The healthcare irony

First I'd like to apologise for being away from nzskeptic and sciblogs for so long. This tends to be a pattern with my blogging, but it's not random.

For over a decade now I've struggled with bipolar disorder, particularly the depression aspect which leaves me barely functioning. All my effort goes into my job hence everything else tends to get ignored.

I tell you this not because I want sympathy or because I want to excuse my shoddy blogging schedule, but because I believe it plays a large part in me being the skeptic I am.

It certainly made me face my own failures and question my beliefs which I think led to my skepticism.

But back on to the main topic of this post - the healthcare irony.

I use the word irony (hopefully in the proper, non-Alanis Morrisette way) because the further we develop as a society the more backwards our attitude to healthcare seems to become.

Of course this is a generalisation, but it saddens me greatly people seem to be more inclined to believe something natural is inherently better than a drug that originates in the pharmaceutical industry.

After all the active ingredient in anything, natural or not, is a chemical and at it's fundamental a natural chemical is no different to a manufactured chemical.

In fact a number of the drugs I used to work with were generated using some natural plant material as a starting point (there's that damn irony again!).

But I don't honestly know what it says about us as a society or species that we seem to be intent on believing vast conspiracies are out to harm us or keep us from living a full and healthly life.

The latest to make me question our collective sanity is the so-called miracle cure for AIDS, herpes, hepatitis A, B and C and a plethora of other deadly illnesses, Miracle Mineral Solution.

I first read about this in the NZ Herald on Friday and again at Yahoo!Xtra today.

This product is being sold in New Zealand and around the world and consists of what effectively is an industrial bleaching compound.

(Of course, just because it's a bleaching compound doesn't mean it may not provide some kind of healthcare effect, but that's not the point of this blog.)

What is clear is this product is being marketed as a potential miracle cure and it can't possibly back that up with double-blinded studies.

And so faced with no clear evidence of efficacy the distributor relies on what should be a warning to anyone reading this kind of article - impugning our healthcare system and relying on anecdotal data.

This quote says it all for me: 

"Read Medsafe's list of symptoms and just ask: what would chemo do to you?"

The sheer stupidity in that comment from one of the New Zealand distributors is breathtaking and the fact that such a statement won't convince any believer drives me mental (pun intended).

I could write a 1,000 word post on that quote along, but I honestly don't think it needs further explanation.

And, just for good measure, the Yahoo!Xtra story I mentioned earlier has comments on it.

Can you guess how many are in support of warning people about the medicine and how many are conspiracy theories or anecdotal stories about it doing what it says?

You don't need me to answer that, do you?

Bioresonance bollocks

I first came across the following article in the paper copy of The Aucklander in July 2007. I didn't have a blog or know what I really wanted to do with my skeptical brain at that point. Now I do and, quite by accident, I found it again.

However time hasn't eased my disbelief - reading the article again just makes me shake my head. I just can't believe it was published:

http://www.quitsmokingclinic.co.nz/aucklander-article.html

Although the article is old, it's still being linked to on an active website and it's an indication of the scientific illiteracy prevalent in New Zealand media. Heck, I'm a scientist and I ended up as a sports reporter.

But this piece of 'reporting' is perhaps the most credulous piece of nonsense I've ever had the misfortune to read. And given we've had to put up with credulous psychic"Sensing Murder" reports in the past that's saying something.

There are just so many warning signs in this story that as soon as I read it, I knew bioresonance therapy was bollocks. But being the good skeptic I did my research and - surprise, surprise - the websites I found which actually looked at the science said it was total bollocks.

Here are the things I picked up on as being signs something wasn't right, along with my thoughts in parenthesis:

"two electrically charged balls" (Hmmm. It'll be magnets next. Would I be surprised to find something about it affecting blood flow because of the iron in the blood)

"85 per cent success" (Holy shit. This has 85 per cent success rate and I've never heard of it before. I must try and find some proof for that.)

"rebalancing energies" (Oh oh. Woo! I'm pretty much convinced that it's bollocks.)

"bioresonance inverts energy patterns" (Does it? But even if it does, what the hell does it have to do with nicotine addiction?)

"it's about desensitising and detoxing your body" (Ah, detox. Bollocks)

"four energy quadrants" (Bingo!)

"the Bicom can determine the energy pattern from this post-hoik and sets about reversing it" (What the?)

"All this is doing is helping the body heal and rebalance itself by connecting to healthy frequencies." (Oh my flying spaghetti monster, he's serious.)

"the machine dignfies me with a microwave like ping to confirm my new status as a freshly rolled non-smoker" (Wow, how easy. This is either a scam or every smoker in New Zealand should get a free treatment. Sarcasm in my thoughts - I really must get out more)

"It's the toxins leaching out of your skin" (Oh, holy shit. No. Please not. This is the worst thing I've ever read.)

"their bathwater turns brown" (Perhaps they're covered in the bullshit you've just spoken and it's washed off.)

"I'm cured" (yeah, I wonder how you're doing now a little while after the story was written. I'd lay good odds that you still smoke.)

Now I'm not saying the author of this article lied. It's possible he really has been cured of smoking and puts it down to the bioresonance therapy. However, there is a much simpler explanation. This is a clear example of someone volunteering and therefore already willing to give up smoking. He's most of the way there.

The placebo effect of using a geeky, scientific-sounding therapy then kicks in and bingo, his own willingness to give up smoking mixed with some woo and he's given up smoking.

My biggest issue with the article is that the author failed to do the simplest of research about bioresonance. A Google search brings up Ben Goldacre's colum in the Guardian from 2005 on bioresonance bollocks. That should have been enough to set the alarm bells ringing.

But no. No research, no science and no amazing cure for smoking.

I just hope that no-one in New Zealand has read this article and paid $350 for a treatment. I'd just feel guilty for not having shouted my mouth off about it sooner.