The last few weeks have been an eye-opener. We have witnessed Lynne McTaggart slowly crumble under the weight of evidence brought against her by rational thinkers. The self-proclaimed champion of free-speech has silenced debate on Facebook by deleting any comments that bring criticism to the toilet paper she calls a magazine. The claim has always been that those banished from the spiritual realm of WDDTY – were so because of abusive behaviour. Everyone knows that this is not the case, but in fact bans were dealt out for posting real evidence of fallacy in their claims.
I was personally banned for explaining to WDDTY supporter, Julia Barac, that WDDTY are not justified in the way they present the evidence. Julia commented at one point that she believes what WDDTY publish because they reference scientific journals to support their claims. I very politely pointed out that you shouldn’t be fooled and until you examine the evidence provided you can’t be sure that anything they have written is true. As you can see in the screenshot of our conversation, Julia asked me to provide a couple of examples. So I did – and a few minutes later found myself banned from commenting and all my comments deleted.
It would seem that trying to bring a rational argument – one supported by evidence – to WDDTY supporters is a sin. I really want to emphasise to people like Julia just how poorly the writers at WDDTY are at presenting the evidence. It may be an impossible task but hopefully by collating a large number of examples someone reading might have that ‘moment of clarity’ and see beyond the propaganda presented by Lynne and WDDTY. Below is a comprehensive review of WDDTY publications on cancer and the editorial mistakes made in presenting the evidence.
16th October 2013 – Resveratrol in red wine helps beat cancer
This news article cites the scientific paper Fang et al. J Surg Res. 2013.
“If you’re having radiation therapy for your cancer, drink a glass of red wine first. Apparently, it makes the treatment more effective…”
This is already a gross misrepresentation of not only what the reference shows but what the body of evidence on resveratrol also shows. First off, there have been no clinical trials investigating the benefits of resveratrol to radiotherapy, so to jump straight to the idea that you should drink a glass of red wine before radiotherapy is absurd. Secondly, the referenced paper is a pre-clinical laboratory study using cells in a dish, a good starting point for any medical research but not evidence of clinical efficacy.
“right now, the researchers say there isn’t enough evidence for people to ditch conventional therapy in favour of resveratrol, but perhaps that may change when more data is collected”.
They researchers don’t say this at all. They never suggest that resveratrol could replace conventional therapy in the future but suggest that ‘resveratrol may have a potential role as a radiation sensitizer for melanoma treatment’. There is a big difference here – a radiosensitiser is a synergistic treatment used to improve the efficacy of conventional radiotherapy – not replace it. The WDDTY article is only 150 words, and in that brief chatter, they have managed to cock up explaining a very simple piece of basic research.
30th September 2013 – Sunscreens can trigger skin cancer, scientists confirm
This news article cites the scientific paper Turci et al. Chem Res Toxicol. 2013
In this example, the headline itself is a complete fabrication. (1) There is no evidence that sunscreen causes skin cancer. (2) The referenced paper does not ‘confirm’ that sunscreens can trigger skin cancer.
“Titanium dioxide (Ti02) triggers a series of toxic effects—including skin cancer—when it is exposed to ultraviolet light, which is in the sun’s rays”.
This isn’t true – there is no evidence linking titanium dioxide in sunscreen to skin cancer.
Furthermore, at no point in the cited article do the authors mention that sunscreen could cause skin cancer. What their paper shows is how UV light reacts with titanium dioxide to generate free radicals and modify lipid bilayers of cells in the stratum corneum. To jump from this to ‘sunscreens can trigger skin cancer’ is absurd. To state that scientists have now confirmed this when they haven’t is absurd.
30th July 2013 – ‘Safe’ HPV vaccine kills up to 1,700 young girls
We all know WDDTY’s stance on vaccination but claims like this are not only wrong but could potentially put people at risk of cervical cancer. In this article they reference the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on HPV vaccination in the US (July 26, 2013).
This figure of 1,70,0 is actually 1,674, and more importantly is not the number of girls killed by the HPV vaccine. The VAERS collects all the data on vaccine safety and collates ‘serious adverse events’ into one group, which includes hospitalisation, permanent disability, life-threatening illness or death – none of which have to be attributable to the vaccine itself but rather have occurred post vaccination. So 1,700 is already an exaggeration because (1) it isn’t the number of deaths and (2) the deaths are not evidence that the vaccine was responsible.
Interestingly, when you look at the VAERS statistical report on HPV vaccine safety, you find that out of 12,424 adverse event reports there were a total of 32 deaths. Out of these 32 deaths – 14 occurred after HPV vaccination alone. And out of the reported deaths that had significant coronary reports – 4 were unexplained, 2 caused by diabetic ketoacidosis, 1 caused by prescription drug abuse, 1 case of amyotropic lateral sclerosis, 1 case of meningoencephalitis, a case of viral sepsis, 3 cases of pulmonary embolism, 6 cardiac related deaths and 2 due to idiopathic seizure disorder.
“Astonishingly, US health regulators say there are “no serious safety concerns” over the HPV vaccine. Instead, their concerns focus on the low uptake of the vaccine”.
I think it is clear why US health regulators are saying this – and I wouldn’t say it was astonishing. It is too early to know the effects of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer cases, but if it goes the way other vaccines have gone, then I’d consider it dangerous to promote anti-HPV vaccine views based on no evidence.
20th May 2013 – Did Angelina get the right medical advice?
This article is from a longer feature which I have previously dissected in full. It’s riddled with errors.
13th March 2013 – Bitter melon juice stops cancer’s growth
“Bitter melon juice seems to interfere with the growth of pancreatic cancer, researchers have discovered after they tested it on hundreds of patients across Asia”.
This isn’t true – there has never been a clinical trial of bitter melon juice for pancreatic cancer. The evidence suggests that it has therapeutic potential in laboratory and mice studies but no in-human trials have ever been conducted.
28th January 2013 – Chemotherapy helps cancer tumours grow, say researchers
“Chemotherapy isn’t only useless against cancer—it even encourages the tumour to grow, researchers have discovered”.
This is a classic WDDTY statement about the apparent ineffectiveness of chemotherapy. It is of course absolute bullshit and anyone with a rational mind would know that chemotherapy is in some cases the best treatment available. The next bit is good because it suggests that chemo ‘even encourages the tumour to grow’. The study they reference is Sun et al. Nat Med 2012. The paper deals with understanding the mechanisms behind acquired drug resistance in prostate cancer patients – a major problem in clinical treatment. They show that cyclic administration increases expression of the protein WNT16B via DNA damage pathways, which promotes a resistant phenotype within the tumour environment. This is not ‘encouraging the tumour to grow’ but is an effect driven by selection of resistant clones as they adapt to therapeutic intervention. This does not make chemotherapy useless – it means that new drugs need to be developed or combination therapies designed that circumvent resistance.
“They (the researchers) say that chemotherapy is “completely worthless” and that cancer sufferers would do better by avoiding the drugs altogether”.
Do I need to say anything about this ‘quote’? What they actually conclude is: ‘We conclude that approaches targeting constituents of the tumour microenvironment in conjunction with conventional cancer therapeutics may enhance treatment responses’.
While I was writing this one I realised that Sun et al. were probably unaware that they had been quoted saying these things so I sent the lead author an email to find out. Here is the response I got:
It is very, very unfortunate that these groups routinely misquote scientific studies. The paper says nothing of the sort. The objective of the study was to identify resistance mechanisms to cancer therapeutics and to target them to make standard therapies more effective.
Our study has been misquoted and misinterpreted—I believe on purpose—by several of these groups. However, I have not wanted to expend a lot of effort trying to correct this, unless asked directly, as it only adds visibility to their claims.
However, your group and others are certainly more than welcome to go on the offensive and I would be more than happy to provide you with a quote or statement.
March 2012 Much more than placebo: Homeopathy reverses cancer
This is a diabolical piece of journalism on the supposed efficacy of homeopathy for cancer treatment. Rational thinkers are aware that there is no evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathy for any medical condition – especially for the treatment of cancer. WDDTY do not hold back in this article either and in my opinion straddle the clauses of the Cancer Act 1939.
The opening paragraph states: “studies paid for by the US government are showing that homeopathy could be our best defence against cancer. Several homeopathic remedies are as effective as powerful chemotherapy, according to clinical trials, and thousands of cancer cases are being reversed by homeopathy alone.
No reference to what US government funded study they are suggesting but no one yet has published a study proving that homeopathy is effective against cancer. They also claim (with no reference) that homeopathy has been shown to be as effective as chemotherapy according to clinical trials. I couldn’t find any clinical trials to support this and it is not my responsibility to find evidence for such extraordinary claims. Same applies to the ‘thousands of cancer cases reversed by homeopathy alone’ claim.
“in one review of the work at the Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, 21,888 patients with malignant tumours were treated only with homeopathy—they had neither chemotherapy nor radiotherapy—between 1990 and 2005. Clinical reports reveal that the tumours completely regressed in 19 per cent—or 4158—of cases, and stabilized or improved in a further 21 per cent (4596) of patients”.
WDDTY don’t really reference very well here and I couldn’t find the review they were speaking of. The only Banjeri paper from 2008 was this one – a case study evaluation of 4 patients. So there doesn’t appear to be any evidence to back up any of this statement and this is without taking into account the bias introduced by a review carried out by the person running the homeopathic clinic.
“The foundation’s homeopathic therapy—the Banerji Protocol—has been independently tested under laboratory conditions, and two of the remedies used, Carcinosin and Phytolacca, were found to be as effective against breast cancer cells as the chemotherapy drug Taxol”.
The reference they supplied has not been independently tested under laboratory conditions. Prasanta Banerji is last author on the paper yet no conflict of interest is declared. I couldn’t find any other papers that verify these results from an independent lab. The only other relevant paper in PubMed was from 2006 and contradicts the evidence from Banerji’s paper.
“Another clinic in Kolkata, the Advanced Homeopathic Healthcare Centre, claims similar levels of success with its cancer patients and, although well documented, they have not been subjected to the same level of scientific validation as the Prasanta Banerji Foundation”
No reference to these other clinical studies.
“Two of the remedies—Carcinosin and Phytolacca—achieved up to an 80-per-cent response, indicating that they caused apoptosis, or cell death. By comparison, the placebo solvent achieved only a 30-per-cent reduction, suggesting that the effect was more than twice that of the placebo”
This was a description of the lab study conducted with Banerji that has not been independently verified. Bias aside, I would be very concerned that the solvent control achieved a 30% reduction; a suitable control should really have no effect in a well-controlled lab study. This also cannot be described as a placebo effect. Cells in a dish are not affected by the placebo effect.
There’s a whole section under ‘the other clinic’ which contains no references and just a load of anecdotal evidence – not convincing.
This whole article leans on the view that homeopathy is not only effective against cancer, but that it is better than conventional treatments. Yet they provide no evidence to back up these extraordinary claims. Without any evidence why would anyone believe that homeopathy works? More importantly – pushing homeopathy as an alternative to conventional cancer treatment is unethical and dangerous. This is why the Cancer Act was created and I do believe that publishing material such as this breaches that act.