Sunday, 4 April 2010

Skeptics in the Pub: Unnatural Predators by Jourdemayne at Winchester


Skeptics in the Pub is a rational, scientific, anti-woo and brilliant informal pub/lecture series that takes place in many towns across England and now in other countries. There aren't any in Wales yet, but would anybody be interested in setting one up? I haven't a clue about how to do the finances side, possess no audio equipment and have no idea of a venue - but I expect I could ask speakers along and think up topics. Let me know.

I have just been to the Hampshire Skeptics on 1st April, advertised by Crispian - who also made it possible for me to come along. Apparently there is going to be a great one on 12th April in Westminster, to celebrate Simon winning his appeal - I am plotting ways to get there! The speaker was Jourdemayne, on the subject of unnatural predators. No, hang on, let me mention my journey there. I was nearly late for the train - it and I arrived on the platform at the same moment. They never looked out or unlocked their doors - so I wasn't able to get on! I don't know why they stopped at all. I screamed like a banshee and ran after them when they started moving again, because trains from my neck of the woods are only every 2 hours. But they just went off as if I wasn't there. (I hope the passengers told them.) Fuming, I went back to the car to call Crispian and tell him I'd be two hours late. He was busy, so after a moment or two I switched on the engine and drove 15 miles to a station on a different line, which runs at alternate hours to mine. So I was only delayed by an hour most of the way, then got lucky in Reading and delayed even less! An exceedingly annoying, expensive and stressful mishap, though, as you can imagine. Oh, and to cap it all, I opened Crispian's car door onto my face, giving myself an attractive red mark and quite a sore cheek that hasn't got better yet.

But meeting Crispian and several other great skeptics, catching up with Edd, and, of course, Jourdemayne's deliciously gory, funny and thought-provoking talk, was worth all that a hundred times over.

"Jourdemayne", by the way, was burnt at the stake in London in 1441. Very knowledgeable, she also knew a bit too much dark stuff and was accused of witchcraft. Her namesake's real name is Deborah Hyde. Deborah does some acting, but informed us that "acting is a very silly job" and she mostly does behind-the-scenes work such as make-up artistry. She has got into special effects such as vampires and zombies, and for many years has been researching this sort of folklore and how it gets started. "Unnatural Predators", the title of her talk, is also the title of her book which hopefully will be coming out soon.

My first surprise of the evening was when she put up one of the Psalms that states that each of us should live "three score years and ten" (it was my impression that life expectancy had been increasing for the last few hundred years). When someone dies before this age of seventy, there's a sense that something unnatural caused this. And when you grow up enough to become aware that other people have a consciousness like yours - that they think and feel as much as you - it is impossible to forget; and it is rather easy to treat objects and such phenomena as if their behaviour towards you was deliberate, as Deborah showed:

Historically, explained Deborah, there are three times of great danger and high mortality, which are: during epidemics; during childbirth (for women); and during infancy. It is these times around which a great deal of superstition evolved and grew.

One way society often faced - and still faces - things it doesn't like is scapegoating. For example, a particular individual or group or phenomenon may be blamed; and the others may go through rituals to cleanse and protect themselves. (It was all I could do not to make a choice remark or two about certain US and UK politicians regarding illegal wars.) Death itself is usually depicted as some kind of conscious being.

Most people on this world and, of course, nearly everybody historically, never had access to the scientific method. The scientific method basically means: test everything properly, and use nature itself as an arbiter of what is wrong and right. It does not allow for arbitrary invention; it requires things to be checked and checked again; it is a self-correcting discipline. It's brought us to our modern way of life. But it's very counter-intuitive, and you need a lot of education before you can start acting with that as your guide, rather than instinct.

Especially when your own psychology and biology is geared up towards very powerful sensations - about which more anon.

Deborah told us, with great relish, about some of the "unnatural predators" in folklore: the zombie, the vampire, the werewolf, and the Dracula-esque. The idea of the dead walking around reached Europe when there was a dispute between the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman empires over some land, and an Austro-Hungarian chap (though wasn't this centuries before Austria and Hungary became a dual monarchy? - or did they do it in medieval times as well?) went to a village where an epidemic was raging and the locals warned him that the dead were extremely dangerous. It seemed that several people would wake up in the middle of the night in terror and report that those who had recently died had come back and sat on them, sucked their blood, raped them, or attacked them in some other way.

One problem these people had was when dead bodies did not decompose as expected. For example, if buried when the ground was frozen, there would be two results: firstly it would be very hard to dig a deep grave; secondly the body would, of course, be preserved. Blood would freeze in the heart, and thaw in the spring only to leak out wherever - for example at the mouth, hence the stories about vampires sucking blood!

Even more grotesque and terrifying was during the times of the Plague, which usually peaked in the summer (due to the increased rat population) and bodies had to be dumped in mass graves. Dead bodies give off heat as they begin to decompose, same as anything decomposing like piles of leaves and compost heaps; imagine a mass grave of them all giving off heat together! Body parts such as intestines would sometimes explode, spattering blood and guts around; the force of this could move them, too. It would also have made the most ghastly noises. Hence stories about the dead "chewing" in their graves, not to mention of course walking about.

(A few years ago the New Scientist's Last Word ran a question and answer column, "Grave Concern", about why dead bodies sometimes do not decompose. In warm, dry soil, bodies - especially plump ones - can turn to adipocere or "soapy" tissue, made of fatty acids and salts, rather than rotting. This didn't come up, but seemed worth mentioning.)

But what about people's experiences of actually seeing, or sensing, the presence of these people?

Deborah told us about sleep paralysis and how a lot of research has been done on it. As we go to sleep, several "switches" get turned off in a specific order. When sleep paralysis, lucid dreaming or sleepwalking occur, some switches are turned off but not others, or the order has been messed about with (this is how I understood it, anyway). She asked how many of us had ever woken up to find that we couldn't move, perceived our surroundings (the bedroom) correctly - but that it was accompanied by, for example, the sense of a malevolent presence in the room or a frightening hallucination. A few of us had. Fewer than average, she remarked (the area of the pub where we were sitting was packed). "The Nightmare", by Henry Fuseli, could well be interpreted as the effect of sleep paralysis:


In more modern times, sleep paralysis is often associated with such phenomena as UFO visits or abductions; in medieval times a recently dead person or a zombie would be the unwelcome visitor. It also often accompanied a crushing sensation on the chest, as if something was sitting there. It usually occurs when the sufferer is lying on the back. (Aha! I thought - since I don't like to sleep on my back, and I have never had this in full.) The back of the brain actually seems to feel the pressure of the back of the skull. Again, there may be some evolutionary basis in this - for most animals, to be supine is a very dangerous position as the defenceless belly is exposed; so of course they avoid it. (My cats will certainly confirm that.) Incidentally, Elaine Morgan makes a well-thought-out case that this is why sex is so difficult for our species compared to other animals: an approach from the front, for example, is a direct sign of aggression among many primates, and young orang-utan females are often terrified and defensive when approached for mating face-to-face.

Anyway, it seems logical that when the dead were so feared, it should be they who were the demons during sleep paralysis. Indeed, if one person reports that their demon was such-and-such who died last week, and then you saw somebody as well, you and people you tell will probably conclude that it was the same person.

Sometimes the consequences of incorrect conclusions from frightening events can be tragic. Deborah told us about the idea of changelings. It was believed that fairies' children were weak and sickly, and fairy mothers had a habit of swapping their own children for human children and putting the babies they left in disguise. This would presumably account for childhood diseases and other disorders, such as failure to thrive - and perhaps things like autism; who knows? Some parents were told to treat their cuckoo baby well, so that the fairy would bring up their own baby well in return. Others were told dreadful things such as to place the infant on a red-hot shovel and put it in the fireplace in the hope of sending it up the chimney. Tragically, I think she said as late as the nineteenth century a few families still did this - though it was seen as a crime by then.

Deborah also told us about a Malaysian equivalent of the zombie that none of us had heard about: the penanggalang! She is a woman who is not (yet) dead, but who, at night, detaches her head - with entrails still attached - and flies around the village looking to suck blood and the life from babies. The houses' windows do not have glass, and the penanggalan has a tongue like a proboscis to reach the baby with. (They grow plants around the windows to try and catch her. I wonder if they've ever caught any?) Needless to say, Deborah wants a full scale model to display in her office.


Update: The above is a Penanggalang, e-mailed by Deborah just now. Many thanks! It was commissioned for the Unnatural Predators card set and was drawn by Floyd Jones-Hughes.

To the left is a model from a photograph in W. W. Skeat's 'Malay Magic' of 1900. Many thanks for both.

It was a great lecture, after which we took a break and then had an even better questions and answers session. (Incidentally, I got asked by two members of the public what Skeptics in the Pub is exactly - and found it very difficult to define.)

Deborah's father asked the first question, and what a trouble-causer he was being too: "Did an unnatural upbringing contribute to an interest in unnatural predators?" I'm so glad nobody in my family has ever been to any of my talks!! (She first became interested when she got up on a chair to get down one of the few books in her house she wasn't allowed to read, and it was about the dark arts.)

She was asked more questions about folkore, such as werewolves - I asked if the business about garlic and silver and so on was a recent film-maker addition. She said no: for example, garlic is pretty smelly, like the dead, so this was a "like cures like" attitude (good job I wasn't sitting next to anyone I knew or I think they and I would have nudged each other until we'd wet ourselves laughing!); and garlic is also quite a good antibiotic, so it was actually a form of hygiene as best people could do. Someone also asked why people didn't burn the bodies they feared so much; the answer was that very little fuel was usually available, and burning was usually reserved for important people.

Someone asked if she believed that, for example, Africa with its current fashion for witch-hunts, is going through the same episode as Europe went through in medieval times. Deborah said probably yes: many people there won't have much access to education or the scientific method. She also told us that there is a strong correlation between superstition and times of social unrest. For example, she said, there was a great deal when Protestantism took over from Catholicism in the UK: before, the homeless were sent to the monastery to get bread, but afterwards, they were your Christian brother and you had to look after them - "so they went from someone to be pitied to a pain in the arse".

But most of the questions were about sleep paralysis and other personal experience.

There were several questions about sleepwalking. An amusing lady asked what is going on when she suddenly leaps out of bed and says something like "I can't find my little blue pony" and hunts for it for five minutes before gradually waking up. I think we concluded that this was a form of sleepwalking! Another good question was: is it true that you shouldn't wake a sleepwalker? Deborah replied that it's not dangerous, as in it won't hurt them - but it can be a terrific shock. (My mum has never got over the story of a little girl climbing a tall crane in her sleep, and the rescue team having to get her down again without waking her.) Another hand shot up in the air: "As a sleepwalker, I beg you never to wake us up suddenly, it's absolutely terrifying!"

I asked a question which, ten years ago, I'd have found intensely personal and would have left me feeling desperately vulnerable, but which I could now ask as a matter of cheerful scientific curiosity. When I was twelve years old I was finding things very difficult at a rough school, so it was quite a stressful time. As I said earlier, I never had the experience of sleep paralysis (which makes me a little jealous!) - but I certainly did sense the "malevolent presence" a lot at age twelve, and occasionally for the next few years. It was always when I was alone, and it was always right behind me - unless I was in bed, in which case it was always in the darkest places, such as the shadows around the window. It was usually at night, though occasionally would seize me during the day. I was never 100% fooled: deep down I knew it was a lot of nonsense. (I think I was a born skeptic; I had decided by about age 5 that the idea of God was rather implausible.) I remember reading for the first time about mental illness and paranoia in a science textbook when I was 13, and spending the next three years worrying about that. Even so, I might have forgotten the whole business had I not incorporated it all into a story I wrote for a long time a few years after that.

The audience listened with interest and laughed sympathetically when I told them about the worry - although I hope it was clear that I myself found my younger fears funny now! Deborah told me that it did not sound like sleep paralysis, though some of the switches may have gone off in the wrong order - but, crucially, a very powerful experience like that can come back very easily, without the special triggers, and especially in a time of stress. The mind is very creative, after all. Fascinatingly so.

She was asked - to everybody's eager enjoyment! - if she had any tips on inducing a lucid dream. Lucid dreams are closely associated with sleep paralysis, though are not the same thing (for example, you are not conscious in a lucid dream, though you are aware that you are dreaming). She recommended avoiding what she tactfully termed "pharmaceutical help", as that reduces your own control over the situation. She recommended deliberately messing up your sleep patterns: four hours' sleep, then two hours of wakefulness, using your brain, going on the Internet for example (no, the two are not mutually exclusive!) and a cup of coffee. Then lie on your back, as described above for sleep paralysis. And although this sounds initially like woo, it makes a lot of sense: because it's very common to sense a "thing", a presence, or feel something crushing your chest, practice feeling love and acceptance towards it so you don't get frightened. For example, convince yourself that it's your cat or your bunny rabbit. (As it turned out a beautiful tabby cat gave me plenty of practice in putting up with her turning round and round and round and round and round and round on my tummy that very night!) Once you're practiced enough, people assure me, you can do whatever you want in a lucid dream. I shall certainly go on a trip round the Universe, if I ever make it!

After the lecture, while Crispian was putting away the audio equipment, Sean Ellis - @ofquack - popped over to chat with me about the "malevolent presence". He said that it's very commonly felt, which didn't surprise me at all. He also told me that it's been given a name by some - "the shadow people" or something like that. I said I'd Google that, which I must admit I haven't yet; but his remarks on it directly tallied with my experience. For example, he said, it's always right behind your head. I remarked that it probably has an evolutionary basis - if you're under stress in the wild, as our race was for a lot longer than it's been "modern", stress probably means there might be a lot of predators about. "Exactly," said Sean, "if you're wrong, the only problem is you get a bit scared; if it's the other way round, you'd get eaten. So better to have a false positive."

Which has a great deal of significance, if you ask me, for people who believe in unproven medicine!

Wednesday, 31 March 2010

We can't tow that away! Think the clamps will work?


Caption on Twitter: "Would the owner of the Ariane rocket parked outside please report to reception."

This was just tweeted by Newbury Astronomical Society - the Twitter account which led the twittersphere to meteor watching, which was the subject of a talk at the Royal Astronomical Society! (I made the comment that Twitter can indeed be very powerful, for example when it helped overthrow Trafigura's injunction. I might however have kept my mouth shut if I knew everything said was being written down and that I would later be approached for my name . . .)

Sadly, I barely saw any meteors either last summer or the summer before that. It was too cloudy. But in summer 2007 we did have clear nights and a dark moon, and my sister and I would take out the deck chairs and blankets and woolly hats and count as many as 18 in less than an hour. They're so fast, and so silent. I'll never forget my first ever - I was leaning out of the skylight of my attic room in Brighton before it was even quite dark, a truly magical experience! But the silver lining of all those clouds getting in the way is that, at least, the things they hide will be back next year. That's the lovely thing about astronomy. It never stops waiting.

Anyway, presumably largely as a result of all that tweeting, I'm delighted to announce that Adrian West of Newbury Astronomical Society was recently invited to the UK Space Conference, nominated for an Arthur Award (he's under "Individual Achievement"). "Didn't win, but just being nominated was an honour. It was fantastic and well worth going too," he told me on Twitter.

It was at the UK Space Conference that that beautiful rocket picture was taken. That's definitely an original and very effective form of advertising. Well, it got my attention, anyway!

On that subject, I recently heard an excellent story about a Saturn V rocket "parked" in a similar fashion near Utrecht Cathedral to demonstrate just how huge and impressive a rocket can be (they were about the same height) - and that that captured the public's imagination pretty well. I immediately wanted to write about that, of course, but Googling got me nowhere - does anyone have any links?

Sunday, 28 March 2010

Crisptrals

This all just came to me whilst making myself a ham and cheese omelette . . .

VOICEOVER: Following defeat at the Castle of Common Sense, each of the chiropractors rode their separate ways. Sir Chiro rode north, through the dark forest of Suing, accompanied by his favourite Crisptrals.

CRISPTRALS: Bravely bold Sir Chiro rode forth from BCA
He is not afraid to lose, oh, brave Sir Chiro!
He is not at all afraid to be mocked in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Chiro.

He was not in the least bit scared to be argued to a pulp
Nor to lose the public's trust, and his accounts broken
To have McTimoney split and his e-mails all on show
And his lawyer's subluxations, brave Sir Chiro!

The skeptics laugh and the public look
At the evidence, trials and our Singh's great book
And the spotlight on all the stupid claims
They make -

SIR CHIRO: That's, errrrr, that's enough music for now, lads, it looks like dirty skeptics at work.

They pick their way uncomfortably through a forest of bogus evidence. At one point they see DENNIS and the laboratory woman cleaning up the mess.

DENNIS: But anarchy in science is a way of preserving freedom!

WOMAN: Oh, Dennis, forget about freedom. This paper 'ere is rubbish.

SIR CHIRO is so busy looking left to right and back to left again, he fails to see the THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC in front of him!

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: HALT!!!!!!!!!!

SIR CHIRO staggers to a stop, his eyes bulging.

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: WHO GOES THERE?

CRISPTRALS: He is brave Sir Chiro, brave Sir Chiro -

SIR CHIRO: (to CRISPTRALS) Shut up! (to THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC) Errrrrr, errrrr, nobody really, just a salesman!

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

CRISPTRALS: To claim, claim . . .

SIR CHIRO: (to CRISPTRALS) Shut up!! (to THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC) Oh, er, nothing really, just - just trying to get into the medical business, good sir skeptic!

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC: I'M AFRAID NOT!

SIR CHIRO: Ah - er. W-well, actually, I am a knight of the Spinal Patients.

THREE-HEADED SKEPTIC:: YOU'RE A KNIGHT OF THE SPINAL PATIENTS?

SIR CHIRO: I am!

HEAD 1 (who turns out to be Simon Perry): In that case I shall have to report you.

HEAD 2 (who turns out to be Zeno): Shall I?

HEAD 3 (who turns out to be Jack of Kent): Oh I don't think so.

ZENO: Well, what do I think?

SIMON: I think report him.

JACK: Oh, let's see if he can use any science.

ZENO: Oh shut up.

SIMON: Perhaps -

ZENO: And you.

SIMON: Oh, quick, get the Advertising Standards out, I want to take his website down.

JACK: Oh, take your own website down!

ZENO: Yes, do us all a favour.

SIMON: What?

JACK: Typing on all the time.

ZENO: You're lucky, you're not next to him.

SIMON: (outraged) What do you mean?!

ZENO: You write billions of tedious letters.

SIMON: Oooooh, I don't - and anyway, you write bad tweets.

ZENO: Well, it's only because you don't join Think Humanism.

JACK: Oh, stop bipping and let's go and have tea!

SIMON: All right, all right, all right. We'll report him first and then have tea and biscuits.

ZENO: Yes.

JACK: Oh not biscuits.

SIMON: All right, all right, none of the biscuits, but let's report him anyway!

JACK AND ZENO (to each other): Right.

They look around.

SIMON: He buggered off.

JACK: So he doesn't have any evidence.

CRISPTRALS: Brave Sir Chiro ran away.

SIR CHIRO: No!

CRISPTRALS: Cherry-picked away, away!

SIR CHIRO: I didn't!

CRISPTRALS: When science reared its curious head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, Brave Sir Chiro turned about
And gallantly went to the court
To use the libel laws instead -

SIR CHIRO: I never did!

CRISPTRALS: He beat a very brave retreat -

SIR CHIRO: All lies!

CRISPTRALS: - from sci--ence!

SIR CHIRO: I never!

(Related posts: The Back Knight; The Back Knight's Mentor; The Back Knight's First Practical)

Saturday, 27 March 2010

The Periodic Table of Science Bloggers

Today I present to you the most genius Periodic Table I have had the fortune to come across. It's by David Bradley of Sciencebase (@sciencebase on Twitter), and it's the Periodic Table of Science Bloggers. I waited a few days before putting the pictures up, since he's been refining it beautifully as the real Periodic Table was refined during its gradual appearance into the world. As you see, science type is colour-coded; symbols are there; rollover text describing the element is there; links are there; and best of all - new names are there!

I have the honour to be magnesium - Milky Way, rather than Penguin, Galaxy - rather appropriate for me as often rather firey and reactive (not reactionary, please), especially when provoked, though I will allow people to meld me into skinny grey ribbons sometimes. You will often find me near hydrogen, potassium, ununtrium and xenon. I'm hoping one day that some clever chemist will discover Zoonivum and Edminium!

I see that I do need to start branching out and trying to react with an awful lot more elements - though obviously the first place my brain starts reaching for is wondering what other Periodic Tables I might be able to dream up . . . ?

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Ada Lovelace Day

Ada Lovelace Day is a worldwide effort to get as many people as possible to blog about a heroine of science or technology. Why it's held 24th March I'm not quite sure, for Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace, was born on December 10th 1815 and died of cancer on November 27th 1852, at the tragically early age of 36. But I bet you wouldn't have thought that the first ever computer program was written by a woman, would you? It was, though. By her.

Ada was born to the poet Lord Byron and to Anne Isabelle Milbanke who, having separated from her husband only a month after Ada was born, was keen that Ada learn mathematics be turned away from such pursuits as poetry, in case she inherited her father's rebelliousness and worrying moods! This did not work. Her life seems to have been full of complex Victorian scandals and not always generous comments from other people. It is only recently that her work with Charles Babbage and his analytical engine seems to have become well-known. She spent many months translating an article about it and writing her own set of notes for its use. As this website puts it,
Ada called herself "an Analyst (& Metaphysician)," and the combination was put to use in the Notes. She understood the plans for the device as well as Babbage but was better at articulating its promise. She rightly saw it as what we would call a general-purpose computer. It was suited for "developping [sic] and tabulating any function whatever. . . the engine [is] the material expression of any indefinite function of any degree of generality and complexity." Her Notes anticipate future developments, including computer-generated music.
Not being much of a one for computer programs myself, I will turn to three science heroines I know. Finding Ada asks us to write about just one. But that's never really been my thing; I've always seen science as a complex and often social process, practically every achievement being made by many people one way or another. Well folks, if you want one favourite you can have Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, but now for lots more . . .

If I have to pick one right now I think I'll go for Dr Helen Walker, who's not only running She is an Astronomer, but got an IAU Resolution - a positive move for female astronomers across the entire world - up and running. In a few days we're going to be advertising the She is an Astronomer conference which should take place in April. Helen works on satellites, our atmosphere, dust around stars old and young, and is one of the three Scientific Secretaries for the Royal Astronomical Society. She has published around 100 papers. When asked about her career with Rutherford Appleton Laboratories, she says, "I would like RAL to recognise the contribution I make, and this would normally be through promotion, but that’s not going to happen. I do not fit the accepted model, and I enjoy my semi-detached status working with scientists outside the UK." But she predicts that younger women astronomers will have more opportunities than she did. I've met her a couple of times and she gave a great impression of strength and calmness. I'm really looking forward to helping out with her conference!

Another woman I feel very honoured to have met is Jill Tarter of SETI. She is named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and when I shuffled up to talk to her after Astrofest she left an impression as strong as Helen's. Obviously I had to wait some time to get to her, but when she turned to me, she immediately took my Solar System shirt and stretched it a little to admire it in full! After securing private funding for SETI to continue its work after public funders gave it up, after the (I am told) extreme annoyance of being the inspiration for the character Ellie Arroway in Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan's "Contact", and goodness knows how much more, Jill is still full of new ideas for SETI. In fact, "Galaxy Zoo on speed" is a phrase that came up: there are some distinctly interesting plans ahead, and the public may be able to take a more active role in SETI than simply downloading a program. That was why I went to talk to her, and it might just turn out that I have a little contribution to make - I am on tenterhooks with hope . . .


One more lady to mention: our very own Jules Wilkinson, who has just taken over as moderator for the forums of Solar Stormwatch and Moon Zoo - about which more as soon as I have time. Jules has set both forums up beautifully, though will soon to leave Solar Stormwatch in the capable hands of Els and two or three others. She is a tireless force for knowledge and enjoyment at Galaxy Zoo, has collected galaxies for and prepared beautiful help threads, and has also got us to do 365 Days of Astrophotography - I don't think a single day has been missed yet! Jules has just retired and can devote herself to astronomy now; she's already been studying for it at the OU and indeed pushed me into doing the same thing. And just a couple of days ago, another of her pictures made AAPOD. Good for you, Jules!


There are a great many women - and men - doing an outstanding job in astronomy, not to mention other sciences and technology, these days. Three cheers for them all - I wish I could write about so many more, but sleep calls. But I hope Ada Lovelace Day gets a lot of good blogs about a huge variety!

Update: I think the best Ada Lovelace story has to be Hedy Lamarr at Vagina Dentata. What do you think?

Tuesday, 2 March 2010

And therefore . . .


Proofs That Homeopathy Works!

THE CONSPIRACY THEORY ARGUMENT
1) Anyone who doesn't like homeopathy is clearly in the pay of Big Pharma.
2) The fact that Big Pharma also makes homeopathy pills is neither here nor there.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE CHERRY PICKING ARGUMENT
1) Some quotes support homeopathy.
2) The skeptics say not if you read them properly, but that's just twisting things.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE CHERRY PICKING ARGUMENT (2)
1) Some scientific papers find that homeopathy does work.
2) Others find it doesn't.
3) The skeptics claim that #2 are the better ones, because they have better methodology.
4) Yeah, but they were funded/invented by Big Pharma.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE "HOLISTIC" ARGUMENT
1) Homeopathy treats the cause, not the symptoms.
2) The very principle of homeopathy is to find an ingredient that mimicks the symptoms. But the same symptoms can mean a host of different things. For example, a headache may mean tense muscles, eye strain, or meningitis.
3) But homeopathy is holistic.
4) And you just don't understand homeopathy.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
1) Quantum physics is weird.
2) I don't understand it, and surely you don't either.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE CONSUMER CHOICE ARGUMENT
1) For Boots to remove homeopathic products from the shelves is to attack consumer choice and deny us our freedom.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM NECESSARY OPPOSITES (1)
1) There are problems associated with conventional medicine.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM NECESSARY OPPOSITES (2)
1) Homeopathy doesn't cause side-effects like conventional medicine.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM NECESSARY OPPOSITES (3)
1) A doctor once misdiagnosed my head cold/food allergy/weird wart on my finger.
2) This was disgraceful. I pay his wages. I will never go to a doctor again.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM NECESSARY OPPOSITES (4)
1) When I was 13 a doctor was mean to me and dismissive of my headache/period pains/splinter.
2) See #2, above.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE MYSTICAL ARGUMENT
1) You don't understand how homeopathy works, which only goes to show how ignorant you are.
2) I don't understand how homeopathy works, which only goes to show the mysteries of science and the life-force which narrow tick-boxes cannot define.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
1) Someone had an idea!
2) It is just petty to suggest this idea might be wrong. You're jealous and close-minded.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (2)
1) I have an opinion.
2) I am entitled to my opinion.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (3)
1) My opinion is that homeopathy works.
2) If I disagree with your opinion, that is my right.
3) If you disagree with my opinion, that is persecution.
4) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (4)
1) We felt really intimidated by the mean-spirited Ten23 protest.
2) We didn't even dare unfurl our banner.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY
1) I can't believe the placebo effect would work on animals and children.
2) Apparently it does, but I don't believe that.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY (2)
1) If it's harmless and doesn't work, why are they attacking it?
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

ARGUMENT FROM THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE
1) I don't understand the science of homeopathy, but once upon a time we didn't understand electricity either.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL PREFERENCE
1) I don't like what skeptics say.
2) Therefore, skeptics must be narrow-minded.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL PREFERENCE (2)
1) I don't like skeptics.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY
1) Galileo was persecuted for his belief that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
2) The fact that Galileo had deduced this with experiments rather than simply thought it up, while the Church was the source of unreasoned faith, is far too complex a matter to understand and you are simply picking holes in my argument because you have no ideas of your own.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM DIGNITY
1) Skeptics ask why water does not remember poo.
2) That is a very undignified question.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

ARGUMENT FROM DISLIKE OF SCIENCE
1) Double-blind randomised trials make it clear that homeopathy does not work.
2) Well, they must be wrong.
3) And I don't like science anyway.
4) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES
1) Homeopathy cured my auntie of cancer.
2) She took chemotherapy and had an operation too, but she didn't like either of them and it can't have been that, chemo contains nasty chemicals.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM ALLIES
1) Skeptics don't like chiropractors either.
2) Poor chiropractors.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
1) The Ten23 campaigners are only proving their own ignorance by overdosing.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE OPPOSITION ARGUMENT
1) I read in an article that skeptics approve of GM food and think 6 month old babies can survive 900 vaccinations in one go.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE THEORETICAL ARGUMENT
1) Skeptics claim to be the guardians of universal truth.
2) Those of us who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE THEORETICAL ARGUMENT (2)
1) Our bodies are designed to heal themselves.
2) Excuse me? Are you saying that deaths of starvation mean homeopathy doesn't work?
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE MORAL ARGUMENT
1) We went all the way to Haiti to treat earthquake victims with homeopathy.
2) Wasn't that nice of us?
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE ROYAL ARGUMENT
1) The Royal Family use homeopathy.
2) They have very long lives.
3) And they must be right. They're the Royal Family!
4) What? Of course they don't live longer due to other causes as well. Don't try to sidetrack my point.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE POLITICAL ARGUMENT
1) Politicians such as Evan Harris are losing votes by their bad behaviour attacking homeopathy.
2) We know he's wrong because he's a politician.
3) Politicians such as David Tredinnick are doing a great deal of good in the face of a difficult Parliament.
4) We know he's right because he's a politician.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM THE TOILET
1) The water in your toilet is different in more ways than in chemical composition than water out of a spring.
2) You need me to explain that?!?!?! HA HA HA HA HA YOU ARE SO IGNORANT!
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

ARGUMENT FROM HUMOUR
1) We can make a lot of claims about skeptics, that will make you laugh until your throat is sore!
2) For example, they believe pregnancy is a disease, think people should be vaccinated, and don't know the difference between LIVING and DEAD FOOD!!!!!!!!
3) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
4) Actually, some skeptics are laughing at you for saying that.
5) But of course they are. They have nothing real to laugh at because they live such miserable lives.
6) Of course they will deny their stupidities, once said stupidities are exposed.
7) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE CONSISTENCY ARGUMENT
1) Sometimes skeptics change their minds.
2) THEY RETRACT THEIR VIEWS!!!
3) THEY ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG!!!!!!
4) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE HARMLESSNESS ARGUMENT
1) Nobody died as a result of the Ten23 protest.
2) This only goes to show that homeopathy is not dangerous, like conventional medicine.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE LEGAL ARGUMENT
1) Simon Singh is being sued for libel.
2) He must be a malicious liar.
3) Homeopaths are being criticised and mocked and defamed.
4) We must be right; truth is always attacked.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE ARGUMENT FOR "NATURE" (AND IGNORANCE)
1) Homeopathy is natural.
2) What, it isn't herbal?
3) Well, it was invented 200 years ago.
4) My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with facts.
5) Therefore, homeopathy works.

THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT
1) Homeopathy saves the NHS money.
2) It also doesn't make drugs companies a profit (unless of course they're the same drugs companies that manufacture conventional drugs).
3) Therefore, drugs companies say homeopathy doesn't work.
4) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT
1) ΨPPR = a ΨPx + b ΨPr + c ΨRx.
2) There you are - serious science!
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY ARGUMENT
1) Show your support for homeopathy! Please retweet!
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

THE NUMERICAL ARGUMENT
1) Only three MPs have so far signed the so-called "evidence check" on homeopathy!
2) That is disgraceful.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

GODWIN'S LAW ARGUMENT
1) I don't understand why homeopathy is being attacked.
2) It must be something to do with Hitler.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

And finally, a masterpiece of beautiful, logical thinking by one of my new Twitter followers . . .

ARGUMENT FROM CONSTIPATION
1) Skeptics are constipated.
2) How I think I know about their bowel movements and indeed why I concern myself with such things is an undignified question.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

Thanks to Captsharkey, Batarista and Medtek for pointing me to specific sources, and many highly amusing websites and comments pages I've been enjoying myself over the last couple of months!

Please point me in the direction of any more sources or arguments - and you know what I'd really love? For this to become a chain e-mail.

Update 1: Very many thanks to @FerFrias on Twitter for this wonderful translation - and Menéame, a Spanish website, for bringing in más tráfico!

FerFrias wrote two more "reasons". How I could have failed to include the latter I don't know. Here they are:

ARGUMENTO DE LA REPUGNANCIA FÍSICA
1) No me gusta tu cara, así que no pienso escucharte.
2) Luego la homeopatía funciona.
(Fuente)

ARGUMENTO DE LA FAMA
1) Algunos famosos utilizan la homeopatía.
2) Obviamente, los famosos saben sobre la salud mucho más que los simples médicos y científicos.
3) Luego la homeopatía funciona.
(Fuente)

This means:

ARGUMENT FROM PHYSICAL REPUGNANCE
1) I don't like your face, so I don't have to listen.
2) Therefore, homeopathy works.

ARGUMENT FROM FAME
1) Some famous people use homeopathy.
2) Obviously, celebrities know far more about medicine than doctors and scientists.
3) Therefore, homeopathy works.

Right on!!!

PS again - This has now appeared on at least 4 Spanish websites and at least one German one. Thanks to all of you and I hope you were suitably entertained. You can now download a Spanish translation as a PDF file here!



Update 2: 17th January 2011

KERRYHOMEOPATH'S ARGUMENT
1) Your brain is 80% water.
2) You remember stuff.
3) Therefore, water has a memory.
4) Therefore, homeopathy works.
(Source)

SkepticBarista's reply: .@KerryHomeopath Excrement is 75% water. If Water has memory,#homeopathy is full of shit.
TimandraHarknes's reply: Beer is 93% water. I drink beer, I remember nothing. Therefore homeopathy cannot work.

Update 3: 23rd September 2011

ARGUMENT FROM GAIAHEALTH (WHICH THINKS IT UNDERSTANDS CERN)
1) CERN proves the speed of light is not the universal speed limit.
2) We'll just ignore the fact that this is not peer reviewed, nor published, nor certain rather than an error.
3) And hide that by accusing skeptics of ignoring studies that are . . . yes, flawed.
4) Therefore, homeopathy works.

PPS - I originally wrote this at the top, but is has become quite secondary so can go at the bottom.

"It's been a good few weeks for the skeptics. Although we're still awaiting the outcome of Simon's appeal, it was much enjoyed by Jack of Kent, Crispian Jago, Index on Censorship, Skepticat, Jack in fun mode, and many more. You can read the entire transcript of the appeal here on Jack's website. I have read the beginning and end and a great deal awaits my untrained brain. It reminds me of a play in some parts. Perhaps it should become a play, performed perhaps at the Tricycle Theatre whose production of "Called to Account" I shall never forget?

"In the meantime, it's also been an enraging few weeks for, I think, the homeopaths even more than the chiropractors. The recent Evidence Check on homeopathy has not been good news for them. Spies inform the Twitterverse that a mass Twitter attack is on the way [NB. In fairness to all, I did not observe this in the end. But if it was homeopathic, I wouldn't have] . . . so I thought it time to hurry up and publish an especially nasty idea my mean-spirited nerdy brain had nurtured for a few days - inspired by Godless Geeks (health warning: you will either love this last link or hate it; I think you can work out which from the name)."

Tuesday, 23 February 2010

Simon's Appeal in 3 hours

Today, 23rd February at 9:45 a.m., Simon Singh's supporters are gathering outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL. Anyone can go along; and anyone can hear the appeal, which takes place at 10:30 - just under 3 hours from now.

Simon is in remarkably good spirits, tweeting about the London Word Festival (which looks fun!), and thanking people for their support. (I love Twitter.) I admire his bravery. The boss I was describing yesterday also attempted to take me to court for "theft", i.e. sending one or two e-mails to my friends during the 7 months I was lucky enough to work in his office with permission he subsequently denied giving me. Even that piece of petty idiocy was terrifying. But then I was only 18. It's wonderful the strength people can develop. The British Chiropractic Association say that Simon has rounded up a bunch of malicious supporters to get revenge. I, and I'm hardly alone, say that Simon has turned their mean-spirited and illiberal repressiveness into a wonderfully positive campaign, a campaign that seriously needs to happen in view of the English Libel Laws. It is mortifying that the wealthy can pop along to our country to sue people halfway across the world, and that the burden of proof is on the defendant. This had to change - and it is now changing!

For the latest news, Jack of Kent and Crispian Jago have, as ever, written great posts with, as ever, varying degrees of seriousness. And (update) here's a wonderful article in the Times: "Test medicine in the lab, not in the court" by
Raymond Tallis. This wonderful sentence jumped out at me: '“Tested in court by the most powerful lawyers” is not an exactly reassuring statement on the patient information leaflet.' Whoopee!

Sense About Science, among so many others, have done a wonderful job in raising awareness. And Simon has had an idea to send more ripples of awareness through the population. I understand we're well over 30,000 signatures now . . .

Please sign the petition to reform libel laws. Doesn't matter if you're English, or live in England, or not - they are currently available to be hijacked by anyone of any nation, regardless of whether or not this is suitable or just. And good luck Simon today!

Monday, 22 February 2010

The Ticking Bomb and the Tooth Fairy

When I was very small, my mother told me that flies were bad. When I was also very small, I think it was "Black Beauty" in which I was very surprised to read a passage in which one boy beats up another boy for being cruel to flies. When I got older, I suddenly remembered that I used to think it was all right to be cruel to flies and general "bad" creatures, and felt shocked and sick with myself.

A lot more years later, I so often hear or read something like: "Yeah, that's a great theory, but real life isn't as nice as that" as an excuse for such things as cruelty. The implication is that innocence, immaturity, weakness, a general lack of thought, is the only place for goodness - while real thought and ability is the place for wrongdoing; and idealists should grow up, stop making others feel guilty, and join in. I suppose one could say that this idea goes back to the Garden of Eden, and probably many years before that. Personally, I'd say that it's the other way round.

A week ago, Bruce Anderson wrote an editorial in the Independent that caused a furore whose like I have rarely seen. He claimed: "We not only have a right to use torture. We have a duty".

He begins by detailing the revoltingness of torture, rather as a boss I once had used to begin trying to order my 18-year-old self to "grow up" and approve of corruptness and dishonesty by lecturing me on the damage that corruptness and dishonesty can do. Possibly this introduction is intended to forestall uncomfortable retorts, and make the opposition feel thoroughly depressed.

He then goes on to claim that torture provides us with useful information, that "although we find torture repulsive, it does not follow that those who are tasked with governing Pakistan could safely dispense with it", and that "we should be grateful for the Pakistanis' efforts on our behalf". He claims that America is too sophisticated to need to use torture at present, though it might in the future, if presented with the famous "ticking bomb" scenario.

This "ticking bomb scenario" is the crux of his argument: "the intelligence chiefs, grey and drawn from lack of sleep, inform the Prime Minister, ditto, that it seems almost certain that a nuclear device is primed to explode in the next few hours. There is a man in custody who probably knows where it is. They are ready to use whatever methods are necessary to extract the information..." Anderson favours waterboarding. He also favours the torturing, if possible, of the prisoner's wife and children.

The general idea of the article is that it is better to torture one person, or a few, than to allow "the ticking bomb" to explode and kill millions. He says what so many people say, to make the idealists feel immature: "There is nothing to be gained from refusing to face facts".

Very well. Let us actually start thinking, and examine some facts.

Of course, we don't have very many facts to hand - which is why, for example, we are simply supposed to take it on trust that the information gained by the Pakistani torturers or Guantanamo is useful, accurate, worthwhile, and could not be obtained by other means. I don't take that on trust. Anyone being tortured will eventually say absolutely anything to get the agony to stop. They will sign false confessions, they will probably end up babbling nonsense. And of course any terrorist with half a grain of sense will have a good misleading cover story or two. Meanwhile, what is the actual likelihood of knowing that somebody has planted a bomb, and while you don't know where the bomb is you do capture the right person? If there is one incident of this ever happening (TV shows do not count), I would be very interested to know. Frankly, I doubt that it has ever happened or ever will.

. . . Where do I get all these "facts"? From logic, from the news, from the Internet - from, I hope, growing up and understanding human beings. Even from being bullied at school, where I was once thrust up against a fence, had my arms pinned behind my back, and had a lit cigarette shoved into my mouth, and this was a fairly normal day; and at the office when I was 18, where I eventually found it less trouble to admit that it was entirely my fault that the boss had made an idiot of himself or trashed all the company files, than to tell the truth and be disciplined even further for arguing.

And from books, of course. I recommend "The Railway Man" by Eric Lomax, which I found by reading The Independent's version of this haunting article about Nagase Takashi, a wartime interpreter for Japanese torturers and who has spent the rest of his life in repentance. Isabel Allende's books describe how Pinochet's Chile used torture to terrorize and repress its citizens. Thomas Powers's "Heisenberg's War" reminds us of the horrors Fritz Houtermans went through at the hands of the Soviets, who thought him a German spy, and the Nazis, who thought him a Soviet spy. The former told him untruthfully that they had captured his wife and children, at which point he signed all the confessions they wished. Anhua Gao's "To the Edge of the Sky" tells the story of interrogation in Mao's China; how, having nothing to tell them, but knowing they would not let her go until they had a name, she simply gave them a name of a woman she did not like - and it worked. And Sattareh Farman Farmaian's "Daughter of Persia", the best book I have ever read, shows us only too clearly what it was like living under a reign of constant terror of imprisonment and torture in the Shah's Iran.

Torture is never one isolated incident. Anderson's article makes it sound like one; offers a choice between one wrong and another. But it doesn't work like that. The torturers, those who ordered the torture, and the victim and their community, are all a part of it. How many countries whose governments use torture are forgiven and respected by the rest of the world? A torture victim who may not have been radicalised before capture is far likelier to do so afterwards, as are their family, friends, and perhaps whole country. After the ultimate suffering and humiliation, they will probably be a broken person. A broken person cannot trust others, form relationships, or, probably, hold down a job and be a productive citizen. Pure cold selfish economics should decree that breaking down a person in such a way leaves the state an expensive mess to clean up. You've also taught them torture, which they might go on to use on others. To say "they do it, so why shouldn't we" simply says, "We do it to them, so they can do what they like to us". And I have seen people argue that a terrorist whose intention is to blow up everyone surrounding them has given up their human rights - whether or not that is so, that does not mean we have given up our human responsibilities.

Just as I disagree with the message of the Garden of Eden, I also disagree that "sin" is something we carry around inside us until it is extracted by a mythological being, rather as detox purports to purge us of past burgers and fries. And yet it is rather a good metaphor, because a torturer must carry what they've done inside them forever. They might become a Nagase; which would certainly defeat the government's purpose, so they'd have to employ someone else. More likely, they'd have to desensitise themselves to what they'd done. They might become lost and withdrawn. They might grow to hate themselves. They might enjoy their work, the implications of which are sinister. What kind of a work culture would it be, having colleagues like that? Would they do it to each other; would they bring it out of the workplace, perhaps? And once a moral boundary has been crossed, how far do we go beyond it? Would the government start setting targets for how much information must be got out of suspects per year, requiring arbitrary torture? At what point, in any case, do you decide you can stop torturing someone because they've told you everything you want; at what point, indeed, do you decide that torture is necessary?

The comments pages (12 pages, by now) are heartwarming. To read a few of them right after the article, I felt like despairing at the human race. To read most of them, however, affirms my faith in it, and my hopefulness at learning and teaching us not only citizen science and working together, but to choose the right thing. Many people wrote movingly that they would prefer to die in a terrorist's bomb than live under a state that tortured. Others suggested that a good way to avoid the need for torture, and fear of bombs, is not to invade other people's countries. The Independent's letters have been pretty good too; though why they call it a "debate" I know not, given the unity of the writers! They'll probably be deeply buried soon, so I'll link them: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday - in which one of mine got published, sarcastically (I couldn't resist) comparing the "ticking bomb scenario" to the tooth fairy telling a reader to rape a child in order to bring about world peace. I hope it is clear by now that, put in a sort of vaccuum, one might choose to sacrifice the child - but to put it into the context of the whole world, it's obviously nonsense. (The rapist and raped are not exactly in a state of peace for starters.)

Some Twitterers were angry enough to set up a Facebook group against the torture of children. One letter was jointly from Amnesty International and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the very group that helped Eric Lomax. I looked up the latter and was very pleased that I had. The "Torture Myths" section is particularly well worth a read . . .

At first, I was nauseated that the Indy could have published such a hideous, violent piece; now, like one of the letter writers, I am pleased they did - for the way to defeat a hateful argument is to expose it, and answer it. Torture is in every way wrong, and arguments against it are not merely liberal, self-indulgent wooliness, nor childlike innocence that the thoughtful outgrow: both human and logical arguments answer it clearly. For those of it who accuse me of "not thinking", I can safely respond, "Think yourself."

Sunday, 14 February 2010

The Mathematician's Valentine, etc.

Yes, I really will type up my Astrofest notes soon!

In the meantime - you must seriously check out the Mathematician's Valentine. Shapes, folds, Mobius-strips-turned-no-longer-Mobius-strips, graphs, equations, and finally sweets to fall back on - plus the, er, true heart-throb, fail-safe, sweep-'em-off-their feet poem:

Roses are red.
Violets are approximately blue.
A paracompact manifold with a Lorentzian metric,
can be a spacetime, if it has dimension greater than or equal to two.

(I suppose I should add that no really mathematically inclined person I've showed it to seems impressed yet. But I loved it.)

To mark the occasion of today, or probably rather choosing today as an excellent opportunity to cover something I hadn't realised was regarded as a long-standing mystery, ZookeeperChris wrote an Object of the Day about "The Heart Galaxy", or SDSS 587729227151704160.


If you're more patient with mysterious computer simulations than me, you'll do much better at the Galaxy Zoo Mergers project,which is featuring this galaxy today. Chris has a Masters student named Georgia Barrie studying the rings, who tells us that she will be sharing the results of the world's largest ring catalogue with us soon. Good to meet you Georgia, and I look forward to it!

And totally off-topic but not least, many congratulations to Zookeeper Karen, who's just produced her 2nd addition to her family!

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

Homeopathic Overdose Story in the Western Telegraph

The article about my homeopathic overdose is now in the Western Telegraph, our local newspaper. Check out the online version as the paper version has a photo of me looking extremely silly! Have this nice picture of the Town Centre instead, taken from PBASE. Boots is right behind the Clock Tower.


A very nice beginning!
A national campaign against homeopathic remedies being in sold in Boots stores was brought to Haverfordwest on Saturday.

One woman from Johnston took a lonely but determined stance against the so-called alternative remedies, joining a mass ‘overdose’ of homeopathic tablets, to prove that they have no effect.

At least two readers are less impressed. It's the first time I personally have been lampooned in comments pages, though customers and schoolchildren have said far worse things to me in my time - I can't quite decide what it's like, yet. These criticisms are really rather pitiful (so far). A very useful thing to go through, I guess - as Karen kindly showed me. I don't think I'm as ignorant as they call me, but it's a healthy reminder never to pretend I know everything - about anything!

Many thanks to Katy Woodhouse for interviewing me and writing the article! They didn't go into the science - I guess there wasn't room - so I did that in the comments for them.

Hope you enjoy it!

Update: By midnight, it appears to be the most read and commented on story! Though perhaps that is due to a lot of input from a few people, rather than some from lots!