The Truth About Nutritionists…

January 12th, 2007 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, homeopathy, nutritionists, patrick holford | 57 Comments »

…is the title of a stage show I’ve written with a friend. Amazingly it looks like it might also be commissioned elsewhere (for Radio 4, in different form) and really I’m just showing off. But that was the least interesting thing in my email this week. Because people have started to lobby me.

Firstly, some publicist who thinks they’re a bit clever has sent me a copy of a bonkers book by a bonkers pseudoscience author, with the clear intent that I will mock it and so donate publicity. I’ve never felt so dirty, and if you look around their iffy literature, PR companies calculate “advertising equivalents” for the exposure they manage to get a given brand for free in the media (Holford’s people, for all their Wiki shenanigans, are clearly very good at this). But I can’t help wondering, how often do I do more harm than good? I mean, I thought I might have been giving the Microfascist posse a bit more airtime than they deserved, but then they did recently get quoted favourably by the ex-head of NIH…

Meanwhile the abuse from the electromagnetic hypersensitivity lobby continues to pour in: 7 (seven) huge, lengthy emails sent at 5am from one person who then, at midday the next day, writes again to say: “Ben you did not respond to what i sent you. There is overwhelming proof about the problem. Catherine”

I’ve had challenges from American homeopaths to debates – backed up by an email campaign (moi?), more abuse from homeopaths, demands that I write about some pressure group that nobody has heard of, more abuse from senior homeopaths, still more abuse from the MMR people, and even more abuse from homeopaths.

I only mention this because recently it has started to get really quite seriously out of hand. Some of them imply violence. Some of them threaten – angrily – that I cannot quote their abuse or their name, and by implication that I must endure their personal, abusive vitriol in silence. Let me be very clear: your names are all going into a very big list, and I shall be forwarding it to Santa.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you like what I do, and you want me to do more, you can: buy my books Bad Science and Bad Pharma, give them to your friends, put them on your reading list, employ me to do a talk, or tweet this article to your friends. Thanks! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

57 Responses



  1. PhilS said,

    January 12, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    Post it, post it all.

    IANAL, but what’s to stop you, legally, from “quoting their abuse or their name”? If they’re claiming some copyrights to their email, dubious at best, don’t you have the right of fair dealing, allowing you to review or critisise works?

    Any lawyers out there?

    Sorry, wikipedia is the best I could find : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom

  2. Ben Goldacre said,

    January 12, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    i would say that for opening emails sent out of the blue i am quite entitled to post, for subsequent discussion maybe its murkier. this is a commonsense moral stance rather than a legal one.

  3. Rob K said,

    January 12, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    If they’re sending you threatening or abusive emails, you can probably make them quite unhappy, especially if they’re using a work email account or a reputable service provider. Just forward a copy to postmaster@whatever, with a note saying that you’ve received this email from someone using their service and you find its content unacceptable/threatening/offensive. Of course, you may have better things to do with your time…

    Rob

  4. PhilS said,

    January 12, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    Don’t see the difference; all the correspondence, from the last to the first, was between Harry the Homeopath and Ben Goldacre, Bad Science ninja. What’s the difference between that and a series of letters to the editor of the Times, for example, being printed in full?

    And I’m not entirely convinced that any of these snake oil peddlers deserve such delicate moral consideration…

  5. EP said,

    January 12, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    This was another annoying PR stunt:
    nextgencode.com/
    It’s a plug for Michael Crichton’s latest bad science novel. Visitors are encourage to sign up to show their support for the campaign against the book and then sent a load of plugs for it. It would have been impressive if they’d actually done some research and made a nicely convincing site instead of trying to work out the most controversial page titles.

    This is coming from someone who works in PR by the way. If you’re interested in this sort of thing I’d recommend www.prwatch.org/ – lots of stuff on bad science PR in there

  6. coracle said,

    January 12, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Wow, I don’t envy you at all. It does, at least, suggest that you must be doing something right!

  7. JunkkMale said,

    January 12, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    I have sympathy, as even in the delicate groves of enviro e-academe, you can end up with some rather disconcerting equivalents of G.Bush’s ‘bring it on’. Especially prevalent where one uses humour, logic and facts to successfully counter (and show-up, wherein may lie the problem), bias, agendas, hissy-fits and hype. Speaking of which, you are right to ponder one’s contribution to ‘no such thing as bad publicity’, but logically staying silent is not an option should one be concerned that all good persons (ok, I’m a PC-brigade coward) do nothing.

    In one rather nasty incident recently, I found myself pulling out of a deteriorating online ‘debate’ with an ‘Anon’ (who knew who I was when I did not know them) when they said the next time the ‘gloves were coming off’ and they ‘would get into the gutter’. I have since wondered whether, at risk of sounding like a schoolyard wimp, that was worth taking further with the Forum host at least, if not further. Surely what you describe above could be deemed a threat of assault?

    As a pure aside, and bearing in mind my area of specialisation, I was interested in your use of the word ‘lobby’, as it has cropped up a lot, like with Tony ‘D2AID2AIS’ (don’t do as I do, do as I say) Blair’s holiday flip-flops on airlines and travel. Thanks to a Green MEP press release I read a government Minster is frustrated he can’t do anything because of ‘the power of the air lobby’!

    I know it has its origins in meeting out of Chambers or some such, and hence doubtless originated here, but until now I had it as a US-based phenomenon and didn’t really pay it much heed. No longer. These guys are unelected yet shaping my future.

    But what is it? Far as I can gather it’s a guy paid a lot by some other guys to whisper into a guy with a vote’s ear to swing their way. So far, so open to corruption. But in the case of people not open to a bung, which I presume includes HMG and its officers, how is it any more powerful than ‘putting one’s point across’. Which is fine, unless it gets more sinister and drifts into areas of undue influence.

    If we’re talking ‘or else’ then surely it is illegal, he said naively, having watched Judge John Deed last night.

  8. superburger said,

    January 12, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    how do we know ben is not just a massive viral marketing campaign for the whole CAM industry and it’s all just an elaborate double bluff

  9. Ben Goldacre said,

    January 12, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    heh. busté.

  10. CDavis said,

    January 12, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    I love the description of seven huge emails as ‘overwhelming proof’.

    Reminds me of the definition of someone with herpes, AIDS and chlamydia as an ‘incurable romantic’

    CD

  11. Dr* T said,

    January 12, 2007 at 5:52 pm

    I concur with #3.

    Nonetheless, I’m sure Benjamin that your skin is as thick as they are – don’t let the bastards get you down. They wouldn’t be getting so uppity if they thought you weren’t having an impact. Take it as a measure of success.

    In fact, if it is getting you down, have a look at your tongue, that will give you an indication of your inner well-being. It may be necessary to take some echinacea extracts and empty your mind to realign your chakra :)

    T

  12. censored said,

    January 12, 2007 at 5:58 pm

    If you added an auto-signature to your emails, with some small print blurb about “By replying to this message, you agree that correspondence may be used in future Bad Science articles”, you’d be covered.

    By the way, nice segment on the otherwise barely watchable Watchdog the other night. How about a Bad Science TV show? I’d watch it…

  13. RedSevenOne said,

    January 12, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    There is ONE SIMPLE RULE, and One Only – Never say anything you can not afford to lose – PERIOD

  14. raygirvan said,

    January 12, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    If you added an auto-signature to your emails, with some small print blurb about “By replying to this message, you agree that correspondence may be used in future Bad Science articles”, you’d be covered.

    But if that’s true, why not the converse? (i.e. if they add a blurb to their mails saying you can’t repeat the content). I’d love to know the answer; I’ve also had one or two snotty e-mails of this sort in the past.

  15. Bob O'H said,

    January 12, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    Why has no one pointed out that getting less abuse from homeopaths would be more effective? Has that become passé? Or haven’t they worked out how to potentise bile yet?

    Youconsider doing what Bobby Henderson of FSM fame does: any hate mail he gets, he automatically posts them on the web.

    Bob

  16. BobP said,

    January 12, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    I’d go along with Bob’s suggestion at #14. Stick it all on the web so we can have a good laugh.

    Legally, you are only at risk if you breach a) confidentiality or b) copyright. But abusive & time-wasting emails don’t fall into either category, so no problem.

  17. Bob O'H said,

    January 12, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    Gah, “You could consider…”, not “Youconsider…”

    I’m blaming the cat (but not too loudly: Idon’t want to disturb him)

    Bob

  18. jjbp said,

    January 12, 2007 at 7:45 pm

    Fancy a Durham fish oil update?

    I have just got a copy of the local freesheet newspaper called the Durham Advertiser through my door. On page 6 there is an article entitled “Thousands of pupils sign up for fish oil pills”. I wont quote all of it because I dont want to type it all in but the gist of it is that there has been a delay in the scheme because instead of 1000 kids on the scheme they had 3500 applicants. Anyway here’s a couple of nice quotes from Dave Ford (“Head of Achievement Services”)
    “We are absolutely delighted with the level of take-up. Clearly parents and pupils share our belief that the initiative-although not a scientifically controlled one- is worth doing.”
    “While we were forecasting a take-up level of around 1000 of the 5000 possible Year 11 pupils, more than 3500 actually took up the offer, and we were not able to start the initiative properly until late November because we had to wait for a larger supply of fish oil supplement than we had catered for. Consequently there has not been sufficient time for the fish oil supplement to feed through the system and have any impact on the pupils’ mock exam performance. Sadly- but for all the best reasons- it means that we wont be in a position to do a post-mock GCSE exam assessment of the impact of the initiative. It means we’re going to have to ait until the results propoer are announced.”

    Enjoy!

  19. jjbp said,

    January 12, 2007 at 7:48 pm

    In the interest of accuracy I need to point out that the last line should read “It means we’re going to have to wait until the results proper are announced”. Sorry the thoughts of my prawn curry are disrupting my typing accuracy.

  20. BobP said,

    January 12, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    It’s a pity Durham has done so badly in the 2006 schools national league tables, isn’t it?
    If the education department is spending its time & resource messing around with fishy stuff instead of concentrating on actual education, then no wonder.

  21. BobP said,

    January 12, 2007 at 8:14 pm

    …. but then again, if 2006 results (without fish oil) are abysmal, then they can only get better in 2007, and of course the visionary use of fish oil will be credited with the improvement.

  22. Ben Goldacre said,

    January 12, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    could be good news for their “study sorry initiative thats not a science trial but it is a study, but with no technical control but we’re collecting data…thing”. regression to the mean and all that, might help give an improvement relative to 2006.

  23. JohnD said,

    January 12, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    Ben,
    You’re in the same bind as Dawkins (honourable company) who with his American colleague and sparring partner, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote an open letter saying that they would not debate with creationists and other evolution deniers. They had concluded that their prescence on a platform gave the impression that there was a debate to be had with their antagonists.

    Gould is no longer with us; Dawkins has stuck to his policy, but subsequent events, for instance opposing creationism as part of a school syllabus, has show up the reactionaries. I urge you to keep on, keeping on.

    Unless subsequent e-discussion includes a request that it be in confidence, or includes libel or slander, such a correspondence need not be kept secret. In the first case you need not agree but in the second you might be implicated as would a publisher, together with an author.

    John

  24. crichmond said,

    January 12, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    I’d guess that some/all of the people who think they are electromagnetically sensitive probably have schizophrenia, and outing them might be ethically iffy.
    But the peddlers who collude with them deserve no such courtesy.

  25. megachicken said,

    January 12, 2007 at 9:44 pm

    I kinda agree with 22. Its fair play to critique or ridicule the snake oil merchants or dodgy scientists who have a go at you. But when it comes to their victims some leniency is in order. And particularly so for the very obviously unhinged ones. As you’ve said yourself, they are genuinely ill, but maybe not for the reasons they think they are.

    Re ethics and legality, why not just put a disclaimer on the website to the effect that “I reserve the right to publish any correspondence sent to any bad science email address.”

  26. Ben Goldacre said,

    January 12, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    the problem is that therapists/spokespeople are often people who’ve had epiphanies borne out of their own experience of illness: they’ve been cured by CAM, or discovered that they were EM sufferers, etc. the boundaries are not so tight.

  27. Dr Aust said,

    January 12, 2007 at 10:16 pm

    Yes, many of the homeopathy or other alt therapy practioners whose websites I have perused (all in the name of research, of course) offer these personal Road-to-Damascus stories as a way of explaining how they decided to become a therapist and spread the word.

    The Zeal of the Recently Converted, as it were.

  28. evidencebasedeating said,

    January 12, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    Integrity, honesty and truthfulness. Thats our boy. Ben. Perhaps we should love-bomb you to neutralise all those negative vibes pulsing your way from the nasty nutritionists and their rottweiler PR’s, dodgy educationalists and pseudoscientists who don’t share these common decencies – demanding their musings are accepted unchallenged by their impressionable audience, but demanding silence by intimidation – snide emails or legal letters kept private from their adoring cash cows who are needed to fund the PR and lawyer.
    Yes, guess that should work acccording to the the good v evil, yin-yang balance, whatever. Just keep up the excellent work – we love you! mwah! mwah!

  29. Andrew Clegg said,

    January 12, 2007 at 11:32 pm

    Re. the ex-NIH doctor railing against EBM — that’s a bit weird. This bit particularly gave me the creeps:

    “By anointing only a small sliver of research as best evidence and discarding or devaluing physician judgment and more than 90 percent of the medical literature, patients are forced into a one-size-fits-all straitjacket. Ironically, this comes at a time when both human genomics and informed patients are demanding more tailored and personal prescriptions for care.”

    So does she think that you can do pharmacogenomics in a non-evidence-based manner? Hmm yes, my subjective impression of the patient based on my years of clinical practice tells me that they’ve got a SNP just about… here… Which will put them in the most responsive subpopulation for this drug.

    Err, right.

    Andrew.

  30. TimW said,

    January 13, 2007 at 12:42 am

    Ben: post them on the web, please. Presumably there’s no science content whatsoever but I bet there’s some fn good entertainment to be had.

    @ jjbp:
    Please reassure me that “-although not a scientifically controlled one- ” is something you inserted into the quote to add chuckle value, yes??

  31. Dr Aust said,

    January 13, 2007 at 2:57 pm

    “Re. the ex-NIH doctor railing against EBM — that’s a bit weird.”

    Ex-head of the NIH, no less, as Ben said, which is effectively like being head of the UK’s Medical Research Council, only bigger

    All the weirder because most of Bernardine Healy’s regular coulmns – read them here

    www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/bhealy.htm

    - are eminently sensible.

    The only thing I can think of is that she was trying to make an indirect point about patients’ perceived right to a major say in the treatment decisions made about them, though citing the ridiculous Holmes article is a rather bizarre way to highlight the recognised shortcomings of a overly rule-based application of EBM.

    One difference between being head of the MRC here in the UK, and head of NIH, is that I am pretty sure that in the US you would have to be broadly politically sympathetic to the administration at the time- Healy, a lifelong Republican, was a Bush Sr appointee and left when Clinton came in. But you wouldn’t get the head of NIH job unless you were a distinguished doctor and/ort researcher – in Healy’s case a former Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins.

    I imagine a free-enterprise Republican might be supportive in a matter-of-principle way of “individuals’ right to want not exactly cast-iron evidence-based treatments”.
    It is worth remembering that US doctors, working in a for-money and insurance-based system, will treat people who the NHS would not, e.g. when the statistics say there is no, or almost no, chance of a positive outcome and the cost is huge Several very expensive drugs used to prolong life slightly in terminal cancer are examples here. It happens in the UK too – remember George Best lingering for a fortnight in a private Intensive Care Unit with three organ failure. In an NHS hospital he would almost certainly never have got an ICU bed because the statistics say he was never going to make it.

    I half suspect Healy might not have actually read the Holmes piece, but just some of the debate about it. Having to write a regular column is actually harder than one would think. Sometimes you don’t have much to write about… and sometimes you are in a rush and the temptation to “dash it off” is large. You might even cite something to illustrate what you THINK it points to without having read it in detail…. well, you catch my drift.

  32. jjbp said,

    January 13, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    TimW #27

    I quoted verbatim from the piece in the paper which appeared to be a quote from the guy from the council.

  33. AitchJay said,

    January 13, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    Ben, you could always give their email addresses to spammers – it has just the right amount of anonymous nuisance value to make it worth doing.

    Publishing them anywhere would do it, it doesn’t have to be your own site, and the spam-bots should do the rest.

  34. jackpt said,

    January 14, 2007 at 3:40 am

    That’s heavy, those kinds of emails are horrible. If they’re thick they may have the originating IP in the header of the email, you can use that to complain to their ISP.

  35. amoebic vodka said,

    January 14, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Even a disclaimer in an email that its contents are confidential etc means *nothing*. The way email works means anyone can read it in its journey from the computer they wrote it on to the server your email provider uses. No emails are confidential unless they are either sent internally or encrypted between the sender and the receiver.

    Publishing them in full (with full headers as it’s very easy to fake a from address) is fine.

  36. Karellen said,

    January 14, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    Johnny Hooker: He threatened to kill me.
    Henry Gondorff: Hell, kid, they don’t do that, you know you’re not getting to ‘em.
    – The Sting

    Keep getting to ‘em, Ben. :)

    FWIW I’ll also agree with the others – post the emails. I for one want to know how little respect these people really deserve, not just for their intellectual shortcomings, but as human beings.

  37. Robert Carnegie said,

    January 14, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    for.publication@badscience.net – then anything they send is publishable?

    Now, they could send you a link to a one-time-viewable Web page with a no-diclosure condition stated. And you could ignore it.

  38. SciencePunk said,

    January 15, 2007 at 8:19 am

    Personally, I find hatemail so much more rewarding than fanmail.

  39. EP said,

    January 15, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    coracle (great username!), I actually love my job- I work in “fluffy” PR, mainly lifestyle stuff- but I’m not sure I’d be happy working for a medical PR firm. I’ve done one science PR project, helping a neuroscience professor plug his textbook and research findings, and that was fine but there’s a lot of scary stuff out there. I’m told there’s a real shortage of PRs with life science degrees and that I could use my degree and experience to make a lot of money working in “medical education” (MedEd- plugging drugs to doctors) but I’ve spoken to people working on things like infant death crisis management and burying news of drug controversies, and for some reason their stories put me off. I think I’ll stick to the fluffy stuff for now!

    I’d recommend this book:
    www.amazon.com/Toxic-Sludge-Good-You-Relations/dp/1567510604
    along with George Orwell’s essay Why I Write and Piers Morgan’s diaries. I’m passionate about the media but I think it’s important to know just how powerful it is and how some people abuse that power.

  40. EP said,

    January 15, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    Just realised coracle’s comment wasn’t aimed at me! Still, there’s some good reading mentioned above for anyone who’s interested. And when I was plugging the tresearch findings I certainly didn’t send details to sites like this one or do anything else underhand!

  41. Hacker said,

    January 15, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    I am intrigued by the threats of violence from Homeopaths. Do they give you a very very small amount of violence in lieu of a good kicking?

  42. pseudomonas said,

    January 15, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    #41: they damn with faint praise.

  43. MartinH said,

    January 15, 2007 at 6:57 pm

    Post ‘em yes, because I think that ‘private’ abuse is shameful. But keep or – better – post the headers. If we can identify someone from an email then you’re essentially claiming that they wrote a Bad Thing, and you’ll need to be able to prove that what you posted is what you got.

  44. ceec said,

    January 17, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    There are quite a few websites where people have posted hate mail, e.g. here:
    www.creationtheory.org/HateMail/

    It all tends to blur into one after a while (not much imagination or what you might call book learning amongst them, unfortunately), but is fairly amusing for a few mins.

    Obviously it’d be more fun to post nasty mail, threats etc. from named people, e.g. Durham officials, than from loony randoms…

  45. Delster said,

    January 19, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    pseudomonas…. you should be ashamed of yourself for post 42… i thought my jokes were bad!

    Anyway – Re the threatening mails etc. I work in Telecomms and there is something called the Telecommunications Act (1984) which basically states that threatening / abusive phones calls are illegal.

    I’m fairly sure that this was amended or another act was passed which extends this to all forms of telecommunications including E-mails.

    I do know that e-mails are a non-legally binding form of communication which is why banks still use telex service (timestamped in the network) to deal with fund transferrs etc.

    Somebody said before about reporting them to the postmaster@ address. This is the recommended first step in dealing with abuvise mails. You can move it up to the police if you are feeling perticularly beligerant.

    So please feel free to post the mails!

  46. Michael Harman said,

    January 23, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    re post 35, there are two separate issues. First, unauthorized interception of messages is illegal, and liable to attract civil and criminal proceedings. But second, as a practical matter, you need to consider the chance of someone improperly intercepting a message and misusing that information, and what you can do if that happens.

    So if I send details of my bank account (passwords, etc) to a friend or relation, that information is confidential. Anyone who intercepts that information and misuses it is liable for damages for any loss I suffer, and probably also for criminal prosecution. The inmformation is so clearly confidential that the interceptor is liable even if they did not actively intercept – eg if the postman delivered it to them in error and they automatically open their letters without looking to check that they are in fact the addressee.

    But as a practical matter, you would be foolish to send that kind of information in say an envelope with “My Bank Details” written in large red letters on the envelope, or to re-use a window envelope to send banknotes. Your chances of successfully tracking down, prosecuting, and recovering from unauthorized interception would be small, and your insurers are unlikely to be sympathetic.

    Incidentally, patent attorneys have obtained formal legal advice that business emails between them and their clients are confidential.

  47. Mojo said,

    January 24, 2007 at 8:31 am

    Patent lawyers may be something of a special case (even among lawyers), because there is a specific expectation that communications with them are confidential in that they don’t count as publication, which could invalidate a subsequent patent (I am not a lawyer).

  48. ToeKnee said,

    January 24, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Look Ben, rather than viewing all these nasty emails from homeopaths as your problem why not behave like the physician you are and attempt to treat those who poor folk who send them. Indeed, you can use their homeopathic beliefs to your advantage by adapting the homeopathic techniques they find so remarkable to create an ‘antidote’, homeopathic email.

    Take the text from the body of one of these emails and randomly replace 50% of the characters to produce a new email. Repeat this, each time replacing, totally at random 50% of the characters from the previous email until none of the original email exists. When complete what you are left with, though void of any of the original ‘evil’ email, will contain the ‘energy’ of the original email in a form that will treat the originator (unfornately there isn’t room to go into the details of exactly how this works, all you need to know is that I have Ph.D. in Electronic Engineering and am dead good with the computer sciencey things and stuff).

    All you need do now is send this email to any homeopath you believe is in need of treatment.

  49. Ben Goldacre said,

    January 24, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    actually, some quite good stuff from our old friend rod read engaging with the issues here:

    www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/thisweek.htm

    “Dr Disgusting Goldacre of the Guardian”, etc.

  50. ToeKnee said,

    January 24, 2007 at 11:41 pm

    Crikey. I’m assuming that you didn’t exchange Christmas cards this year then?

  51. used to be jdc said,

    January 25, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    Well worth a read. Not only have I found out that you have “an ego the size of a mountain”, but I now know who the ‘bleeding man’ from Breakfast News is.

  52. Ben Goldacre said,

    January 25, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    heh it’s true, and i am disgusting. actually, on a serious note, rod read’s emails are so disjointedly abusive that even his fellow campaigners have said they think he’s a bit of a liability, so i always smile when a journalist manages to make him sound like the voice of reason in their articles. maybe he can switch it off, in which case there’s little excuse.

  53. ToeKnee said,

    January 26, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    Taken from the front page of www.electrosensitivity.org.uk...

    “Bewildered individuals with reddened skin, eye irritation, tingling, stinging or pricking sensations, swollen mucus membranes, headaches, fatigue and cardiac palpitations were pestering university scientists and commercial electromagnetic shielding experts for advice and help with their symptoms and their causes.”

    I think he simply took this from the screenplay for “Dawn of the Dead”.

  54. TroyKnight said,

    April 18, 2007 at 4:54 am

    Wow I seem to have caught onto this thread a little late. Just a quick response to Chrichmond, who said this:

    “I’d guess that some/all of the people who think they are electromagnetically sensitive probably have schizophrenia, and outing them might be ethically iffy.
    But the peddlers who collude with them deserve no such courtesy. ”

    Perhaps you do not realise that:
    1) The World Health Organisation admit that Electrosensitivity is a real condition:

    “EHS [ElectroHyperSensitivity] is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual.”

    2) The UK’s own Health Protection Agency admit that it is a real condition.

    3) In Sweden, Electrosensitivity is officially regarded as a Physical Impairment and 250,000 people are registered as being sensitive to electricity (that’s 3% of the Swedish population).

    4) Gro Harlem Brundtland, voted in 2004 as the 4th most influential European in the last 25 years behind Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev and Margaret Thatcher, suffers from electrosensitivity:
    “I am convinced this has to be taken seriously. Some people develop sensitivity to electricity and radiation from equipment such as mobile phones or PCs. If this sensitivity can lead to adverse health-effects as cancer or other diseases, we do not know yet. But I think we should follow the precautionary principle, especially with regard to our children.”

    She is also a trained physician.

    With regard to ElectroSensitive people sending angry emails – clearly this will only put people’s backs up and turn people against it. However, I have never known people with a Physical Impairment to receive such blatent abuse as they do when they have sensitivities to certain electromagnetic fields. Perhaps the closest thing to it would be sufferers from Chronic Fatigue in the 80′s when they were told they were lazy or had ‘Yuppie Flu’. It’s not suprising that people get angry when their condition is not accepted by society, particularly when it has such profound effects on their ability to lead a normal life.

  55. TroyKnight said,

    April 18, 2007 at 4:55 am

    Wow I seem to have caught onto this thread a little late. Just a quick response to Chrichmond, who said this:

    “I’d guess that some/all of the people who think they are electromagnetically sensitive probably have schizophrenia, and outing them might be ethically iffy.
    But the peddlers who collude with them deserve no such courtesy. ”

    Perhaps you do not realise that:
    1) The World Health Organisation admit that Electrosensitivity is a real condition:

    “EHS [ElectroHyperSensitivity] is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual.”

    2) The UK’s own Health Protection Agency admit that it is a real condition.

    3) In Sweden, Electrosensitivity is officially regarded as a Physical Impairment and 250,000 people are registered as being sensitive to electricity (that’s 3% of the Swedish population).

    4) Gro Harlem Brundtland, voted in 2004 as the 4th most influential European in the last 25 years behind Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev and Margaret Thatcher, suffers from electrosensitivity:
    “I am convinced this has to be taken seriously. Some people develop sensitivity to electricity and radiation from equipment such as mobile phones or PCs. If this sensitivity can lead to adverse health-effects as cancer or other diseases, we do not know yet. But I think we should follow the precautionary principle, especially with regard to our children.”

    She is also a trained physician.

    With regard to ElectroSensitive people sending angry emails – clearly this will only put people’s backs up and turn people against it. However, I have never known people with a Physical Impairment to receive such blatent abuse as they do when they have sensitivities to certain electromagnetic fields. Perhaps the closest thing to it would be sufferers from Chronic Fatigue in the 80′s when they were told they were lazy or had ‘Yuppie Flu’. It’s not suprising that people get angry when their condition is not accepted by society, particularly when it has such profound effects on their ability to lead a normal life.

  56. TroyKnight said,

    April 18, 2007 at 4:56 am

    Wow I seem to have caught onto this thread a little late. Just a quick response to Chrichmond, who said this:

    “I’d guess that some/all of the people who think they are electromagnetically sensitive probably have schizophrenia, and outing them might be ethically iffy.
    But the peddlers who collude with them deserve no such courtesy. ”

    Perhaps you do not realise that:
    1) The World Health Organisation admit that Electrosensitivity is a real condition:

    “EHS [ElectroHyperSensitivity] is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual.”

    2) The UK’s own Health Protection Agency admit that it is a real condition.

    3) In Sweden, Electrosensitivity is officially regarded as a Physical Impairment and 250,000 people are registered as being sensitive to electricity (that’s 3% of the Swedish population).

    4) Gro Harlem Brundtland, voted in 2004 as the 4th most influential European in the last 25 years behind Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev and Margaret Thatcher, suffers from electrosensitivity:
    “I am convinced this has to be taken seriously. Some people develop sensitivity to electricity and radiation from equipment such as mobile phones or PCs. If this sensitivity can lead to adverse health-effects as cancer or other diseases, we do not know yet. But I think we should follow the precautionary principle, especially with regard to our children.”

    She is also a trained physician.

    With regard to ElectroSensitive people sending angry emails – clearly this will only put people’s backs up and turn people against it. However, I have never known people with a Physical Impairment to receive such blatent abuse as they do when they have sensitivities to certain electromagnetic fields. Perhaps the closest thing to it would be sufferers from Chronic Fatigue in the 80′s when they were told they were lazy or had ‘Yuppie Flu’. It’s not suprising that people get angry when their condition is not accepted by society, particularly when it has such profound effects on their ability to lead a normal life.

  57. diudiu said,

    December 21, 2009 at 6:35 am

    free shipping ugg
    free shipping ugg

You must be logged in to post a comment.