACCINATED WITH THE MMR/MR VACCINE. WE LOST CHRISTOPHER OUR ONLY SON TEN DAYS AFTER HIS VACCINATION IN 1994.HE WAS A VERY HEALTHY FIFTEEN YEAR OLD WITH NO MEDICAL PROBLEMS AT ALL.THERE WAS NO HISTORY OF SEIZURES OF ANY NATURE IN THE FAMILY.AT THE SAME TIME ANOTHER BOY IN CHRISTOPHERS CLASS IN SCHOOL ALSO SUFFERED A SEVERE SEIZURE BOTH VACCINES WERE OF THE SAME BATCH NUMBER. WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH.SADLY THE TRUTH IS ALWAYS COVERED UP WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN.THERE ARE NEVER ANY ANSWERS AVAILABLE. WE NOW KNOW WE PAID THE ULTIMATE PRICE BY HAVING OUR SON VACCINATED WE HAVE NO DOUBT HE WOULD BE ALIVE TODAY IF WE HAD REFUSED IT.WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE CLOSEURE AND I BELIEVE WE ARE INTITLED TO THIS INFORMATION.THE ONLY WAY WE ARE GOING TO GET CLOSEURE IS TO HAVE A JUDICAL REVIEW OF THE INQUEST INTO CHRISTOPHERS DEATH. I HAVE KEPT IN TOUCH WITH JACKIE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS SHE HAS ALWAYS GIVEN US A GREAT DEAL OF SUPPORT.PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SPEAK TO JACKIE ABOUT CHRISTOPHER. ANNE COULTER

Post script: Please join the Defend Ben Goldacre from LBC Facebook group.

During a rant on her LBC radio show, she spat misinformation and conspiracy theories about the safety of MMR and vaccination. In addition to shouting over the top of nurses and GPs who had called in to politely correct her. But like Jenny McCarthy she has a “Mommy” instinct, so she obviously knows best. No-one can compete with that, least of all science.

When Ben Goldacre was sent a clip of her rant, he did the responsible thing and posted it to his blog so that millions of people could hear the irrational, ill-informed, potentially damaging opinions for themselves.

And believe me, you will not believe how bad this is until you hear it.

The response from LBC was to threaten Ben with legal action for a breach of copyright. This threat has backfired in a major way for LBC. By threatening to slap Ben with a lawsuit unless he remove the offending material (which he subsequently has), they have effectively started a huge Streisand effect which is currently resonating across the globe.

“To all of you Bad scientists, who are SO angry with me, good luck with your research. Should you fall ill I will attend you as best I can with my motherly love. Should I fall ill, as a non paid up member of your club, will you administer to me? And should I refuse your drugs then what?” Jeni Barnett

The mp3 appeared on Wikileaks sometime this morning with 13 servers hosting it from all over the world. People have already begun blogging it, with links to the Wiki page.

My good friend Res posted the entire 40 minutes (the excerpt originally on Ben’s blog) on my YouTube channel. Several people have commented that transcribing the segment is the best way to get around the legal red tape. Time will tell if this is the case, however…

Click here to hear the 40 min rant on YouTube

…I hardly think it matters anymore, following pleas for help on his blog and twitter, Ben has mobilised an army and this thing has gone viral.

As a example of Jeni’s complete lack of scientific understanding she said this gem during her show; “Have you had the flu jab? But still you’ve got the cold?”. The influenza virus is not the same virus that causes colds. FAIL.

Well done LBC for making what could have been an embarrassing stuff-up which may have resulted in a few cranky posts on Jeni’s blog into a world wide scandal. (Interestingly, someone calling themselves Andy Wakefield from Thoughtful House posted a message on Jeni’s blog offering assistance. Well, I guess he would know!)

Thank you Ben for bringing this to our attention. Thank you Res for posting this to YouTube.

Here are some other links worth reading.
Podblack
NHS Blog Doctor
Holford watch

Gardasil side effects controversy.

This story was screened on the incredibly erudite and well-researched-magazine-style-piece-of-fluff show, Today Tonight on December 7, 2007. I know this is over a year ago, but this kind of misrepresentation of science continues to occur all over the world and in many different incarnations. I was reminded of the extent of this nonsense during a recent conversation with Dr Ben Goldcare of the Bad Science column and blog. He has spent years tirelessly fighting the perpetuators of misinformation (in his own time, for no money) who will often go to incredible extremes just to get a sensationalist story*.

In this instance, the reporter Laura Sparkes has outdone herself by criticising the work of Professor Ian Frazer, a Queensland immunologist who’s team of researchers are responsible for developing the cervical cancer vaccine, marketed as Gardasil and more recently a skin cancer vaccine. Laura reports on two cases of adverse reactions by teenage girls after receiving the vaccine. Now if this is true, then it needs to be treated with all seriousness. There are mechanisms in place in Australia for reporting adverse reactions to registered drugs and this is particularly important when a new drug is released. But there is no need to get hysterical Laura.

“I had a headache, I was dizzy, I was nauseous, my right side was weak, my right fist was clenched and I was hallucinating,” Allie said. Gardasil has been hailed as a medical breakthrough, the first ever immunisation against cancer; but no-one was warned about this.

Well, this is just not true Laura. You can go to Gardasil’s own website where the side effects are listed on the front page and the TGA also details a list of adverse effects. It’s a government requirement that all drugs come with warnings of even the most unlikely or rare adverse effects. Whether this information was passed onto the girls I do not know, but certainly this information is publicly available.

But here’s where Laura really should have done her research when reporting on a serious public health issue. She asks the opinion of one Bronwyn Hancock from the vaccination information service, who is cited in the article as a “scientist and health researcher”. Long bow Laura. According to their website, Bronwyn has a BSc from Macquarie University obtained in 1981, which she never used – instead she went onto to work in computer programming for 14 years (which I don’t disparage, I just don’t think you can call yourself a scientist unless you have worked in the field). I hardly think you can call yourself a “scientist and health researcher” just because you have a BSc on paper. If I qualified as a hairdresser but never worked as one, then 14 years later offered to cut your hair, would you let me? She also has a certificate of nutrition which hardly qualifies you for anything particularly useful with respect to vaccines and immunology.

But this extract from her bio worries me even more.

“…to bring to the awareness of the public what is well published in the depths of medical research about this procedure, but is generally not studied or at least brought to the attention of the public by doctors or the media, due, it would seem, to the heavy influence of the “health”, rather sickness, industry”.

The depths of medical research? Hey Bronwyn, ever heard of the public database PubMed? Oh who really cares, you lost me with the big pharma conspiracy stuff at the end.

Then this little gem; “The Gardasil vaccine has never been shown to be safe or effective in preventing cervical cancer,” Bronwyn said. “There are so many limitations with the testing that they’ve done.” Okay so if you really are a scientist you would understand the structure of clinical trials, involving 4 phases of testing and millions of dollars and many, many years, (sometimes decades) before the drug is approved for human use.

People like this infuriate me because they detract from the complex and intricate process that is science. They also contribute to the public misunderstanding of science by suggesting that we just design a drug, test it on a bunny a couple of times then throw it out to the public, meanwhile exclaiming “it’s alive!”. The drug development process is complex, extensive and expensive. It makes my blood boil that people this daft are given air time to undermine the brilliant and thorough work of scientists like Professor Frazer, who has since gone on to develop a skin cancer vaccine.

Two strains of human papiloma virus (HPV) have been shown to cause cervical cancer. In 2006, the cancer council of New South Wales estimated there would be approximately 240 new cases and around 75 deaths attributable to cervical cancer in NSW. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women and it is estimated to result in over 470,000 new cases and cause 233,000 deaths per year worldwide.

Meanwhile in 2006, Professor Frazer was honoured with the Australian of the year for his work on the cervical cancer vaccine. This later resulted in his research facility attracting a $500 million donation from a wealthy Taiwanese donor. High praise indeed.

I wonder how many lives Bronwyn and her cronies can claim to have saved by perpetuating misinformation and lies about the effectiveness and science behind vaccines.

Congratulations morons.

*Buy a copy of Ben Goldacre’s wonderful book Bad Science to read for yourself how far journalists will go to get the positive results they required to perpetuate the MRSA (Methicillan Resistant Staphylococcus aureus) hoax from a few years back.

What exactly is detox?

Conventional detox has an established place in medicine, where it refers to weaning addicts off drugs or alcohol or eliminating poisons that have been ingested or injected (1). In alternative medicine the word detox has been hijacked to include a grab bag of pills, powders, supplements, kits, diets, magic water/drinks, colonic irrigation, chelation therapy and even shampoos and body brushes. Indicative of this, no two companies selling detox products use the same definition, as outlined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the removal of toxic substances or qualities. The word detox has simply been hijacked as a method for marketing expensive kits and supplements.

Taken from the Network of Young Scientists 'Debunking Detox" flyer

Why detox?

Many detox products refer to the large number of toxins – from cigarette smoke, exhaust fumes and pesticides to caffeine, alcohol and medicinal drugs – that our bodies are exposed to in today’s world. They talk of how toxins accumulate in the body, and of the extra burden this places on the body’s natural detoxification mechanisms. And they point the finger at this toxic overload as being behind a host of ills including constipation, bloating, flatulence, poor digestion, heartburn, diarrhoea, lack of energy and fatigue (2).

Claims on detox products include “stimulate your body’s natural detoxifying functions”, “improve the functioning of your digestive system”, “work like an intestinal broom”, “flush away potentially harmful toxins from your system” and generally give your body a “spring clean” and “improve your general health and wellbeing “and leave you feeling “revitalised” (2).

Does detox work?

Conventional detox can be life saving, however in alternative medicine, detox is a scam (1). In 2005, Choice (Australia’s consumer watch dog) conducted a study of 7 detox kits and concluded that, “Detox supplements provide little or no known benefit over a healthy diet. A week or two on a detox program won’t absolve you from a year of unhealthy eating, smoking or drinking too much alcohol. We suggest you save your money.” For full details see the report here.

Taken from the Network of Young Scientists 'Debunking Detox" flyer

Furthermore, a 2009 report from the Voice of Young Science Network (VoYS) and published by Sense about Science UK, reviewed 15 products from bottled detox-water to face scrub and concluded that “…at worst, some detox diets could have dangerous consequences and, at best, they were a waste of money”. You can read the full detox dossier here.

This report was the topic of a discussion between Dr Ben Goldacre (of the excellent BadScience column and website ) this week and the managing director of Detox-in-a-Box on the Today programme on Radio BBC 4. When asked if we ever need to detoxify, Dr Goldacre responded with an emphatic “No”. He went on to explain “..it is a purification ritual, it’s symbolic. The idea that you can fix things in just a month of healthy eating…is…dangerous because it means that people will imagine they are doing something quite useful for their lives when actually they’re not.” And in the words of Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst from their book Trick or Treatment; “the only substance that is being removed from a patient is usually money” (1).

Detox products that deserve ridicule

Detox foot pads

This gem is based on the concept that “toxins” can be removed through the soles of your feet. Now please. Just stop and think about this. The human body is well equipped with organs whose primary role is to get rid of waste products. You may have heard of them; the liver, the kidney and the skin, NOT THE FEET. Seriously, is science literacy so bad and are humans so gullible that we spend money on this stuff? My advice is, just don’t.

Here’s a brief overview of what how this thing “works”. Foot pads are like nappies or diapers for your feet. A pouch, reminiscent of a tea bag, containing a mixture of dried ingredients is secured to the soles of your feet usually overnight. When you wake up in the morning and peel of the pads, they will appear brown and sticky. Manufacturers will tell you the brown sticky stuff are the “toxins” which seeped out of your feet whilst you slept. If it sounds too good to be true that you can detox in your sleep, that’s because it is.

Foot pads contain various ingredients, including wood/sap or tree vinegar and hydrolysed carbohydrate or starch. Wood vinegar (or any other name) is a by-product of wood combustion and is highly hydroscopic, meaning it attracts and absorbs moisture readily (a little like silica beads which you find in foods to absorb moisture) upon which it turns brown. The sticky feeling described on the packaging is none other than the hydrolysed carbohydrate or sugar, which upon becoming wet feels sticky. As you can imagine, when these things are stuck to your feet overnight, you wil perspire. A recent investigation into foot pads by the NoYS reported this response from customer service upon enquiring about the reason for the foot pads turning brown and sticky; “Yes, the footpads turning brown is due to the ingredients getting wet...”(3).

Colonic irrigation

Enemas, colonic irrigation, colon hydrotherapy or colonics are marketed as a deep, whole-system cleansing method designed to remove toxins from intestine and “cleanse our body’s elimination system“. This treatment is sometimes administered with coffee (made popular by celebrities) or with various herbs. Based on the popular misconception that toxins build up over time in our bodies, this treatment is supposed to be effective against gastrointestinal disorders, migraine, obesity, allergies, bloating, cramping pains, acne and other skin complaints, arthritis and many other chronic conditions including chronic fatigue syndrome. Treatment involves insertion of a narrow tube via the rectum and flushing with considerable amounts of fluids. The fluid is flushed out through a viewing tube, so that what is eliminated may be monitored (nice!).

There is no scientific evidence that colonic irrigation has any benefit, as previously stated our bodies are perfectly equipped to eliminate toxins through various physiological processes. There have been reports of colonic irrigation causing harm by perforating the bowel or depleting the body of electrolytes. I can’t understand why anyone would voluntarily place a tube up their bottom and want to examine the resulting deposits; it’s a waste of money and a hazard to your health (1).

Is detox safe?

If these products do nothing then there’s no harm in detox right? Not necessarily. Many detox kits or detox diets involve several facets, such as pills, drinks, exfoliants and may even include a booklet advising about exercise and increasing fluid intake. Many of them recommend increasing the amount of water you consume, under the false pretence that this will assist your liver with detox and flush your system.

In July 2008, an English court awarded a woman 800,000 pounds after she suffered permanent brain damage whilst on a detox diet. Dawn Page began vomiting uncontrollably after commencing “The Amazing Hydration Diet” in 2001 and later suffered a seizure which damaged her memory, speech and concentration. She was diagnosed with hyponatraemia, a condition involving dangerously low salt concentrations induced by excessive water consumption.

Hyponatraemia or water intoxication occurs when a person drinks too much water, diluting salts and electrolytes in the blood which can then essentially “flood” cells and tissues. All cells in the body are bathed in a “salty” environment, but if the outside fluid becomes more dilute, it can rush inside the more salty cells, essentially flooding them and causing them to burst. In extreme cases, this causes organs such as the brain to swell up, and can stop it working properly, putting the drinker in serious danger.

In an article from the BBC entitled “The Dangers of too much detox Professor Graham McGregor of St George’s University of London “In normal circumstances, when people should drink when their body tells them to – when they get thirsty. Anything else is completely unnecessary, and will just leave you standing in the queue for the toilet. Detox diets are a complete con in that respect.”

Some people are a little slow to catch on it would seem. Here’s a quote from naturopath Spiro Sindos from the Naturopath Practitioners Association taken from an interview on the breakfast magazine-show Sunrise in Australia. Listen to his response about what detox is; “…what you’re trying to do is clean your body out I suppose, is the best way to put it, the best way to do that is to improve your diet, improve your lifestyle and drink copious amounts of water”. Ummm, Spiro, drinking copious amounts of water can kill you. I guess that sorts out your detox, when you’re dead you won’t need to bother.

Taken from the Network of Young Scientists "Debunking Detox" flyer

Should we detox?

The short answer is no. The bottom line is that no studies have shown that a detox regimen increases the elimination of toxins (4). As Trick or treatment reminds us; “Detox, as an alternative medicine is based on ill-conceived ideas about human physiology, metabolism and toxicology. There is no evidence that it does any good and some treatments such as colonic irrigation (enemas) and chelation therapy can be harmful”.

If you’ve overindulged this silly season, the best thing you can do is eat fresh fruit and vegetables, get some sleep, drink some water and stay off the booze and fags. Just like most things in life there is no quick fix for detox.

Further reading and references

(1) Trick or Treatment: alternative medicine on trial. Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, 2008, Bantam Press, London, UK.

(2) choice.com.au

(3) Bad Science. Ben Godacre, 2008, Forth Estate, London, UK.

A recent article from Fairfax press about one person’s experience with a 10 day post-Christmas detox