Three Arguments the Anti-GMO Crowd Should Stop Using

The aim of this post is not to try to silence opposition to GE tech, but to stop allowing the uninformed to frame the issue. If real criticism is to be heard, and real progress made, then the elimination of red herrings is a must.

In order to avoid setting up strawmen here, I’ve included example quotes taken from the comments to posts on our page. Indeed, these three arguments often make up the bulk of any GMO discussion seen anywhere that accepts comments. You will notice I include zero reference links. That is because these arguments are based on personal ideology instead of any real-world data. Obviously, there are many evidence-based arguments that have been thoroughly debunked and so should no longer be used either, but those are outside the scope of this post.

As skeptics, we should be willing to believe any claim if it is backed up with evidence. These arguments fail to provide not only evidence of harm, but even a theory as to how GE could be harmful. When someone is trying to persuade you to take an anti-GMO stance, none of the following arguments should be tolerated.

1) Appeal to nature

“Should we really be messing with mother nature?”

Sometimes this is straightforward as in “it’s unnatural!” Other times it is a little more subtle, taking a form something along the lines of “a fish would never breed with a tomato”, but it is always an argument without substance. Whenever we pursue these arguments we find that “natural” is a term that means different things to different people, but often boils down to “stuff that I am already comfortable with.”

Logically, this is best exposed by talking about artificial selection. However, in the real world, the anti-GMO crowd misconstrues mention of selective breeding as deceit. They say it is wrong to present genetic engineering and selective breeding as the same thing, and on this point they are correct. Selective breeding (which is achieved through the method of artificial selection) is different from genetic engineering in several significant ways, and to conflate them is irresponsible. So why do we bring up selective breeding? Because an argument which draws objection from the property “unnatural” fails to distinguish selective breeding from GE. Artificial selection, by definition, removes the hand of nature (natural selection). It is capable of preserving deleterious genetic traits such as deafness in dogs. It can also produce sterile hybrids like the banana. These are things that nature tends to select against.

So, generic appeals to nature ignore the fact that selective breeding is “unnatural” too, and produces outcomes with the very same properties that those using this appeal deem unnatural.

If the logic behind your objection can be equally applied to selective breeding, yet you are not against selective breeding, something is very wrong. You should construct arguments that actually criticize what you are against and be able to explain the principles behind your arguments in no uncertain terms. A generic appeal to nature simply isn’t good enough to hold up an anti-GMO position.

Also, remember, on the level of DNA, there is no such distinction as “fish” or “tomato”.  The source of the gene is of absolutely no consequence.   While the anti-GMO crowd worries about where genes come from, science worries about what they do. This is where we should focus – on the applications and results of GE tech and the possible consequences, not some arbitrary notion of what is natural.

So, when you encounter an appeal to nature argument, ask for a definition of “natural”. Ask why “natural” substances are automatically better. If all you get is a re-statement of the appeal, then you’ll know that the person is trying to convince you with an argument that they are unable to think through themselves.

2) Not enough tests

“We do not yet know if GMOs are safe. The only tests have been by Monsanto. I do not want to be experimented on by corporations!”

This gambit tends to ring false when it is used by those groups who support the destruction of test fields. Obviously, it is hypocritical to call for more testing and then stand in the way. But, to be fair, not all of those calling for testing do advocate destroying test fields. Also, if this is made as a sincere request outlining clear goals that can be reached, then it is not a red herring. However, everyone I have ever asked who uses this argument admits that, for them personally, no amount of testing would cause them to drop their aversion to GE foods. While this is not as obvious as those who trample crops, it is just as disingenuous because it still seeks to use the precautionary principle indefinitely. They have moved the goalposts so far that even they can not see them. Furthermore, if they can not define what sufficient testing would look like, how can they define what insufficient testing does look like? Which crops should be further tested? What more should we test for? What faults are to be found with the current tests? Where is the nuance?

This is also an indirect contradiction to the claim that GE foods cause harm. It cannot be true that we have not performed enough tests to assess safety and also know that they are unsafe. This suggests a double standard where evidence of harm is believed based on unscientific standards that accept rumors and speculation, but evidence of safety is held to standards so strict as to be unobtainable.

The bottom line is that independent testing is already being done, and no scientists are calling for an end to it.  All GE crops and foods should be individually tested for safety, and those results should be available for independent review and replication. Being anti-GMO is not a necessary precursor to being an advocate of rigorous safety standards.

So when you encounter this argument, ask them to tell you exactly, without being vague, what additional tests would be satisfactory to convince them to personally consume GE food. If the answer is that no test will remove their fear, then you’ll know they are trying to convince you with an argument they do not believe themselves.

3) The right to know. (What are they hiding?)

“Whether or not they are safe to consume, I do not really care, but I do have a right to know whether or not I am consuming them.”

On the surface, the right to know argument is perhaps the most compelling red herring on this list. Why should customers be denied the right to an informed decision? Why should corporations be able to keep secret exactly what they are doing to our food in their labs? The answer is of course that they shouldn’t, and this is another façade.

I think the first thing we should do is separate the right to know from the right to demand labeling. The unstated premise here is that labeling provides some pertinent information important to the consumer.  However, if labeling does not reflect any sort of safety or nutritional concern, then what exactly is being conveyed?  The single data point that a label would provide is that a product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.  If each individual crop is rigorously tested before it is approved for market and the results available for review, then why does it matter which products those crops end up in?  The only purpose for labeling is to mark the products for those already inclined to avoid them.  Since this aversion is not based on any demonstrable  safety,  environmental or health concern, it’s a result of personal ideology.   If we start labeling foods which violate personal ideology, then we’re going to have to label them non-kosher as well.  My personal ideology says to avoid crops harvested under a full moon.  I have no data to demonstrate that these crops should be avoided, but I’m going to need a label anyway.

So, labeling is not really about knowing anything of interest to anyone who isn’t anti-GMO.  It does nothing to help the average consumer make an informed choice, and is likely to confuse instead.  To argue the right to know is to argue for transparency, and what should be transparent is the research.  The research says GE crops on the market are of no more concern than conventional crops.  To ignore the research and focus only on a single data point is to disregard the very transparency you are asking for. Someone who is passionate about ‘knowing’ will have an interest in learning, and maybe even teaching. But what we see when we examine the anti-GMO rhetoric is that their interest in learning begins and ends with confirmation bias, and what they teach has very little basis in fact, seeking to influence rather than inform. To demand the right to know while remaining apathetic to knowledge is disingenuous.

I believe people have the right to boycott anything for any reason, but I object to the idea that this notion somehow supports mandatory labeling.  I also object to the accusation that if labeling is not present, some information is being hidden.  Your boycott is your problem unless you can demonstrate that it is a problem for everyone.  Citing the right to boycott does not tell us why we ought to do so, yet this notion dominates most public discussions about anti-gmo activism.  One can be completely for the notion of the public being as informed as possible about GE technology and products without needing to take an anti-GMO stance.

4) BONUS : Organic apples/tomatoes taste better.

And here is a bonus argument. It’s really nothing more than a pet peeve, but it is sure to make you look like a simpleton. I hear it all the time. “Organic apples/tomatoes just taste better than the GMO version.” It’s always apples or tomatoes for some reason. I am not sure where these people live since no GE tomatoes or apples are currently on the market, and never mind the fact that taste is not a measure of safety. When I see this statement, it tells me the speaker is not really interested in evidence or data or even with having a sincere discussion. They are willing to lie to sway others towards their opinion. Such people disqualify themselves from being worthy of attention.

Those opposed to GE food have every right to make their case and be heard, but those listening have a social responsibility to not be swayed by generic fear-mongering and specious reasoning . All parties should set their standards higher and rise above the petty manipulations employed by science deniers. If we are so easily swayed by broken logic and appeals to emotion, if we accept propaganda and forget to demand actual evidence, then we can be convinced of anything.


Skeptical Irony

Being told GM food needs more testing by people who jump at the chance to eat the latest rare “miracle” fruit no one has ever heard of.

Being told “do your research” by people who dismiss and deny the findings of the world’s leading researchers.

Being called closed-minded by people who proudly declare they will never change their own views no matter what.

When psychics who claim an intuitive ability to communicate with the spirit world struggle to distinguish between “an M or J sounding name”, and need your help.

When people try to prove they aren’t conspiracy mongers by saying that the term “conspiracy theory” was invented by the government to discredit them and hide the truth.

Being lectured on the dangers of “toxins” in processed foods by someone who’s half-way through a spliff.

Being told GMOs need more testing by people who admit they will never accept GE crops no matter how many tests are done.

Being lectured on the merits of detoxifying my body by people who think their rectum is a good place to put coffee.

When conspiracy groups who wield enough power to kill anyone and cover up everything can’t manage to take down a youtube video.

When anti-GMO activists who demand the “right to know” turn out to be among the least informed.

Being told we “can’t know the mind of God” by people who say he wants me to cut off the tip of my penis.

Being told we don’t need to pay attention to science by people who make every effort to impersonate it, speak its language, and steal its legitimacy.

When aliens who evade radar and erase abductees’ memories to avoid detection make huge conspicuous circles in our crops and dump mutilated cattle on the side of the road.


Pleased to meet you. How d’you do.

We get a lot of people asking us who we are. Most of them are just interested, though some do it as a means to deride us for what they call “hiding behind a veil of anonymity”. The remaining others suggest that, especially where our blog is concerned, people (their casual debate opponents, for instance) would be less inclined to dismiss our articles and more inclined to take on board what we said if we made our education, backgrounds and identities public.

We have a fair number of readers now, and (we’re honoured to say), we do seem to have gained quite a bit of trust from many of you. So, since I (the female admin) am pretty much happy to “come out”, it seems like the right thing to do. However, though I’m sure the vast majority of you acknowledge this, I do feel the need to stress that our backgrounds are essentially irrelevant to the arguments we make and the posts we write – we never ask that you to take our word for it. Who we are has no bearing on our readers’ abilities to follow the sources we link to within our articles, and to engage in further reading. I will provide a little information about the other admin, but being the enigmatic chap that he is, he wants to remain anonymous, so you won’t get much on him, I’m afraid.


In The Beginning…

IFHP is made of two parts – an XY component from Ohio, USA and an XX counterpart (who is currently possessed of the voice in your head) from London, UK – and is the upshot of a Facebook glitch, caused by a happy coincidence. Before IFHP, we two had never crossed paths. But on February 1st, 2013, within just minutes of one another, we each happened to arrive at the decision to start a page called “I fucking hate pseudoscience”.  (I know, cosmic or what??) Mr. US began sending invitations to his FB contacts, but found that they led all his invitees to my UK page instead. Within half an hour of IFHP UK’s birth, it had received a message from IFHP USA suggesting a merger to solve the problem.

Despite apprehensions from both sides, the merger went ahead after just a short initiatory grilling on the subject of “whether you hate pseudoscience as much as I do”. Amazingly enough, we’ve found we basically agree on everything, except things like how to spell “sceptical”, and, despite the fact that we’ve never met face-to-face, I have come to regard him as one of my best (and cleverest) friends. Don’t get the impression that because there’s more about me than him, he does less work. In fact, I’m much more of a dirty slacker than he is. So him first.


About the US admin:

Mr US is the only son of a family of horse ranchers. His mother is an artist, floral designer and interior decorator. His father is a master diesel mechanic (light truck and heavy truck) specialising in transmission repair and hydraulics. Although his parents were only moderately religious, he grew up surrounded by near-fundamentalist Christians and Amish people, which sparked an interest in counter-culture and, by his late teens, critical thinking.

He has a high-school equivalency diploma and a 2-year technical degree in both computer repair and software development.  During his technical training, he was offered the chance to take a critical thinking course. Given his long-time interest in science and scepticism (sorry, skepticism!), he gladly took it up. However, to his disappointment, the course had a very narrow scope, dealing mostly with career planning and time-management.   Although he did learn a few logical fallacies, the class taught nothing about skepticism. Impressed by his gusto when he complained about this, his professor invited him to help develop some lessons specifically on skepticism of the media and, for several years, he remained as one of the course advisors. Although the higher faculty insisted he not touch on religion or personal beliefs, he introduced to the course (which is still being taught) such topics as Occam’s razor, cognitive biases, errors in pattern recognition, the pitfalls of human perception, logic and memory, and media manipulation. His fluency in the language of skepticism and critical thinking is astounding, and, despite my science education, I’d wager that I’ve probably learnt more from him over the last year-and-a-bit than he has from me.


About the UK admin:

My name is Emily-Rose. (A lot of my friends don’t even know my surname.) I am the daughter of a family of musicians. My mum is a professional cellist, a harpist and the author of ‘The Silent-Footed Butler’. My dad is an orchestral and solo French horn and hand-held horn player. One of my aunts is a violinist, the other is a bassoonist. My uncle is a trombonist. My brother is a jazz drummer. Granny was a pianist and cellist, Granddad was a brass instrument repair-man. (You get the picture.) Fortunately, I never had to break free of a religious faith because I was never given one in the first place. My formidable, no-nonsense Scottish granny , (and her formidable, no-nonsense Scottish mother before her), were both staunch atheists. My dad was into weird stuff like the i-ching and macrobiotic dieting for a while in the 80s, until he discovered New Scientist magazine. In any case, I was born an atheist and have stayed that way ever since.

I am a hula-hoop dancer (I perform under the name “Swirlesque”), a singer and an aspiring scientist. There I am in the picture, spinning an LED hoop around me knee. I am known in social circles for my exhibitionism, unbeatable limbo skills, lipstick-wearing and inability to bite my tongue.  Apart from running IFHP, I practise piano, take dance classes (in hip-hop, ragga, locking, popping and house – I’m still a beginner), cook, make a terrible mess, lose everything, write lyrics, sing songs, drink cider, nuzzle my cats, lament the death of Christopher Hitchens and rock out.

Me and my hoopI did my degree at Magdalen College, Oxford, in Human Sciences, which is a diverse course covering a wide range of disciplines. For example, population and molecular genetics, evolutionary theory, human evolution and palaeoanthropology, statistics, neuroscience and cognition, zoology, mammalian physiology, ecology, demography, modern sociological theory (which looked at things like network theory and collective action and turned out, to my great surprise, to be one of my favourite papers), nutrition and disease, epidemiology, immunology, cancer genetics and classical anthropology (which I dropped as soon as I could). My two optional papers were in neurolinguistics and cognitive and evolutionary anthropology. My proudest achievement to date is winning the university dissertation prize, for my paper entitled: “Human Incest and its Evolutionary Logic: decoding the data and demystifying the taboo”. In it, I made and tested various predictions (some of them orginal), using a game-theoretic approach, as to when and where incest would be expected to appear in human societies, based on various branches of evolutionary theory. I then put forward what I argued was an explanation with enough power to completely account for cultural incest taboos, based on more evolutionary theory. Let me tell you that thinking, reading and writing about incest for extended periods of time does strange things to the mind.

I am set to return to Oxford (Wadham College this time) in October to do an MSc in Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, providing I manage to raise the funds. (If anyone reading has £25,800 handy, I’d just love to hear from you.)

I hope that the above 1) is interesting to you, 2) shows that we’re not “hiding” anything untoward and 3) might reassure your friends that the things we say in our posts are at least worthy of a lil’ read!

“Dog Rocks” & Meaningless Woofle

It’s a disappointment to find Pete Wedderburn, a qualified vet, endorsing “Dog Rocks”. Here’s what he printed in the Telegraph:

“The brown patches caused by dog urine on lawns are a perennial issue (to borrow a gardening term). Some people claim that a daily dollop of tomato ketchup in the dog’s dinner stops this but evidence is lacking. Dog Rocks are the most popular product marketed to help: these are placed in dogs’ water bowls, claiming to filter out excessive nitrogen and urea from the water. A high concentration of nitrates can cause grass to turn yellow or brown: the idea is that if less nitrates go into the dog, less come out the other end. Dog Rocks claim success in 80 per cent of cases when used according to instructions; they are widely available in pet shops and online (”

It is amusing that Wedderburn dismisses ketchup as a solution for lawn burns on the basis of a lack of evidence and then recommends dog rocks instead, via an appeal to popularity. One might have thought that, given his science education, he would know that popularity isn’t evidence for efficacy. In his defence, he doesn’t explicitly claim that dog rocks work – he just says that the company does. Perhaps he simply assumed on good faith that a company claiming to have conducted laboratory tests on their product must be selling something legitimate – which is of course what we really ought to be able to assume, in an ideal world. Unfortunately, this world is not ideal.

According to the the company’s website, dog rocks are “an igneous Rock with absorbing & retaining qualities” that will “stop pet urine ruining your lawn, grass, shrubs and hedging”. The site offers no evidence to back up these claims, and is home to a plethora of archetypal pseudoscience – loose ideas arranged clumsily around science jargon like “stable matrix”, “micro porous medium”, “ion exchange” and “trace elements”. The marketers print the word “PROVEN” on their product packaging in big red capital letters and, as mentioned above, claim that their product is “laboratory tested”. But they fail to offer even the vaguest insight into the nature of these tests, providing no reference whatsoever to study design, who did the testing, or whether the research was published (or even written up), let alone quantitative information  like effect sizes, standard deviation, p-values, etc. Even anti-ageing face-cream companies manage to pay enough lip-service to transparency that we can go and see that their effects are based upon the subjective reports of 20 women brought into their own lab and not peer-reviewed.

Lack of peer-reviewed studies and misuse of science words are both pseudoscience red flags. Other red flags exhibited by the website are: a page of testimonials, repetitious appeals to nature (dog rocks are “100% natural!”), appeals to pH woo (dog rocks “do not change the pH balance of dog’s urine so they should not harm your dog at all”), and a sort of variation on the appeal to ancient wisdom – I’ll call it “provincial wisdom” (dog rocks were “discovered in Australia by an Aboriginal Gardener in the 1990s”).

A quick tour around the website confirms that discerning dog-owners most certainly are not this company’s target market, and makes it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that these “lab tests” are either irrelevant to the question of whether the product actually works, or simply non-existent. Here’s the “technical blurb” (that’s their term, by the way).

Dog Rocks are a coherent Rock with a mechanically stable framework meaning no significant mineral particles are released into the pet’s drinking water, in other words, Dog Rocks do not break down or leech anything into the pet’s drinking water. Dog Rocks form a stable matrix and a micro porous medium in which active components are able to act as a water-purifying agent through ion exchange. For this reason, when placed in water, Dog Rocks will help purify the water by removing some harmful trace elements giving your dog a cleaner source of water.

Perhaps it’s crude of me to even say this, but to my mind one of the most reliable indicators of junk science and B/S is simply the quality of writing. It doesn’t take a literary connoisseur to notice that the writing style exhibited on the Dog Rocks website is cringeworthily naff and unsophisticated, and it has what I would describe as an awkwardly ingratiating, cloying tone. Although that isn’t enough to dismiss scientific claims, in my experience, this particular form of prose is a strikingly accurate predictor of pseudoscience. Fortunately for our purposes, however, we have much more to sink our teeth into than that.

You might have noticed that no explanation is offered as to how the removal of “harmful trace elements” should result in a change in urine composition such that lawn burns would be prevented. Such ambiguous conflation of terms is yet another red flag: it’s not “harmful trace elements” that cause lawn burns, it’s urea and nitrates (both nitrogen-containing substances). This irrelevant appeal to TOXINS, TOXINS, EVERYWHERE and the promise to remove them seems to have been thrown in there opportunistically as a bonus selling point. You might also have noticed that ion-exchange is a two-way street, yet according to the distributors, nothing is released from the product into Buster’s water. Which is it, Dog Rocks?

I visited the FAQ section to find out more about how the product is supposed to work. Under the heading “How do DOG ROCKS work?”, the “technical blurb” quoted above is re-printed verbatim, except with a different incarnation of woofle following the phrase, “For this reason”:

For this reason, when placed in water, Dog Rocks will help purify the water by removing some nitrates, ammonia and harmful trace elements thereby giving your dog a cleaner source of water and lowering the amount of nitrates found in their diet thereby lowering the amount that is expelled in their urine. An overload of nitrates in urine will cause lawns to burn. Dogs do produce nitrates as a by-product from the protein in their diet, but the difference between too much nitrate that will kill the grass and the amount of nitrate that will be good for the grass is very small.

Carnivores have particularly high levels of nitrogen in their urine because their diets include so much protein, and the digestion of amino acids (the building blocks of protein) creates nitrogenous waste, primarily in the form of urea. As the above quote alludes to, diluted urine can be used as a fertiliser, precisely because it contains nitrogen – one of the most important macronutrients for plants. However, at high concentrations, it causes chemical burns to roots by sapping water from them as a result of osmotic pressure. Evidence that dog rocks can transform weedkiller-wee into fertilizer, as they claim, however, is entirely absent.

On the website, the manufacturers try to gloss over the fact that the nitrogen in dogs’ urine comes overwhelmingly from the protein that they eat with their assertion (featuring in the last quote) that “the difference between too much nitrate…and the amount…that will be good for the grass is very small”. The amount of urea in canine urine is 3.5 ± 2.4 mg/dl* – like human urine, it already varies quite considerably. The manufacturers are basically admitting that the reduction in nitrogen concentration achieved by dog rocks will be “very small”, but hanging on to the case for efficacy by saying that a very small reduction is all that is needed. Their use of the phrase “very small”, without any quantification or context is entirely unscientific and misleading. Small relative to what? An infinitesimal is “very small”; so is an electron; so is an ant; so is a Falabella pony, all relative to their contexts. 

The company fails to give a threshold concentration value of urinary nitrogen beyond which urine burns plant roots, and below which it doesn’t (which is fishy in and of itself – this would have been one of the most important things to determine in those “lab tests” they say they conducted). If the change in nitrogen concentration effected by dog rocks is “very small”, then the product should only work in the subset of cases in which a dog’s initial urinary nitrogen concentration happens to be just above this undeclared value, and for owners to notice a change would require that individual dogs always produced urine with that same concentration – just a “very small” fraction above the magic value  which they don’t. In reality, urea concentration fluctuates from pee to pee – the ability to vary urine concentration is one of the most important properties of the mammalian kidney. A “very small” change would would be drowned out by the noise of this daily variation. The only way I can see dog rocks working is if they were to effect a “very big” change which, given the relatively enormous amount of protein dogs eat, is physiologically implausible. So, assuming that dog rocks do actually remove nitrates from water (the website gives us no reason to believe that they do, and plenty of red flags to suggest that they probably don’t), the idea that this would translate into prevention of lawn burns in anywhere near 80% of cases is wholly unconvincing.

To summarise, the company has failed on four levels:

1) It provides no demonstration that the nitrates in the water a dog drinks contributes significantly towards its propensity to produce lawn spots.

2) It provides no evidence that dog rocks lower nitrate concentration in drinking water, nor does it describe a plausible mechanism for how they might do so, beyond unspecified “ion exchange”. (Incidentally, if these things really could absorb nitrates, wouldn’t the company be a major seller to people who own expensive aquarium set-ups?)

3) It provides no evidence, if indeed dietary nitrates consumed in water did play a significant role, that their product could significantly reduce nitrate content in dogs’ urine, relative to the nitrates coming from other sources (particularly the meat that they eat).

4) It provides no evidence that, if indeed their product did significantly reduce the nitrate content in dog urine relative to the nitrates coming from other sources, this would translate into an impact on lawn burn.

Any evidence filling in the logical gaps in their sales pitch represented by points 1-4 above would be helpful to Dog Rocks. A demonstration of each stage, along with a functional explanation, would be most convincing. However, demonstration of point 4 alone would be a good start in making their case for efficacy. They could conduct a randomised controlled study, submitted to peer-review, in which a group of, say, a hundred volunteers used dog rocks for a few months, and a hundred used “normal” rocks instead. The outcomes could be quantified by counting the number of lawn burns at the beginning and end of the trial, and then the results statistically analysed to determine whether any significant reduction had been achieved.

Something tells me that Dog Rocks won’t rise to the challenge.

I couldn’t help quoting what one Amazon reviewer of the product said in their concluding paragraph: “The ONLY truly effective solution to brown patches on your lawn is to pour a bucket of water on the exact spot that your dog has just had a wee, as soon as they have done it. If that’s not practical, then your next best solution is to save the money you would be spending on Dog Rocks every two months, and buy 2 rolls of turf. Cut out the dead patches on your lawn, and replace them with new turf. Repeat every two months. Job done.”

*I have been unable to ascertain whether this value of 3.5 +/- 2.4 mg/dl refers to deviation across different dogs, over an individual dogs’ different pees, or a combination of the two ranges. If any vets are reading and can shed light, this would be nice for completeness. 

I flipping strongly dislike dogma

We’ve had a new round of criticism regarding the name of our FB page, so we thought we’d clarify our terminology.

Why hate

The definition of “hate” that we are using is very simple: “very strongly dislike”. And we didn’t make that definition up to suit our purposes. Check it out in the dictionary. We strongly dislike pseudoscience because it damages people, and we love and care about people. Pseudoscience even kills people, when it diverts them from medicine that works, as in the case of serious illness. See for more on this point.

Pseudoscience also damages people intellectually, in the sense that it fosters a willingness to form beliefs without first subjecting the tenets of those beliefs to critical evaluation. This, in our opinion, is a tragedy in itself, because to get maximum mileage out of the delectable brain-candy that is science, you have first to be able to identify it. Above all other things under the sun, Science is our solace. And it saddens us that so many people don’t know how it works, and are being prevented from experiencing the joy of knowing how it works by the propagation of obscuring-yet-superficially-appealing false information.

However, it is a tragedy in another, more sinister sense, too. In the absence of evidence as a proviso for taking on new beliefs, people can potentially believe anything. History gives testament to the diversity of malevolence to which such a relaxation of constraints on belief-formation can give rise. To reel off a few familiar examples: some beliefs result in hundreds of thousands of girls having their clitorises gouged out (without anaesthesia) every year. Other beliefs have resulted in people being tied up and burned alive. As we speak, some beliefs are causing people to miss out on their one shot at surviving cancer, or getting to age 40 before dying of AIDS-related illness. Some beliefs lead people to kill their own children. One of them led to Peter Andre eating so many bananas that he nearly died of a potassium overdose.*

We hate pseudoscience in a comparable way to that in which we hate poverty or racism and indeed all exploitative or otherwise harmful practises, creeds and phenomena. We feel, passionately, that making concrete claims without evidence to back those claims up is unethical, and we want it to stop.

It’s evident that some of you will have different mental representations of the lexical category “hate” from the one we do, because “strongly disliking” something is clearly a very good and quite uncontroversial place to start if you want that thing to stop. If you have no problem with strongly disliking then, under our definition, you automatically have no problem with the word “hate”. If you do have a problem with strongly disliking, then you won’t be one of those people who has expressed a strong dislike of our use of the word “hate”. Will you.

It is absolutely fine if you don’t want to be associated with a word that, in your brain, means something specifically more nasty than “strongly dislike”. Nonetheless, we are very comfortable with the term indeed, and would like it henceforth to be known that accusing us, in loud capital letters, of being guilty of anything more than “strongly disliking”, will be an example of your committing an informal logical fallacy. (Can anyone identify it?)

We could have called ourselves “I fucking strongly dislike pseudoscience”, but 1) it sounds shit, and 2) I doubt we would have been featured on “I fucking love science”, the exposure resulting from which has been instrumental in the growth of our readership over the last year.

As one final point here, we do NOT hate believers. We see believers as victims of dangerous and unsavoury yet very catchy beliefs. (The author of this note would even go so far as to say that, in a philosophical sense, she doesn’t even hate the fat-cats who make millions peddling “treatments” that they know to be ineffective. She feels deep pity for them in their tragic loss of compassion – the worst and deepest kind of impoverishment of which she can conceive.) In other words, IFHP hates pseudoscience, not pseudoscientists.

Why pseudoscience?

Every time we post about religion, we get a few people saying, “This is nothing to do with pseudoscience. What is it doing here?”, usually in much less civil terms. So, here’s our defence: as activists against pseudoscience, we feel at liberty to comment on topics related to pseudoscience. Religions (and mysticism) are very closely related to pseudoscience (indeed, the author would go as far as to argue that religion is really the mother of all pseudosciences), in that they “make concrete claims about things without evidence to back those claims up“, as per the “Why hate” section of this note. They also have a tendency to threaten eternal torment if you fail to believe these claims. Yuck!!

To be clear, the phrase in italics doesn’t represent a watertight definition of pseudoscience. Defining pseudsocience is known as the demarcation problem, and it boasts a distinguished history. There is no clear-cut rule that can determine whether something’s properties are necessary and sufficient for categorisation as pseudoscience (bear in mind that categorisation in general tends to have this property), so we use checklists, or red flags. The major monotheistic religions would fail on all 9 of Carl Sagan’s “baloney detection kit“, and fly all the major pseudoscience red flags (which are generally derived from it).

I guess we could have called the page “I fucking hate dogma”, which would have saved us having constantly to justify our discussions of religion (to people who haven’t spent two years making the page what it is…). But leaving aside our feeling that religion *is* pseudoscience, “I fucking hate pseudoscience” worked better as a mirror page for “I fucking love science”, which, as we have already alluded to (and are not ashamed to admit), we thought we’d see if we could use as a piggyback to get our page out there.

Why fucking?

Three words: “get”, “over”, and “it”.

The first edition of this note, written last year, left it at that. We still feel that three words says it all, but the author is one year older than she was last year and her more mature self tells her that she should pay at least some lip-service to the argument from vulgarity.

Swearing, for reasons I can’t quite get behind (…the author can’t get behind? Gosh, referring to oneself in third-person gets tiring) upsets some people. In her, my and our view, as long as you’re not swearing all the fucking time (whoops), in such a way that it starts to prevent you from articulating yourself properly, there really is no problem. (Incidentally, the author massively prefers compulsive, chronic swearing to compulsive, chronic use of “like”, a language virus that afflicts most young Anglophones today and whose effects require constant monitoring by the host to quash.) However, if swearing, even in small and measured doses, really does offend you (one can only imagine the toils and tribulations you must face at the cinema/in front of the TV/during life in general), then there are plenty of other “family-friendly” skeptical pages out there. Once again, and for reasons already given, we deliberately named our page using the same format as IFLS. This necessitated our embrace of that most vile and filthy of all ‘F’ words.

Bottom line? Like it or leave it, but please don’t accuse us of being hateful** people, because in actual fact this page would not exist were it not for the fact that our compassion and our concern for people veritably spilleth o’er. 

* OK, OK. So I can’t verify this rumour and perhaps it’s an urban legend. However, if it were true, it would help explain this bizarre behaviour. There’s this, too.

** Adjective

  1. Arousing, deserving of, or filled with hatred: “hateful letters of abuse”.
  2. Very unpleasant: “this hateful place”.

Confronting Cancer Quackery

Cancer quackery (along with charlatanism surrounding HIV/AIDs) has to be one of the most noxious of all pseudoscience-based enterprises and, perhaps it’s just my line of work, but I can’t help but feel that it’s on the rise. The reliably high prevalence of cancer represents immensely fertile ground for scammers, and “alternative” treatments for it are sought by millions, supporting a steady cash-flow in the direction of fakes, phoneys, and otherwise ignorant followers of charismatic nasties. As well as fostering a generalised distrust in science and burning holes in wallets, cancer pseudoscience often steers patients away from their one and only shot at survival.

The Internet is abuzz with “natural remedies” and “holistic” measures against cancer, and a quick trawl through some of the websites spouting them reveals that the nature and extent of the errors (and lies) upon which they are based are as varied as they are pernicious. However, two hallmarks crop up invariably: 1, a gross de-emphasis of the complexity and diversity of cancer, and 2, a blurring of the (extremely important) distinction between cancer prevention and cancer cure. Equipped with a basic understanding of how cancer works, cancer pseudoscientists’ lack thereof becomes painfully obvious. They chronically demonstrate ignorance of the most elementary aspects of oncology. It is this very ignorance, combined with a total lack of legal regulation (not to mention endorsement by certain celebrities), that enables them to claim, smilingly, that they have the “secret” to curing cancer. In this short essay, I offer a basic explanation of how cancer works, focussing on the not-widely-enough-appreciated role that evolution, by means of natural selection, plays in tumour-growth and -development. Above all, I aim to facilitate your feeling more confident, in any future debates you might have, that “alternative” cancer-cure pedlars, whether through malice or misguidance, are Full Of Shit.


Some necessary background information

I think the best place to start is to consider normal body cells. Unlike free-living cells, such as bacteria, the cells of our body do not compete with each other for their own ‘selfish’ genetic propagation. On the contrary, they co-operate on a huge scale, through a vast network of elaborate communication mechanisms, dividing and assuming designated roles in adherence to instruction and signals, and even committing suicide, on cue, for the interests of the aggregate. This non-rebellious behaviour is of course explained by the fact that body cells are a collection of clones. Co-operative behaviour contributes to the propagation of their genes.

In each somatic cell (that means all cells except sperms and eggs), there is a copy of the body’s genome. Your genome is the sum of all your body’s genetic information, which is organised into 46 chromosomes – 22 pairs of “autosomes” and one pair of sex chromosomes (“XX” or “XY”, depending on whether you are a girl or a boy). Far from being an inaccessible “blueprint”, as it is often dubbed, each cell’s genome is a dynamically active factory, churning out myriad different proteins in response to incoming demands, which are communicated via precise chemical signals that either come from within the cell itself, or originate elsewhere in the body. These signals work by selecting specific stretches of gene sequence (“written” in DNA) to be read off and converted into corresponding protein sequences (which are “written” in amino acids). The number of different proteins produced by cells in the body is estimated to be somewhere in the realms of a couple of million. Each of them coils, bends and folds into its own unique shape, according to the signature of physical interaction that occurs between its constituent amino acids, all of which have slightly different distributions of electrical charge and molecular bonds.

Some of these protein shapes act as building blocks for structures such as muscle and skin, whereas others function as tools for breaking things apart, or putting things together. Some act as vehicles, carrying important stuff around the body, while others work to neutralise germs and viruses that get into us. Yet another class of proteins works in communication, as chemical signals (like those mentioned above), to trigger the production of yet more proteins, perhaps in cells some distance away from the ones in which they themselves were put together. In some cases, a protein’s communication errand entails recognising a certain sequence on a certain chromosome, and sticking to it in order to deactivate a gene, or perhaps cause it to go into programmed hyperactivity, which would result in a concentrated outflow of another specific protein.

So, each copy of the genome (in every cell) acts like a mini factory, and The Genome, in its singlular, more abstract sense, is responsible for matching supply and demand in a vast supersystem of interconnected production, maintenance, communication, and transport subsystems.

The growth and maintenance of this supersystem depends on cells’ ability to make copies of themselves, which is itself based on DNA’s ability to self-duplicate, since every new cell needs its own copy of The Genome. As with any copying system, DNA replication has an inherent, unavoidable error-rate. In the course of a human lifetime, some 10,000,000,000,000,000, (ten thousand million million) cell divisions take place. It is estimated that the probability of an error being made is approximately 0.000001 per gene, per cell division, under normal circumstances (i.e. in the absence of mutagens – substances which promote mutation). It follows that any given gene in The Genome can be expected to have experienced mutation around one million times in one lifetime. Unsurprisingly, evolution has stumbled across a number of mechanisms to fix errors as they arise. Occasionally, however, things do slip through the net. And it is at these moments of accidental neglect that cancer has its chance to begin laying the groundwork for infiltration.


So, what is cancer?

Cancer is the product of a collection of genetic alterations that promote “selfish” behaviour in cells, at the expense of the body in which they live. A situation is set up in which natural selection, fuelled by a building momentum of newly-acquired mutations, works (unintentionally, of course), to cultivate an increasingly deviant population of cells that “compete” with their neighbours to proliferate their own mutant genotypes, a phenomenon which begins to manifest as a tumour. In the sense that they are subject to natural selection, tumour cells have started to look quite like unicellular organisms such as bacteria, which, as we know all-too-well, can evolve extremely quickly, thanks to the exponentiating speed with which a cell population can multiply. So, in the case of cancer, what kind of accidentally-acquired traits could flip a perfectly respectable, law-abiding body cell into the realms of cancerous activity? And what “skills” might then be “useful” for it in its selfish accrual of control?

The most obvious power that must be acquired by a somatic (body) cell, via a change in its genome, is that of overcoming restraints on cell division. Cells that begin breaking the rules like this are, in most cases, eventually detected by patrolling immune surveillance mechanisms and sentenced to death by apoptosis, which consists in a signal that commands the cell to digest itself. Thus, by the time detection occurs, for the trajectory of cancer development to continue, another “ability” must have been acquired: that of evading such a signal. A mutation conferring this ability may arise before or after uncontrolled cell division was allowed to begin, but of course one of the numerical implications of increased division is that the absolute rate of copying error is increased, so it follows that an already illegitimately dividing cell lineage has an enhanced likelihood of chancing upon a signal-evasion mutation.

Now, any additional increase in tendency toward DNA mutation represents another “advantageous” trait for a cancer cell in-the-making and, therefore, any mutation that deactivates DNA repair mechanisms, or tampers with DNA copying mechanisms themselves, become favoured. (As a quick aside, when we talk of a “favoured” mutation in this context, we mean one that boosts a cell’s probability of reproducing more prolifically, relative to cells lacking the mutation, and thus becoming increasingly over-represented as a proportion of the population, as this population grows.)

The next barrier a potential cancer cell in a growing mass must overcome is the stringy matrix of proteins that surrounds it, keeping it stationary and contained within its designated area of body tissue. Without the ability to do this, a cell can spawn a mass of abnormal offspring, but this localised tumour can be easily surgically removed. Such a tumour is considered “benign”. Conversely, a tumour whose cells have undergone mutations that allow them to invade and colonise surrounding tissues is considered malignant. Fugitive cells are said to have metastasised, escaping through blood or lymphatic vessels to form secondary tumours, or metastases, in other parts of the body. Once this has happened, it can be very difficult, and often impossible, to eradicate the disease.


A “Miracle Cure” for cancer?

Now, in case it hasn’t already become clear that no amount of guanabana juice or religious adherence to a macrobiotic diet could possibly cure cancer, I want to discuss this now.

Cancer is in fact not a disease, but a category of highly diverse diseases, the exact causes of which, both ultimate and proximate, are different in every patient. At this point, I want to distinguish between ultimate and proximate causes. Ultimate causes are things like smoking, drinking, exposure to radiation or UV, inherited predisposition, diet, lack of physical activity, and other things that are yet to be identified. Proximate causes are the specific mutations, conferring the specific traits discussed above, that allow cancer to begin and progress. Loosely speaking, ultimate causes get closer to answering “why”, while proximate causes are more about “how”. Everyone knows that cancers have a lot of different ultimate causes. What a lot of people don’t know is that cancers have an extraordinarily diverse set of proximate causes, too. It is thought that, in most cases, between 5 and 10 mutations, contributing towards the selfish powers outlined above, are needed to create the conditions for metastatic cancer to arise. However, (and crucial for our purposes of winning in a debate in which somebody says that cancer can be cured with megadoses of vitamin C, ginseng tea and bloodroot extract), these mutations may appear in any of thousands of candidate genes. A “favourable” cancer-enabling trait like genetic instability could be achieved through disruption of any of a huge number of possible cellular systems, at any of a huge number of potential stages along the biochemical pathway making up such a system. Since so many genes, and such an immense number of genetic interactions and systems are involved in the regulation of cell behaviour, in any given case, a unique profile of mutations (and therefore a unique set of cellular malfunctions) can give rise to the same cancerous symptoms in cells. This can be seen by looking at the genetic mutations found in tumours from different people suffering from the same form of cancer. While there are some genes that present mutations in a considerable number of cases, most mutations harboured in a cancer cell genome are ones that have never been seen before. In fact, if you compare cells taken from different areas of the same tumour, you find that there is considerable diversity in terms of what has mutated. The more genetically diverse a tumour cell population is, the better its odds, by chance, of harbouring mutations that protect it from potential treatments, so the more likely it is to survive and recoup after an attack from a course of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or oral medication. Particularly sinister here is that, since the survivors of such an attack become the genetic founders of the subsequently regenerated tumour cell population, any mutations which played a role in allowing the surviving cells to live through such an attack will now be ubiquitous. By the time the tumour has grown back, it will thus be extra-robust: more resistant to future attacks of the same kind, and sporting a whole load of new mutations to boot. This is just one of the reasons why choosing the right treatment, at the right dosage, is absolutely critical.

At the centre of cancer are not “cancer genes”, but an interdependent and vastly complex network of biochemical pathways, all of which are potentially disturbed by mutations in any of the genes involved in making them work. An effective cancer drug therefore needs a very specific mode of action – it needs to attack individual components of a faulty biochemical pathway. In the absence of knowledge of which biochemical pathways have been mutated, there is no way in. We are far from understanding all cellular biochemical pathways, and even further from understanding the precise ways in which each gene is involved in those pathways. What we do know is that it is monstrously and mind-bogglingly convoluted. I hope it’s becoming clear by now just how impossible it is for someone who has not examined the genetic aberrations within a specific tumour, and who does not understand cell biology, to make it go away.

Even if we did have a full documentation and understanding of all the biochemistry going on in cells, the idea of a comprehensive, all-round Cure for Cancer is implausible, due to the sheer number of different genetic and chemical components involved in different different diseases from the cancer category.

Current cancer treatments take advantage of the properties that define cancer cells as distinct from normal cells. For example, some exploit their genetic instability. Ionising radiation, for instance, damages DNA. Both normal and abnormal cells get zapped, but whilst normal cells will arrest their cell cycles until they have repaired it, cancer cells, characterised by their “ability” to ignore damage to their DNA and continue dividing, dying as a result of the catastrophic DNA damage they experience when they attempt to do so with defective chromosomes.

The main defining feature of “Complementary” and “Alternative” Medicine (CAM) cancer ‘treatments’, as compared with science-based cancer treatments (apart from the simple fact that the former do not work, of course) is that, unlike science-based cancer treatments, they are not targeted. Drug targets emerge from what is known about cell biochemistry. Biochemical pathways that are observed to have been disrupted by mutation in a significant number of cancer cases represent places to look for such targets. Their various stages each represent a sort of window through which cellular behaviour might be modulated. Herceptin provides an illustration. The “HER2” gene, which mediates the HER2 pathway, is mutated in 20-30% of breast cancers, causing the over-expression (churning out of too many) HER2 receptor proteins (proteins that sit on cell membranes and act as signal receivers). These receptors receive signals that, via a cascade of cellular events, stimulate the cell to grow and proliferate. Cells with an abnormally large number of HER2 receptors on their surface can grow and proliferate too quickly and too much. Herceptin intersects this pathway by blocking – getting into and jamming – HER2 receptors. In HER2-positive breast cancers (particularly when combined with chemotherapy), this can halt tumour growth. Herceptin’s ability to do this relies upon it having exactly the right molecular shape to fit into its target receptor – just like getting into your target house depends on your having a key that is exactly the right shape to fit its lock. Success of treatment depends on perfect specificity between drug and drug target.

CAM providers’ claims that alkaline water, or coffee enemas, or dietary changes can “cure cancer”, apart from anything else, work on the erroneous assumption that cancer is a single disease, entirely overlooking the diversity that characterises cancer as a disease category, and directs research in oncology. These cancer cure claims can often be identified as phoney by virtue of their also appearing in CAM (or in some cases legitimate) advice on cancer prevention. There are indeed various sensible lifestyle changes that can be made to reduce risk of cancer onset (squirting coffee up one’s behind or daily endeavours to “alkalinise” the body not falling into this class), but once cancer has begun, none of these changes are capable of targeting an already-growing mass of cells.

Incidentally, many phoney cancer-cure claimants invoke the “power of antioxidants” to destroy tumours. This presumably stems from the suggestion that antioxidants can help reduce the risk of cancers developing in the first place. Notwithstanding the fact that the free-radical theory of ageing has been called into question, the reasoning that says “since antioxidants help prevent cancer, flooding already-present cancer with them must help to cure it too” is fallacious. Indeed, in some cases, antioxidants can actually help protect cancer cells that have broken away from their surrounding mesh of protein and would otherwise have died as a result.

While some of the big cheeses in CAM are no doubt ignorant rather than just callous, I’m not sure the distinction is particularly pertinent, since their ignorance is elective. All the information is out there, and making the active decision not to study cancer before taking cancer patients’ lives into one’s hands is shamelessly unethical. Hardly surprising though, since being an oncologist means years of training and difficult exams. CAM practitioners seem to want it all: to avoid ever putting in any effort to really understand cancer pathology, yet reap the satisfaction of being revered as experts; to take patients’ money, but circumvent academic scrutiny. To achieve this, they cheat, lie and manipulate, unconditionally dismissing all evidence against the efficacy of their methods. They demonise oncologists, radiologists and surgeons, labelling them as “Big Pharma shills” who just want to earn the Big Bucks by selling products to patients. Using cherry-picked and misleading statistics, they say that chemotherapy is “poison” – a global conspiracy that “creates customers not cures”. In making this argument, they ignore the fact that countries with national health services, like here in the UK,  offer chemotherapy for free, and that what the statistics really show is that chemotherapy has greatly improved the average cancer sufferer’s prognosis.

Cancer quacks cash in on oncologists’ deeply-held responsibility to be absolutely realistic about what can and cannot be expected from available treatment in any given case, offering failsafe cures where actual doctors could not. As Science-Based Medicine’s David Gorski puts it: “It is ironic that CAM proponents often simultaneously tout how individualized their treatment approach is, but then claim that one product or treatment can cure all cancer. Meanwhile they criticize the alleged cookie-cutter approach of mainstream medicine, which is actually producing a more and more individualized (and evidence-based) approach to such things as cancer.”

Our only weapon against CAM’s Crimes Against Humanity is education. Next time someone casually mentions that cancer can be cured “from within”, or that “acid degradation of cells” is what causes tumours, don’t let it slide!


johnson This 1908 advertisement offered a 125-page book of patient testimonials as proof of the value of “Dr. Johnson’s Mild Combination Treatment for Cancer.” Testimonials—genuine or fabricated—often are the most effective sales ammunition for quack products, and the easiest to obtain. Drugs that work are supported by scientific evidence obtained from carefulIy controlled tests.

(picture and accompanying blurb from


Government Experiments Reveal Humans Are Capable Of Bending Physical Objects With Their Mind (…or not)

An article entitled “Government Experiments Reveal Humans Are Capable Of Bending Physical Objects With Their Mind”, hosted at and other conspiracy and pseudoscience websites, references only two sources, neither of which live up to the promise that “this-is-something-all-humans-are-capable-of-heres-the-proof”, as laid out in the article’s URL.

ImageThe first of these sources is a truly mind-warping document, entitled “Teleportation Physics Study” which, it transpires, was funded by the US Air Force, for the price of $25,000 – a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of dollars its rather obscure author, Eric Davis, urges be spent on further research into the areas he covers therein. These include quantum teleportation, traversable wormholes, and…psychic teleportation – AKA psychokenisis (PK). Physics professor and famed sceptic Lawrence Krauss describes Davis’ report (a more fitting term than “study”) as “in large part crackpot physics,” with “some things adapted from reasonable theoretical studies, and other things from nonsensical ones.” As anybody who has read or watched “Men Who Stare at Goats” will know, the military has a well-documented pseudoscience track-record, and its penchant for quackery and mumbo-jumbo continues into the 21st century.

 In the psychokinesis section of the Teleportation Physics report, Davis cites (apparently without even a hint of irony) the notorious “PK parties'” run by Jack Houck in the 80s, in which Houck believed he could teach guests how to heat up metal with their minds to make it soft and pliable. (Michael Shermer attended one of these and was able to show, with the help of microscope analysis, despite Houk’s strong convictions to the contrary, that the bent spoons produced by the guests, allegedly using a mixture of mechanical and psychic force, had been caused purely by the former, showing no signs of structural alteration by heat.) Davis also describes “psychic Uri Geller” as “the original model for demonstrating PK metal bending” – again, apparently in total sincerity. See below for entertaining links on the denuding of Gellar’s many incidents of fraud.

Houck and Geller have both been comprehensively debunked – typing their names into Google followed by “sceptic” or “debunked” will attest bountifully to their undazzlingness. However, slightly more ruffling than reference to a known con-artist and a deluded fantasist, later in the same section on psychokenisis, Davis cites a handful of obscure Chinese studies, mostly from the early 90s, involving “gifted” people with “extraordinary PK ability” who were allegedly able to make solid objects like watches and horsflies “meld” with walls, and teleport across rooms. Davis claims, with remarkable confidence, that “the experimental results were all repeatable”, and that “the conditions for fraud and sleight of hand were totally eliminated, and multiple independent outside witnesses (technical and military-intelligence experts) were present at all times to ensure total fidelity of the experiments”. His hyperbolic expression of confidence in the openness and authenticity of these studies (particularly given their political context) seems almost fanatical. Suspiciously, three of the four Chinese studies he mentions come from issue 1 of the ‘Chinese Journal of Somatic Science’. I can’t track down any of these papers online. However, let’s just say that, apart from anything else, Davis’ extraordinary failure to notice Geller’s so richly established status as fraudster does not bode at all well for his ability to detect dodgy experimental design or the dubious interpretation/reporting of results so common in parapsychology research (see links below). Moreover, scientists are in no way impervious to the illusions of stage magic – Project Alpha, for instance, saw fake psychics dupe researchers for over four years, stringing them along for over 160 hours’ worth of experiments on their “paranormal” abilities.

Davis also spends a few paragraps talking about all the millions of dollars that the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pack allies invested in “psi” research, including “psychotronics, human mind/behavior control, and the entire spectrum of parapsychology”. Davis never actually explains what exactly this research was able to show, and instead just assures us that it represents a “wealth of experimental data”. He also describes the Soviet Union’s “revolutionary techniques” for influencing human behaviour, which they called “controlled offensive behaviour”, in the same breath as stating that the research initiative of this era had been influenced and informed by material gained from Nazi research centres in and around Germany at the end of WWII. Ooof.

The second source referenced in the article, in case you are interested, is a document entitled “PK Party Format and Materials Required“, in which Jack Houck basically lays down the itinerary for his whacky psychokinesis workshops. He talks about (but fails to provide) electron microscopic pictures of his PK-assisted bent spoons vs control spoons bent with “only” mechanical force, explaining that he shows these pictures to his attendees, “to give some scientific credibility to the phenomena”. As mentioned above, Michael Shermer enlisted the help of a metal specialist to analyse the structure of Houk’s spoons. They fitted the profile for mechanically-bent metal, with no signs of thermal structure alteration.

Government experiments from the Cold War era may well have claimed to reveal that humans are capable of bending physical objects and getting horsflies to teleport (not fly!) across rooms, but the incentive to trust these claims is snivellingly low, and these results have not been replicated in other laboratories. If the experiments Davis cites are “all repeatable” and “rigorously controlled”, why has nobody repeated them, and collected the $1,000,000 James Randi has pledged to the first person who can demonstrate the occurence of a supernatural event under controlled conditions?

Bottom line? When you strip away the hype and outright falsities from the article, what you are left with is a picture which actually shows that despite the millions of dollars spent by the US military and the former USSR, all we have in support of psychokinesis and paranormal abilities are studies that are either debunked or so obscure as to be unavailable to your average Google-user. Since we have failed to find evidence for it in any of the places we have looked, the absolute best we can say for the paranormal it is that, if it does exist, we have no idea what it might do, how it might operate, or where to find it.

I would love you to dip into the Davis report and comment, especially if you are a physicist. – Original article at Collective Evolution – James Randi exposes Uri Geller – Richard Feynman meets Gellar and is disappointed, not just with his failure to demonstrate his psychic powers, but also his failure to do any impressive magic tricks – Great article on the failings of parapsychology as a field – Skeptics’ dictionary entry on parapsychology – goes into some of the most common problems with experiments that researchers have claimed support the existence of ESP

Misinformation in anti-milk propaganda


A piece of anti-milk propaganda featured on the appropriately-named website “” has started cropping up here and there. Its basic message is: don’t drink milk – it’s unneeded, unnatural, and bad for you. Naturalistic fallacy aside, the author(s) bring to bear on this message that a large proportion of the world is actually lactose intolerant. But in actual fact, when you look at the evolutionary history of lactose intolerance, this fact actually starts to sound like an argument from the other side of the fence.

Lactose tolerance is overwhelmingly more common in people who have pastoral (cattle-rearing) ancestry; for example, those of north-central European descent. It is rare in people who have non-pastoral ancestry, for example the Chinese. Population genetic studies tell us that the oldest genetic mutations associated with lactase persistence (the retaining of the enzymes necessary for digestion of lactose into adulthood) only reached appreciable levels in human populations in the last ten thousand years – in some populations, the frequency of the genes conferring lactase persistence have taken only 3,000 years to increase from negligible frequency to near-ubiquity. This rapidity, seen alongside other lines of evidence point to strong selection for an ability to digest lactose, and significant survival benefits for those who could do so, compared with those who couldn’t, when milk was available, in recent human evolutionary history. Most Westerners now live in a time of consistent nutritional plenty, so for this sample of the world’s population, generally the ability to digest lactose is no longer a matter of life-or-death. But seen in the light of evolution, the idea that drinking milk is “NOT NATURAL” falls through. And it renders the bulletin’s stats about China vs. Asian-Americans silly, because they correspond exactly to what genes and ancestry predict. Please do take a moment to read about the evolution of lactase persistance, if you are unfamiliar with it. It is a lovely demonstration of gene-culture co-evolution and a striking example of “niche-construction”. See, for example:

One section in the bulletin reads: “cow’s milk is also the number one cause of food allergies among infants and children.” I’ve been to the source cited as a reference for this fact, and the maker of the anti-milk poster has in my opinion been fairly sneaky in its paraphrasing. The actual stat in the referenced document reads, “eight foods account for 90 percent of all (allergic) reactions: milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, wheat, fish and shellfish”. It doesn’t say that these foods “cause food allergies” in the sense of triggering allergies to other foods, which is what statement printed on the bulletin implies, I would say.

I’ve followed all of the cited references at the bottom of the bulletin and can’t find any source to back up their assertion that 62,200,000 Americans are drinking milk even though they can’t digest it. Perhaps I’m not looking hard enough, or perhaps they got that figure using dodgy calculations. If anyone can shed any light, please do. In any case, it sounds unlikely.

The really irresponsible feature of this meme is the clear-cut picture it presents of milk and disease. It implies that higher milk consumption is known to increase risk of ovarian cancer when in fact the picture is not clear, with some studies finding an association between high milk-(and meat- and cheese-) consumption and increased risk of some cancers, and other studies finding the opposite effect. With complex diseases involving so many variables, it is notoriously difficult to single out individual causal relationships, and it is common for different studies to find conflicting results. A meta-analysis in 2005, which looked at epidemiological studies of ovarian cancer and milk consumption, did not find an association. High milk and/or calcium consumption may increase the risk of prostate cancer, but then, it is also seems to lower the risk of colon cancer. The relationship between diet, lifestyle and cancer is a crucial area of active research. See:

The blue and white poster also implies that high milk consumption is known to increase your risk of type 1 diabetes and heart disease. It has been proposed that early exposure (in infancy) to cow’s milk (or lack of breastfeeding) may increase a child’s risk of developing type 1 diabetes – a disease which in most cases is inherited. But it’s not clear that this extra risk accrues to people without a family history of diabetes.

Various studies have looked at dairy and its relation to heart disease and type 2 diabetes. An overview of the available evidence in 2010 found a *reduced* risk of all-cause deaths, heart disease, stroke and T2D associated with increased consumption of milk and dairy foods.  The picture is complicated, unlike the one painted in the bulletin.

Going by the allusions to maltreatment of cows, it seems that really this is an agenda-driven campaign, whose net its author(s) have sought to widen by drawing from nutritional science, being willing to give an unchecked and distorted picture of what the science actually says in the process.

Notice, also, the complete vagueness of equating the saturated fat in “one serving” of milk to “one serving” of fries. How big’s a serving? And is it really all that surprising, and all that worrying, that ounce-for-ounce, milk has “about the same calorie-load as soda”? “Saturated fat” and “calories” are not terms synonymous with “bad”. This poster doesn’t centre around a solid stance or case. Its miscellaneous and dubious contents testify to a lack of quality control in its putting-together. The author(s) have clearly scanned the web for anything that can be framed to fit the anti-milk agenda, and ignored everything else.

Just for the record, I (the UK admin), can really get behind veganism (though this is not necessarily the agenda behind the bulletin) – I think it’s a very worth cause. But the broadcasting of misinformation for promotion purposes it is something that shouldn’t be accepted.

Epidural [guilt] trips and ‘natural’-birth bullies

The evolution of our big brains was costly. Compared to other mammals, including chimps (our closest living cousins), risk of maternal or neonatal mortality during or shortly after labour is enormous. The figure below, which shows infant head-size relative to the size of mum’s pelvic opening in chimps (left) vs humans (right) should make the anatomical basis of this excess risk pretty clear. Nevertheless, dogmatic labelling of “natural” birthing (occurring in the absence of analgesics or other medical interventions) as the “right” method continues to exert considerable pressure on expectant mothers’ decisions. Please know from the outset that we are not against home births or births given in the absence of medical intervention. We are advocates of women’s right to choose what they do with their own bodies, using good information (and not distorted propaganda), without the pressure of being made to feel guilty.


Dr Kelly Brogan (who, despite her medical training, promotes pseudoscience, for example by writing pieces for “GreenMedInfo” with titles like “Why Vaccines Aren’t Paleo”), tells us that “when we “meddle with” labour, “we rob women of an opportunity for psychospiritual transcendence.” Judy Cohaine, also writing for “GreenMedInfo” asks – with the kind of sleaze that makes my skin crawl – “why so many women are taking the epidural trip”. She has this to say of anaesthesiologists:

“In many ways, epidurals are the drug trip of the current generation. Similar to street drug pushers, most anestheiologists in the delivery rooms maintain a low profile, avoid making eye contact and threaten to walk out if they don’t get total cooperation.”

It will not surprise you to hear that alongside atrociously bad analogy-drawing, loaded language and demonisation of medical professionals and mothers who choose “unnatural” births, the NB lobby also employs cherry-picked studies and a heavy slop of naturalistic dogma to “push” (sorry, I couldn’t resist) the view that the pain of childbirth is something women should accept – and gratefully  too – and that medical interventions are…BAD. This dumbed-down and blackened view of such an all-encompassing aspect of human life, and living it in the 21st Century, is a sadness.

The general safety of both C-sections and epidurals has been well established. While no medical intervention is risk-free, the risks are low and “natural” home birthing, which is painted by the NB crowd as the only truly virtuous approach to delivery, is certainly not risk-free either – that’s the very reason why these medical interventions exist in the first place. There is plenty of sceptical literature out there on the scientific data supporting them. See this, for example. Ultimately, though, a mother’s personal decision when it comes to the birth she is going to give is, well, just that – personal. Since each mother is different, these decisions should be the result of her own feelings, combined with individualised risk-evaluation. In other words, they should be made on a case-to-case basis, not on one of blanket statements, ideology, cherry-picked studies (or even crude statistics, for that matter). Despite the immense importance of context, arising from broad diversity in human physiology, desires and experience, as we see so often from the “holistic” camp (so often that the effect of the fantastic irony is beginning to wane), which claims to treat the “whole person”, “as an individual”, unfortunately, NB ideologists gloss over these individual differences and take the insensitive cookie-cutter approach that they claim to oppose.

The potential benefits of epidurals are not limited to pain-relief, but this effect alone is adequate to fully justify choosing to have one. You don’t need me to tell you that childbirth is associated with extreme agony! Some women find it easier than others – some women are in labour for 30 hours, others in 3. Different women have different pain thresholds. Different women have different psychological reactions to pain. Etc, etc.  Epidurals, as Amy Tuteur  points out, “as the most effective form of pain relief”, can “give women control over their own bodies and control over the way in which they behave. This allows women to represent themselves to others in the ways in which they wish to be seen, instead of pushing them into a “non-rational” space.”

Even if some scheduled C-sections are “based on fear”, as an NB advocate I know once argued, this fear is hardly unfounded. There are a host of specific risk factors, individual to each mother, that might in some cases compel some of them to opt for one. Being pregnant with triplets is one example. Having an infection that is more likely to spread to the infant via vaginal birth compared with C-section is another. Being of a very narrow build is another. And in any case, isn’t it perfectly “natural” to feel afraid of giving birth, even in the absence of these specific risk factors? Take another look at that picture. Countless millions of mothers throughout human history have died giving birth. This is not a fear that is instilled in women by the Evil Medical Industry – it’s a perfectly reasonable fear to have. C-sections circumvent some of the risks associated with vaginal births (such as tearing). Yes, they carry risks of their own. But different risks mean different things to different women. The heavy-handed idea that women “ought” to “transcend” the fear of vaginal birth in the absence of analgesics is philosophically unsophisticated, futile, and greatly lacking in empathy. It’s also hypocritical, if you’ll grant that being afraid of something that is painful and risky is “natural”.

There is no doubt that many people have had beautiful, meaningful experiences giving birth at home. And that’s great for them. But pitting “natural” births against those that do not fit the bill, as if women who have their babies in hospital or with medical assistance of any kind are forfeiting the “true” beauty of giving birth, is a nonsense. The banal idea that the beauty of giving birth is tied to the ins and outs of the birth plan is curiously materialistic for such a transcendental crowd. It’s a bit like being under the impression that you can guarantee your dinner party will be a hit as long as you get the décor right. Everyone knows that really it’s the people you’re with, your state of mind and a bit of luck (oh, and the main course, of course) that makes an experience wonderful – not the fancy lights, the bad music you were playing, or even the Sheffield-steel cutlery. The implication that women falling into the “unnatural birth” category have somehow failed to fulfil themselves as people, and should feel guilty for choosing what feels or felt right for them is essentially bullying – baseless, immature and mean.

Which is unsurprising given its origins. The NB movement began when Grantly Dick-Read, a British doctor practising during the 1930s-50s, published Natural Childbirth and Childbirth Without Fear, in which he espoused the view that pain experienced during childbirth consisted in nothing more than the fear of childbirth itself. His (incorrect) basis for this claim was that “primitive” women didn’t suffer labour pains. “Overcivilization” had planted in the minds of women the myth that labour was painful, and women then fabricated the pain accordingly. Dick-Read, it should be noted, also argued that (white) women who limited the size of their family were committing “race suicide”. Woman, whom he dubbed “the factory”, “fails when she ceases to desire the children for which she was primarily made.” He also believed that measures should be taken to prevent “bad stock” from reproducing too much, and encourage “superior stock” to make up the shortfall.

Social Darwinism aside, imputing superiority to a practice simply on the basis of its being “natural” is not wise, but reckless. While some women do get through labour without pain-relief or medical intervention, many millions of others would never have lived to see their child if such interventions had not been available. As a short anecdote, just before I was due to be born, I managed to get the umbilical cord wrapped three times around my neck. You would not be reading this post if C-section had not existed at the time! Portraying “natural” home birth as “spiritually” superior is unethical because it may (and indeed is meant to) influence women’s medical decisions – to groom them into actively rejecting and resisting medical intervention. When this avoidance manifests as turning down professional medical advice to undergo a procedure, unnecessary risk will inevitably accrue.

Once can’t help but notice the parallels between NB lore and Judeo-Christian narrative. Many Christians believe that the heavier physiological burden women carry in reproduction is God’s way of punishing Eve for taking the first bite of the apple. As one nit-wit put it, “Pain is a natural and intended curse of the primal sin. Any attempt to do away with it must be wrong.” NB propagandists remind me somewhat of Mother Teresa and her conceited attribution of beauty and virtuousness to poverty – enjoyment of other people’s pain and suffering, conveniently concealed beneath a smarmy “congratulations”.

Literature of the kind that presents “natural” births as more morally advanced than others employs fear – the very evil it claims to thwart, to harvest cultural (and commercial) success. Don’t let dogma make your decisions for you! 

Further reading:

Andrew Norton Webber – Pissy Attitude.

Over the last few days, I have been embroiled in a bewildering debate about distilled water. I knew that there existed something of a distillation cult, but I had underestimated how deep the rabbit hole went. This blog post is an adaptation of a (very long) Facebook comment I posted as a response to a friend of a friend. He sells water distillation equipment, and seems utterly convinced that drinking distilled water (one gallon a day) will change your life in just one week by “cleaning out” all the terrible minerals in your body. I posted a link to Randy Johnson’s great website, which is the most detailed and comprehensive resource I’ve found on the subject of distilled water and the various opposing health claims that are made for and against it. Check out the section on distilled water, which unfortunately, my debating opponent didn’t find impressive enough to read.

In response, he directed me towards a character called Andrew Norton Webber,  whom he cited as the reason why he got started with distilled water. Since then, I’ve been doing some delving into the swirling vortex of pseudoscience that is Andrew Norton Webber’s brain. The majority of what follows is based on the first third of a three-hour interview he did – you can find it here or, alternatively,  just search for him on YouTube – he’s quite prolific. I want to make this clear before I begin: as I unpick the arguments laid out by him in the making of his case for distilled water (remember I listened to him for a whole hour), you may begin to think – why are you wasting your time on this?

Well, for one thing, he has garnered a non-trivial following. His videos have been seen by tens of thousands, and his name appears all over the “alternative” web. He presents himself as an expert, and speaks with such confidence that many will have been, and continue to be, tempted to use his existence as confirmation of false ideas that they’d like to be true (who wouldn’t be glad if distilled water were a cure-all), on the basis of a few clicks around his website, or a couple of minutes on YouTube. I think Facebook makes it clear just how gullible some people are, and just how seducable people are by names with a few thousand followers (we know, we get it all the time 😉 ).

It is my belief (and sincere hope) that most of the people who cite him and follow his advice won’t have actually realised how mind-frazzlingly incoherent and weird it all gets when you scratch beneath the surface. The over-all purpose of this note is not to berate or mock Andrew Norton Webber. As I wrote it I deleted and re-phrased things continuously in an active effort to soften the tone. But, as you will see, it turns out to be impossible to unpick his claims without automatically exposing the (I’m afraid) dumb-founding absurdities that constitute them. The main purpose of this note is to provide a reality-check for people like the person to whom it, in its original form, it was written to. For people who aren’t “retards” (as much as this word is thrown about as a means to dismiss people as not worth engaging with) and, whom, in any case, if indeed they were, wouldn’t therefore somehow “deserve” to just be left alone to fester in their own stupidity. If one of my friends came out with the kind of stuff we’re about to discuss (I do have some quite bizarre friends), I’d be just as blunt and forthright as I am in this article. I’d reckon that was a darn-sight more respectful than just looking the other way and letting them get on with it. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the highest possible respect I could pay to Andrew Norton Webber is the time and effort I have spent critically appraising his ideas, as an Oxford-educated English lass. Right, glad that’s out of the way.

Before we begin on the topic of distilled water pseudoscience and its (I now know) intimately related companion, urine pseudoscience (which is more common than you think, by the way), let it be known that in the third of the three-hour interview I’ve so far had the stomach to listen to, Norton Webber reveals himself to be a shining example of crank magnetism, proudly buying into chemtrail woo and antivaccionationism, believing that chemotherapy is purely a money-making ploy that does not save or prolong lives, trading in erroneous chemotherapy treatment statistics and painting all “mainstream” doctors and academics as deceitful and money-grabbing. He is under the impression that GMOs are akin to poison, reels off unfounded notions about the pineal gland (a pseudoscience favourite), is a germ-theory denialist, anti-fluoride conspiracy theorist, homeopathy-enthusiast and all-round conspiracy sponge. He also argues that cooked food has “lost its fuel” – that putting cooked food in your body is like burning gasoline before putting it in the car. (This audacious false analogy is topped off with the labelling of all cooked food as “pure death”.) He states as a given that cataracts, artery plaques, arthritis (and disease in general) are just “mineral deposits”. This is one of the (incorrect) assumptions upon which he bases his assertion that drinking distilled water (or urine) can free humans of disease. He also thinks that the kidneys filter 1000 litres of water. Wiki says 180.  And with full certainty, he asserts that a combination of bathing your tongue in urine after suffering allergic reactions (but not using any drugs) and drinking your own urine on a daily will “completely erase” all allergies (ie. Nut allergy-sufferers: throw away your epi-pens), and provide a full-proof antidote to *any* poison. Yes, that’s right, ANY poison.

Now that we’ve broken the urinary ice, I’ll be frank: Norton Webber is obsessed with drinking pee, which he says can cure any disease. He says one can (and seems convinced that indeed one really ought to) continuously cycle one’s urine, forever – “never taking water or food”. Within 3-5 days, Norton Webber claims, your urine, when cycled through you like this, will become “rainwater-clear”. I’ll just give you a moment to consider that. Now, to truly believe this necessitates one of two things: EITHER a complete and utter lack of understanding of elementary physiology, anatomy, chemistry or evolutionary theory, OR an astronomically bold rejection of science in its entirety – because the idea that we can sustain ourselves with our own urine (and be better off for it) is squarely at odds with each of them, on so many levels. If you keep drinking your urine, the water content will get ever-lower, as it is used by your body for metabolism, and evaporated in the form of perspiration. The pee will get further and further from “rainwater-clear”, and this behaviour will pretty quickly kill you.

No doubt Norton Webber would claim the latter of these two things – that he rejects, rather than fails to understand, science. Indeed, he does, superficially, reject science. His package is ostensibly anti-science. No doubt he would retort to scientific objection to the factual basis of his claims by saying that he doesn’t trust science anyway: his explanations and theory wouldn’t be accepted by doctors and those from “institutions”, because these people want to hide the truth and feed us misinformation. In fact, he advises that everyone cast all subtlety of thought out of the window and resolve to always look in exactly the opposite way to the one in which a given “institution” is directing you, because that’s where the truth will be. He refers to “collegitis”, which he says,

collegitisyz2“sets in when you have been to so much college that you only believe things which come out of ‘accredited’ institutions, corporations, brick and mortar buildings and silly white coats”.

But in actual fact, though he might like to reply that he rejects science, this retort is off-limits to him. His whole arsenal of assertions and claims revolves around ‘sciency-ness’ – a continual bastardisation of actual science  – ie. science that comes from a vast lineage of… institutions and… colleges. He discusses concepts such as “vaccines”, “blood pressure”, “cholesterol”, “hydrogen bonding” etc, etc, all of which came to be understood and labelled and explained by science.

Science is not some collection of answers from which we can select the ones we like and leave the rest. Science is a method of inquiry, and it is the method – the way we get to the answers – that makes something scientific. Not the jargon. Science does not demand unconditional trust (unlike Norton Webber and chums do) – indeed, science can only progress because people keep on questioning – but if you want to disagree with it, you must disagree using more science. That means you must disagree with the method, rather than simply reject the answers. If Andrew Norton Webber disagrees with the methods used to establish pretty much everything we know about the human body, including all the physics and chemistry that this entails, then what the bleedin’eck is he doing basing his “truth” on the very concepts established via these very methods? Add to this the fact that he fails to provide even one demonstration of his understanding of any of science’s methods (something he would have to possess in order to reject them – you’d expect him to be showing it off, not hiding it), and it starts to look verrrrrrry close to 100% certain that Andrew Norton Webber is… frontin’, girl. Derision of doctors, scientists and the “mainstream”, along with a sleazy, pseudo-maverick narrative, are used as a decoy and quasi-justification for his lack of knowledge (of the kind that one would acquire through long, hard hours of genuine study, usually via institutions).

As I asked about Ty Bollinger in a previous blog post, if Norton Webber doesn’t trust science and its chronic sufferers of collegitis, why on earth does he enjoin his readers to trust that these scientific concepts he keeps referring to and using to build his case, from science’s institutions, aren’t just deep layers of conspiracy construction, designed to function as a believable framework for all the lies “they” tell us, and that he so valiantly challenges? Perhaps it’s because, in reality, these science terms and concepts function as a convenient conceptual framework for readers to slot his lies (or delusions, or both, depending on your interpretation) neatly into. It makes them easily remembered and spreadable. One thing’s for sure: whenever we see such selective inconsistency, we know the motivation is something other than truth.

At this point, I feel I should stress again that tragic though his position is, and deserving of our sympathy though he surely is, Norton Webber is setting himself up in a position that squarely demands criticism. He is giving out not just medical advice but extreme medical advice which, given that it’s also the wrong advice, is dangerous. To give you a particularly good example of why he needs to be firmly challenged:

“We all have the most terrible times trying to quit our addictions, and I don’t care whether it’s smoking, drinking, eating lobsters every night or whatever your fancy is. Don’t try to quit those. That’s too hard. Just…add a NEW addiction. Add the gallon a day. Everything else from there will follow. You see, misery loves company. And when you’re full of garbage, there’s three layers of trash that happen inside the body, if you exist without cleaning it on a regular basis, which is basically the degradation we’re witnessing in society… is human bodies, or machines, that have never been cleaned. First a layer of dirt forms, and then there’s bugs, that start to live in the dirt, and then there’s parasites that start to live off the bugs. So, if you don’t clean those out, people just become totally wasted. They just become broken down machines. It’s like buying a car, and driving it out of the lot, without ever giving it oil. Oil is the lubricant to an engine – to a mechanical engine. Water is the lubricant, and the cleaner, to a human engine. The body.”

I’ll leave you to ruminate on that. I don’t know about you, but I find the undertones of religious purity, and guilty shame at our filth-accumulating bodies, particularly unsavoury.

Now seems a good moment to ask: whence cometh Norton Webber’s penchant for piss?

The, Bible, of course! He quotes this bit: “Drink water from your own cistern, fresh* water from your own well”, as is the custom for “urine therapy” proponents. He believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Do you, friend-of-a-friend? He is on record as saying “Don’t take the stories from the Bible as allegories. The Bible is truth”. Are you a Young Earth Creationist, like him? Surely not. [I never come across YECs in England.]

Incidentally, it seems more likely that “god” is recommending fidelity here, not piss-drinking, as those words are immediately followed by these ones: “Should your springs be dispersed abroad, /Streams of water in the streets? /Let them be yours alone /And not for strangers with you./Let your fountain be blessed /And rejoice in the wife of your youth. /As a loving hind and a graceful doe,/Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;/Be intoxicated always with her love.”

*In the King James bible, it’s “running water from your own well”, not “fresh water from your own well.”

So, how does drinking pee relate to drinking distilled water? Well, Norton Webber asserts that “the effects (of drinking urine and distilled water) are exactly the same. “It’s not just urine that is the miracle cleanser for the body” – the very reason urine is able to cleanse and heal and allow you live for hundreds of years like Moses and other Biblical characters is because of its distilled water content. In other words, “it’s not urine per se, it’s the pure water within it”. Let’s just be clear that (leaving aside that this contradicts one of his earlier assertions that the reason urine is good for you is probably because of its ammonia content), this makes … no sense. The defining feature of distilled water is that it contains no solutes. Urine is full of solutes – urea, chloride, sodium, potassium, creatinine and others. If we can temporarily suspend stringency just enough to entertain the idea that the “distilled water content” of urine is what constitutes the “vital force” that allows it to de-age you, there’s still the problem that continuously looping it directly would be like the opposite of the distilling process – your urine would contain less and less of this “vitality”, and more and more solutes.

Still on the same outbreath, Norton Webber seems to extend the argument another step – from urine to fruit , implying that you can get the same benefits from drinking fresh (NEVER pasteurised) juice. He seems to be implying, in his own, curiously jumbled way, that it’s the distilled water content of fruit juice that makes it good for you, just like it’s this that makes urine good for you. (Why not just stick with the fruit juice, then?) In this strange moment, he seems to imply that the “vital force” that is destroyed through cooking is in fact the distilled water content. I find it hard to think of a comment to include at this point.

His jumbled misunderstanding of water potential and osmosis (along with other vague bits and bobs) is what seems to lead him (and others) to the conclusion that distilled water can “clean” the body. Theoretically, the extra osmotic pressure applied by distilled water to a solute-containing solution the other side of a semi-permeable membrane allows it to absorb more particles from this solution via a type of diffusion process called osmosis and, in Webber’s world, thus “clean the body” when ingested. But the extra ‘sucking power’, (referred to as water potential) imparted to distilled water is only proportional to the quantity of particles removed from the water in the first place by distillation. Comparing distilled water to tap water becomes a pointless affair when you then compare how either will look when mixed with the contents of your stomach, which contains comparatively enormous quantities of solutes even when empty. It’s a drop-in-the-ocean scenario. Furthermore, even if distilled water were able to absorb significant quantities of substances from your body through the stomach walls (perhaps if one drank huge quantities and stopped eating), this absorption wouldn’t be specific to “bad” chemicals – it would absorb a proportionate quantity of important solutes – ones that are there as a result of millions of years of evolution, and ones that are pushed in pill-form by supplement marketers. (In fact, this flipside is the idea onto which our old friend Dr. Mercola has latched, and from which he constructs his fear-mongering about drinking distilled water, that, according to him “leaches” your body of important minerals. EARLY DEATH FROM DRINKING DISTILLED WATER is the way one character from the anti-distilled-water lobby puts it. See Randy’s page on distilled water for reasons not to take the fear-mongers’ bate on this.)

The idea that urine is good for us because of its distilled water content takes the invalidity of Webber’s philosophy/theory/approach (whatever, they all sound far too noble) to new heights. It is a fundamental inconsistency – a most fatal flaw in his theory. And, of course, it betrays, from another angle, the gaping holes in Webber’s grasp of science. To be rainwater-clear about this: the man advocating distilled water doesn’t actually know what constitutes distilled water.

Leaving all this aside (which seems a perverse thing to do, but no matter), where is this “evidence” that is said to exist to support the claim that distilled water “cleans” the body? Or, for the even more specific assertion, that the quantity of a gallon must be consumed for it to work? Where does Norton Webber get this information or that figure from? As I hope to have convinced you, there is no scientific plausibility working in his favour here.

My hunch is that of the people who find themselves on the fence about Norton Webber’s theory, those who decide to go and do some “research” on whether distilled water completely rids all humans of disease and is the answer to everything, (instead of just listening on until they’re convinced) tend to get sidetracked by “detox” chit-chat. “Information” on detox is everywhere. They kick themselves as it occurs to them that drinking distilled water or urine must be a cure-all, like Norton Webber says it is, because after all, detox is a thing. But detox is another deeply pseudoscientific idea – an ingenious marketing label though, my word. It is a formidable type of pseudoscience, because it sits atop the extraordinarily symbolically-rich concept of purity. “Cleaning” the body and/or the soul is a motif found deeply embedded in religions and mystical traditions throughout history and cross-culturally. This religious metaphor functions whether consciously or not as another means for Norton Webber to dodge the gaps in his knowledge about the very things he claims to be so clued up on, fogging up the picture with mystical smoke and mirrors.

Extraordinary claims, it must be remembered, require extraordinary evidence, with the burden of proof being, as always, on the claimant. Testimonials and anecdotes, despite incessant proclamations of their existence by subscribers and preachers, can’t count. (Indeed, testimonials are a well-recognised pseudoscience red flag.) There are plenty of explanations (aside from that little thing called “fibbing”) as to why people may perceive a certain behaviour as benefiting them. Regression to the mean, placebo, cognitive dissonance, and confusing correlation with causation are some examples – mix these up and pour over an underlying anti-science clique, and you have a recipe for unreliable testimony.

My debating opponent directs me to a page from Andrew Norton Webber’s website, “”, that lists “doctors” and “experts” who supposedly have had “the courage to tell the truth about distilled water”. As I was fully expecting, it is wholly untrustworthy. I’ve looked up the first 14 entries. They each fall into one of three categories: 1) words of quacks and pseudoexperts who promote distilled water; 2) words that can only be found in copies of the actual document I am trying to verify; (ie, that can’t be independently confirmed and are therefore likely to be made up) and 3) words that are taken out of context and don’t specifically make a case for the health benefits of distilled water. Of course, as we’ve already seen, this is irrelevant because testimonies don’t count as evidence. The fact that someone is a doctor does not absolve them of burden of proof – they should face the same scrutiny as Norton Webber.

Furthermore, a few hundred testimonials is actually fairly unimpressive. Norton Webber has a downloadable .pdf  which apparently contains “500+ testimonials. Full book in progress”. There are billions of people in the world. If someone really had found a free, miracle cure for… everything; something that could “reverse the ageing process” and cure all disease, my best bet says that more people would be on board – news would have spread farer and wider, quicker. (Also, I’d wager that Norton Webber would look in far better shape – he cites Annette Larkins, who is apparently 70 years old but looks very young, as “living proof” that following a raw food diet and drinking distilled water reverses ageing. What about all the living disproof then? Why are there not many more like Larkins? This ability to ignore the misses and take note only of the hits is yet another signature of pseudoscience – known as “selective thinking”, or “confirmation bias”.

The idea that “nobody would benefit from funding” studies to show that distilled water has health benefits”, an idea proposed in the debate, is potentially misleading.  True, there is no incentive to spend money on such a study because, as I’ve touched on (and on which thousands more words could be written), there is a complete lack of any prior scientific basis upon which to suspect that drinking urine or distilled water could possibly have any of the health benefits that people like Norton Webber say it has. However, if the idea did have any prior scientific plausibility then of course there would be incentive to fund studies on it. From a mercenary perspective, huge savings could be made across the board  (speaking as someone with a free national health service) if it turned out that such a simple intervention could improve health and save lives.

The notion that Big Pharma is deliberately keeping us ill is untenable from every angle. It’s also massively insulting to all the thousands of people whose ongoing scientific research is dedicated to understanding the molecular intricacies of individual diseases in the quest to make ill people better. In teaching the New World Order conspiracy as truth, Norton Webber is dismissing the humanity and dedication of huge numbers of people, conveying their intentions to improve and save lives as cold, callous deception – without anything but imagination to back up his dismissal. This is called “slander”.

For the New World Order to be true, necessarily, every student of medicine (and anyone else associated with institutions) would have to be deeply ensconced in a vast web of lies; leading brilliantly well juggled double-lives, all in exchange for dirty Pharma payouts. As someone with many friends in medicine, some of whom I studied with at university, I find the perpetuation of this wild and capricious speculation as THE TRUTH not only absurd but supremely irresponsible, outrageous, and conceited.

And let’s not forget, either, that scientists don’t all work for pharmaceutical companies, and not only that but are fundamentally driven by reputation (associated with making significant contributions to science).The achievement every scientist seeks is the privilege of putting her or his name next to a revolutionary insight, especially if it means humanity benefits directly from such an insight. If distilled water (or urine) were a miracle cure, this would have been shown to be true, and the research group responsible would benefit through reputation – the currency of good science. There are such things as rich scientists. There are also such things as sponsors who want to have revolutionary scientists as their pin-ups. If I am a scientist and I demonstrate, using a well-designed study and good statistics, that distilled water has the benefits that Norton Webber and co. say it does (ie, that it can essentially cure all of mankind’s problems), my reputation as a scientist sky-rockets, and I probably make a fair bit of money in the process and as a result. But there’s no point in investing not just money but time and effort into a project one is confident will not bear fruit. For the record, sure, Pharma companies have a lot to answer for. Ben Goldacre is one of their fiercest critics. His book, “Bad Pharma”, is extremely revealing and unfavourable. I recommend it highly. The reality really is worth talking about and challenging, but it is a far cry from the kind of world that Norton Webber thinks we’re living in. If we want to build a good case against something, as Goldacre does, we need to do it reasonably, with evidence – not with recycled fictions and rumours.

In all, Norton Webber’s profile could function nicely as an illustration of practically every item included in Carl Sagan’s baloney detection kit which, if you haven’t read through, I would recommend as well. There are copies of it hosted at various places – here’s one.

Webber flies all the red flags of pseudoscience. His worldview is based on deep and fervently defended disconnectivity between what in reality are inextricably interlocked areas of this human life. He lives in a bubble – he thinks he is open-minded but in fact, he is anything but.  His mind has had to contort itself so much to house such a catastrophically illogical construct that he can in a single moment both condemn cooking because “no animals cook their food before eating it”, and endorse “continuously looping your own water”. (Incidentally, the Bible makes what would certainly appear to be references to cooked food, in the form of feasts and bread. Since god’s been (in his interpretation) so explicit about the wonders of drinking urine, you’d expect him to mention somewhere that cooking literally kills your food, turning it into “pure death”.)

Usually, when I say things like this, the comments that follow are along the lines of “science doesn’t have the answers to everything”. So, just to put it out there, I know it doesn’t. In the words of Dara O’Brien, “if it did, it would stop.” But just because it doesn’t have the answers to everything doesn’t mean that one can fill in the gaps with mumbo-jumbo. In any case – on this particular subject, science happens to know an awful lot. Andrew Norton Webber’s videos have been seen by tens of thousands of people.

*      *      *      *

In case you were wondering, my debate opponent called me judgemental and made some personal slurs on my character. He wouldn’t accept that testimonials don’t count, and he said that it was irrelevant whether the quotes from that list were genuine or not.

download (1)Finally, he said this: “We all have opinions – until we know. Then we don’t have opinions anymore. I am offering you a chance to have KNOWING  and not an opinion”, which was accompanied by the amusing illustration opposite.