Or, as you might like to summarise it, hello – because that seemingly-complex string of numbers, values, algebraic representations and powers is actually supposed to be the formula for the perfect handshake. Still, I’m getting ahead of myself here, so I’ll take it from the obligatory start, by which I mean the Daily Mail:

Firm squeeze and three shakes: Scientists devise formula for the perfect handshake

It has been traditional greeting, a symbol of peace and a key part of business deals for thousands of years.

But today scientists announced that they have created a formula for the perfect handshake after it was revealed that seven in ten Britons are nervous about getting it wrong.

Regular followers of this blog will know the drill by now, but let’s go through the motions at least a little more. However, if you are a regular reader of this blog, and know about the general fourth paragraph reveal rule, you’ll know what’s coming next in the article:

More than two-thirds (70 per cent) of people said they lacked confidence when it came to performing the gesture, according to a survey for Chevrolet.

Yep – the double-whammy reference to a survey, and therefore the unmistakable whiff of PR, and also the mention of the survey’s paymasters and beneficiaries: Chevrolet. The only real surprise should be that the company’s name came as early as the third paragraph, but it’s more of a rule of thumb than a hard and fast law.

Staff at the car firm will be instructed on the ideal technique with a five-step process and given the mathematical formula in a new handshake training guide.

Excellent – I know when I buy large motorvehicles it’s not only a concern but a cast-iron demand of mine that the forecourt staff are trained in complex algebraic equations to perform fairly everyday tasks. Next on Chevvy’s list of formulas to develop is the formula for duping gullible young couples into extended finance packages, followed presumably by a formula for reading the Daily Mail without noticing which articles are little more than extended adverts.

Still, there’s a bit more to this than the general survey stuff we’ve covered before here - by which I mean the leading questions, the engagement of a polling populace more interested in getting to the end of the questions than answering honestly, and the manipulation of statistical analysis to make a survey sing your hymn. Take, for example, the stat of ‘more than two thirds of people lack confidence when shaking hands’ – imagine the following question and answers (which I’ve made up for the purposes of this article – I’ve not seen the original poll data):

How confident are you in your ability to give the perfect handshake?

• A: Extremely confident
• B: Fairly confident
• C: Not very confident

From this simple re-wording alone, I think it’s clear that most people would plump with option B – who amongst us is extremely confident at giving the PERFECT handshake? Presumably only the most arrogant of palm-pressers. What’s more, let’s assume an even distribution and that 33% of those polled fall into each camp, we can see that 1/3 are extremely confident, 1/3 are fairly confident and 1/3 are not very confident. How many of those polled were not extremely confident in their PERFECT shaking ability? Two thirds. This little trick is known as lumping the middle, or something equally lacking in poetry.

The formula angle is a slightly different trick, however – no less obvious once you’re used to spotting it, but somehow more annoying and damaging to the real work being done by scientists. After all, what most informs the stereotypical tabloid view of those ‘zany boffins’, but the classic ‘scientists discover the formula for the perfect cup of tea’ type stories? With our Bad PR goggles on (readers should have collected enough tokens from the back of Bad PR blogs by now to have sent away for their very own pair), that Chevrolet mention really stands out. Not least when you read their original press release on the subject:

The mathematical formula has been developed for car brand Chevrolet as part of a handshake training guide for its staff to prepare them ahead of the launch of the new 5 Year Promise offer, which aims to offer peace of mind and reassurance to its customers.

Did the University of Manchester really, independently, come up with a perfect handshake formula, and then Chevrolet offer to sponsor it into the press? Or did Chevrolet perhaps give a grant to the University of Manchester, to do with as they please, with the proviso that they – although staying out of the research itself – would get a hat-tip in the press release? Either of these scenarios would be fine, respectable, perfectly legitimate.

Or did Chevrolet decide handshaking is a big part of greeting people, that their salesmen greet a lot of people, and so if they were seen to be the best handshakers they would gain kudos – and using this theory tout around relevant academics to come up with a formula they could attach to a pre-made press release? Well, Manchester’s not so far from Liverpool, and skepticism’s not so far from the kind of circles of people who work for universities, so after a few phone calls I was actually able to ascertain that Professor Geoffrey Beattie, the psychologist in the article, did indeed agree to come up with a formula which could be neatly slotted into Chevvy’s PR machine (which, doubtlessly, is an overly ostentatious and large machine with an inordinate gas-guzzling engine and go-fast stripes).

Why would an academic agree to put his name to a story like this? Much like the journalists who reprint it as if it was news, there’s no real malice or malevolence involved I’m sure – to a psychology professor, it’s a chance to get a version of psychology into the news, to stir up interest. OK, the story itself is a bit wishy-washy, and it’s hardly groundbreaking research (or indeed research at all – it’s more of a back-of-the-Chevvy-manual calculation, as we’ll see in a moment), but if it makes people think about psychology then that’s a good thing. What’s more, while it generates interest in the academic themselves, subsequent interviews can give opportunities to push some real science into the conversation, so it could seem like a good thing to do – despite the reality being, unfortunately, that when added to the myriad of other ‘zany boffins’ stories it serves only to feed the stereotype that scientists are ‘mad’, ‘zany’, ‘loony’ or – worst of all – wasteful. ‘Why are they spending their time and research money mathematicising handshakes when the world’s icecaps are melting‘, the tabloid reader may worry. Presumably a tabloid reader who invents words like ‘mathematicising’. Suffice to say the same tabloid doesn’t go on to explain the relationship between academic and corporate PR budgets, and the funding that being in the public eye can encourage.

This, of course, is nothing new – in fact looking around for other examples it appears Ben Goldacre was courted by the ‘Jessica Alba has the perfect wiggle, say zany boffins’ story in 2007 (a story, it’s worth pointing out, that I wish I’d been doing the Bad PR thing at the time of):

This important study was the work of a team – apparently – headed by Professor Richard Weber of Cambridge University, and I was particularly delighted to see it finally in print since, in the name of research, I discussed the possibility of prostituting my own good reputation for this same piece of guff with the very same PR company in June.

Here was their opening email: “We are conducting a survey into the celebrity top ten sexiest walks for my client Veet (hair removal cream) and we would like to back up our survey with an equation from an expert to work out which celebrity has the sexiest walk, with theory behind it. We would like help from a doctor of psychology or someone similar who can come up with equations to back up our findings, as we feel that having an expert comment and an equation will give the story more weight.” It got them on to the news pages of the Daily Telegraph.

So, is there any scientific value to these kinds of PR pieces, beyond potentially popularising other more serious work ? Well, yes and no – take, for example, the quote from Professor Beattie, as it features in the Chevvy release:

Professor Geoffrey Beattie, Head of Psychological Sciences at the University of Manchester, who devised the formula comments: “The human handshake is one of the most crucial elements of impression formation and is used as a source of information for making a judgement about another person.  A handshake reveals aspects of the personality of the person giving it – for example, a soft handshake can indicate insecurity, whilst a quick-to-let-go handshake can suggest arrogance – so it is surprising that up until now there has not been a guide showing people how they should shake hands.

This does indeed seem to me to be genuine psychology, based on arguably sound science. However, following Beattie’s quote we have:

Les Turton from Chevrolet comments: “It is easy to overlook everyday rituals, but as the handshake is used to complete agreements it is important our staff are well trained so they and can pass on trust and reassurance to our customers. The simple five-step guide for the perfect handshake should mean they are well prepared ahead of the introduction of our new 5 Year Promise ensuring all our deals are concluded in the proper way.”

Which immediately pricks the bubble of credibility.

What’s more, the formula itself isn’t actually all that groundbreaking, despite its grandiose appearance. Quoting it in full, with legend:

PH = √ (e² + ve²)(d²) + (cg + dr)² + π{(4<s>2)(4<p>2)}² + (vi + t + te)² + {(4<c>2)(4<du>2)}²

(e) is eye contact (1=none; 5=direct) 5; (ve) is verbal greeting (1=totally inappropriate; 5=totally appropriate) 5; (d) is Duchenne smile – smiling in eyes and mouth, plus symmetry on both sides of face, and slower offset (1=totally non-Duchenne smile (false smile); 5=totally Duchenne) 5; (cg) completeness of grip (1=very incomplete; 5=full) 5; (dr) is dryness of hand (1=damp; 5=dry) 4; (s) is strength (1= weak; 5=strong) 3; (p) is position of hand (1=back towards own body; 5=other person’s bodily zone) 3; (vi) is vigour (1=too low/too high; 5=mid) 3; (t) is temperature of hands (1=too cold/too hot; 5=mid) 3; (te) is texture of hands (5=mid; 1=too rough/too smooth) 3; (c) is control (1=low; 5=high) 3; (du) is duration (1= brief; 5=long) 3.

Decoding the formula then, we can see the perfect handshake involves:

• Direct eye contact
• Use of a ‘totally appropriate’ verbal greeting (as opposed to a ‘totally inappropriate’ one)
• A fully genuine smile
• A complete or firm grip
• A hand which is not totally dry, but on the dryer side of medium (ie not clammy)
• Neither very strong nor very weak
• Neither too close to yourself, nor too close to the other shaker
• Of medium vigour
• Neither too hot nor too cold hands (Goldilocks hands, I suppose)
• Neither too rough nor too smooth hands
• Neither too controlling nor too loose
• Neither too long not too short

Looking at the list of features, are there any you couldn’t have guessed? And, in the context of those measurements, do the accoutrements of mathematics genuinely mean anything? For example, one component tells us to multiple a medium level of strength by a mid-range position, and then multiply them by 2π. Unless we’re shaking hands in a big circle, what has π got to do with it?

So, there we go – a whistle-stop tour of another tool in your Bad PR toolbox: when you see a zany scientist and a crazy formula, check the story for interested parties. And if they appear in the fourth paragraph, so much the better.

Homöopathie: Es gibt nichts in ihm

It’s admittedly and regretfully rather rare that we at the Merseyside Skeptics Society cover stories of a non-English language nature. That’s entirely mea culpa, malheureusement my non-English language abilities are limited at ‘meilleur’. Still, it would be ridiculous of us not to mention the Wünderbar developments coming out of Germany, where top magazine Der Spiegel ran with the cover story:

Homoöpathie: Die groβe Illusion (‘Homeopathy: The grand illusion’) – Source: Der Spiegel

This, of course, is HUGE. Not least because Germany is oft-cited as a prime example of a healthcare system in which homeopathy is given the ‘respect’ it deserves (I’d argue 10:23 actually gave the respect homeopathy REALLY deserves), but also because Germany is the home of homoeopathy and Hahnemann – all of which making the prospect of the magic water getting ‘Das Boot’ from the German equivalent of the NHS an incredibly sweet pill to swallow.

Far be it from me to wallow in all of the delicious, delicious developments too much, but here’s a glimpse at the online version of the Der Spiegel article, for any of our Deutsch companions out there. What’s that at the bottom? Why, that would be the 10:23 Campaign, cited as an influence! Needless to say (although I will anyway), our collective bosoms swell with pride here at 10:23 HQ. My aforementioned linguistic limitations prevent me from doing it justice in the original German, and the Google translate is admirable if patchy (“Many patients believe the cash to pay only that which helps also detectable. Ennoble why the health insurance with their approach to homeopathy.” – I swear Google hires Master Yoda to do their translating…). With that in mind, allow me to quote from the English version of Deutsche World:

The 200-year-old dubious medical treatment may soon be dropped from German medical insurance providers as a cost-saving measure. The the United Kingdom may also do the same.

Too right we might.

In recent days, the over-two-centuries-old practice of homeopathy has come under fire in Germany.

Dr. Karl Lauterbach, the chair of the parliamentary health committee, recently called for public health insurers to stop funding the practice, which typically involves solutions of small amounts of herbs or other medicines heavily diluted with water and then shaken or stirred to “add energy” to the solution.

According to its proponents, homeopathy can heal patients as well – if not better – than conventional medicine, while its detractors, including nearly all medical doctors and scientists, say that it is no more powerful than a placebo.

What’s more:

“If everybody pays for his beer, then he can pay for his homeopathy,” said Dr. Kay Brune, a professor in the Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuernberg, in southern Germany.

Brune added that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that homeopathy actually causes any meaningful and healing bio-chemical reactions in patients, but that doesn’t stop people from believing in a practice that has been so deeply ingrained into the German psyche.

“Homeopathy has a very long tradition in Germany,” he added in an interview with Deutsche Welle. “The founder, Hahnemann was a brilliant physician. But at that time doing nothing was helpful to the patient. In 200 years, the pseudo-science has not taken any steps forward.”

Now, of course, we aren’t arrogant enough for one second to think that we had a huge part to play in this – but if the actions of the 10:23 Campaign and our amazing support (not least the hundreds of national and international ‘overdoses’ who joined in back in January) had even a small effect on this development, I safely speak for everyone at 10:23 and the MSS in saying how immensely proud we are to have been involved.

What’s been staggering over the last 6 months, and in fact back to October when we started letting the 10:23 cat a little out of the bag, is the phenomenal response we’ve had from ordinary people – not just doctors and working scientists. We’ve been blown away by the level of involvement support, coverage and interest 10:23 has had so far, and as we’re starting to see the homeopathic dominoes tumbling here in the UK – and in Germany too, now – the level of interest continues to amaze me. On our side we have the science, we have the support, and we have the momentum.

Homeopathy: There’s nothing in it / Es gibt nichts in ihm

Well, The Sun says it’s official, anyway:

Official: England Is Footie Mad

ENGLAND is the most football-mad country in the world, a study has found.

Research revealed English blokes spend more time watching, playing, reading and talking about the beautiful game than anywhere else on the planet. – Source: The Sun

Yep, they’ve got research to back that up. Probably research done by boffins. Probably zany boffins, who have formulas for the perfect cup of tea, or the perfect shave, or the perfect cliché involving zany boffins.

The study found a typical soccer fan watches football — including highlights — for two hours and 22 minutes every week.

They also spend 28 minutes each day chin-wagging about the latest results, tackles, goals or transfer gossip.

In second place was Thailand, where men spend three hours talking about the sport, followed by three-time World Cup winners Brazil in third. - Source: The Sun

Now, I know you lot. You’re a skeptical lot. And this is BadPR, so I know what you’re thinking – who benefits from this? Well, damn you and your cynicism, I’ve no idea what you could possibly mean. The Sun continues:

The research was carried out by lager brewer Heineken. - Source: The Sun

Oh, right, yeah, sorry – this is just a shit survey from lager lot Heineken. Obviously. As Heineken’s PR department continue:

Spokesman Rick Lawrence said: “It might not be the news women want to hear but it seems men really do only think about one thing — and that’s football.

“This is a huge weekend for football and gives men an excuse, if they need one, to talk about their favourite subject even more.” - Source: Heineken’s Fucking PR Department

Sure, why not throw a bit of laddish gender stereotyping in there (actually, as it happens, my girlfriend can’t wait for the World Cup to start, and has been planning EVERYTHING we’re going to be doing in the next month around the ability to watch a couple of games a day. Take that, stereotyping). Still, there’s a few things that are glaringly amiss here, other than the whole bullshit part:

• Heineken isn’t a sponsor of the World Cup, Budweiser pipped them to it, see?
• The article hit The Sun on the 28th – that wasn’t a big weekend for football. In fact, there was no football of note taking place on that weekend (unless you count Milwall vs Southend in the League One Play-offs).

Clearly, something is amiss here, so let’s take a look at the official source of the report – which, as ever, is stupidly easy to find. While OnePoll are taking credit for the success of the survey, the official press release can be found on the Heineken website, minus the nationalistic overtones inevitable added in by The Sun, naturally.

Football Crazy – Men From Around The World Put Football Ahead of Women!  - Source: Heineken’s Actual Fucking PR Department

Oh, yeah, sorry, they spun it with a dodgily sexist headline instead. Should have warned you about that. Still, football ahead of women? They must have something pretty concrete to back that claim up, right?

An international survey, carried out by UEFA Champions League sponsor Heineken, has shown wives and girlfriends are second when it comes to the topics most discussed by men when they get together with their mates.

The study found that overall a staggering 88% of those asked said that football was top of the league for the subjects they talk about over a beer with their friends, with wives and girlfriends coming in the runners-up spot with 45% – work came in third with 34%. Men from Germany and France placed work in second and with their wives and girlfriends coming in third. - Source: Heineken’s Actual Fucking PR Department

Surprisingly, no, they don’t have anything concrete at all. What they have is a load of men saying they talk about football to other men more often than they talk about their girlfriends. Which is entirely different, of course – top of the head reasons:

• I will talk football to a stranger, I won’t talk about my relationships with a total stranger (and they wouldn’t want to hear if I did)
• Experimenter bias in the survey – bias the question towards the desired answer and see how many men fall into line. ‘Hello Heineken drinker, we’re sponsoring the Champions League – would you talk about football to other men more often than you’d talk about your girlfriend, do you think? Here, have a beer, courtesy of UEFA’
• Selection bias – who you elect to take the survey, and how you find them, can be key. ‘Hi there, sorry to bother you as you’re just walking out of Anfield post-match, but would you mind taking a quick survey about football?’
• Etc

So, where does the ‘big weekend’ error come into it?

Tim Ellerton, Sponsorship Manager Heineken International, said: “It might not be the news women wanted to hear but it appears men really do only think about one thing when they get together with their mates – and that’s football. With the UEFA Champions League Final taking place this Saturday it is a huge weekend for football and gives men an excuse, if they ever needed one, to talk about their favourite subject.” - Source: Heineken’s Actual Fucking PR Department

Of course – for those who don’t follow football, the Champions League final took place the weekend BEFORE The Sun ran this advert/story/article. The wise and smart ‘STAFF REPORTER’ thought it prudent to omit the reference to a final which had already passed; unfortunately Mr/Ms REPORTER wasn’t smart enough or professional enough to skim read the story afterwards, and do even the basic amount of fact checking required to find out the season had fucking finished by the time their reports of an upcoming ‘huge weekend’ were printed. Ah, churnalism, how I do love thee.

Still, journalism and PR this piss-poor doesn’t go unnoticed, and even The Sun’s comments section threw in a few lolz to cheer us all up:

Any man who does not like football is usually a bit….funny! – 2lulaura

Casual and unconnected homophobia – lovin’ your work, Sun reader.

Another study reveals that a lot of post grad students are unable to take up valuable scientific research bcoz of lack of funding. - lukep12345

He shoots, he scores.

Oliver the Missing Mog

Psychics, eh? Is there anything they can’t do? They can cure/heal/treat/help cancer, use their magic to confirm police reports and wear flat caps with their arses hanging out, and they can contact dead people who never actually existed. They’re a marvellous lot!

But that’s not the full extent of the psychic realm, it seems, as the BBC reported last week:

‘An Indian psychic is helping to search for cat which went missing from a Lincolnshire village. Oliver, a four-year-old tabby and white cat, went missing from Boothby Graffoe in October.

Owner Sue Machen, 56, has paid £1,000 for Hertfordshire-based company Animal Search UK to hunt for the animal.

It has employed psychic Sarita Gupta, who is based in Bangalore, to help in the search, a move which has been criticised by a sceptics’ society’. - Source: BBC

That’s right – we’re dealing psychic pet detectives! Which, to be clear, isn’t a detective who specialises in finding psychic pets (I can’t really see how one could make a full career out of that, really), but instead people who claim to use their psychic powers to detect and locate missing pets. Obviously.

So, what’s the story here? Well, it’s pretty simple - Oliver is a white and grey tabby cat. He has a white stomach and legs, and is tabby down his back and tail. He also has a distinctive black spot on the left side of his pink nose. And he’s missing. His owner Sue Machen, ‘distraught’ (according to the Fail) turned to Animal Search UK to locate him, and – as the newspapers report – they hired Indian mystic, magic woman and general all-round superhero Sarita Gupta to locate said missing moggy.

Miss Gupta, it’s reported, had similar success a fortnight ago in finding a tabby called Chiquitita in Birmingham, so she has form in this area, as Tom Watkins of Animal Search UK attests:

‘We did a search in Birmingham recently where the owner contacted her and was told the cat would be found where children play.

‘We then got a call from somebody – and when we searched a local garden, the cat was found trapped in a Wendy house. It was quite remarkable.’ – Source: Daily Fail

Remarkable indeed. So, what’s the Gupta feeling for the location of dear Ollie?

‘Ms Gupta believes the cat has been adopted as a stray by a new family, who do not know he has an owner.’ – Source: BBC

Amazing. Or not, as the spokesperson for the sceptics society explained to the BBC:

‘Looking at the advice given by the psychic in both cases, we have the suggestion that the cat is staying with another family, and the idea that lost cats like to be near children. Both of these are incredibly obvious scenarios to suggest for a missing cat, and would likely be the suggestions you’d get from someone without psychic powers – and without the need for a fee, too’. - Source: BBC

Now there’s some REAL wisdom, if you ask me. Which they did – because the very cool thing is, when the BBC saw a story of a missing cat and a psychic, they turned to we Merseyside Skeptics for balance. I can’t begin to tell you how happy it makes me that they actually bothered putting balance into the tale. In fact, in full, what I told the BBC was:

‘Looking at the advice given by the psychic in both cases, we have the suggestion that the cat is staying with another family, and the idea that lost cats like to be near children. Both of these are incredibly obvious scenarios to suggest for a missing cat, and would likely be the suggestions you’d get from someone without psychic powers – and without the need for a fee, too.

I’m sure if the cat is living with another family, people will feel it proves Ms Gupta’s psychic skills. However, if the same advice had been given by a non-psychic party, purely as an educated guess, nobody would suggest psychic powers were at play.

Of course, if Ms Gupta were interested in demonstrating that her skills work in less predictable and obvious scenarios, the Merseyside Skeptics Society would be only to happy to help put her powers to a fair and reasonable test’. – Source: Erm, Me.

And I stand by that – if Ms Gupta, or any other psychic, is in any way interested in demonstrating their talents, please contact me and we’ll discuss it: press@merseysideskeptics.org.uk. I check my email obsessively, and promise I’ll get back to you immediately.

Still, that’s not quite everything, where our little Ollie is concerned. Never one to shy away from a bit of research, I thought I’d check out what Animal Search UK have to say about the case of Oliver and the psychic. Fortunately, their website prominently displays their contact details, so I thought ‘why not?’

Interestingly enough, I was able to get straight through to Tom Watkins, who’s the lead investigator in the case of missing Oliver. He was happy to discuss the case, although entirely reticent to give me any details not already in the public domain (which is understandable, I suppose). First of all, I asked if employing psychics is the norm for their pet searching – as it turns out, they don’t hire psychics, they only consider psychic information when provided to them via the owners independently consulting a witch of their own accord. So strike one for the Daily Fail, who titled their whole piece ‘Distraught owner of missing cat pays team of PSYCHICS £1,000 to find her moggy’.

Further, when I asked how much stock his company places in the information of psychics, Tom told me: ‘We listen to them if the owners want us to, we don’t place too much stock in what they say, but we don’t discount anything’.

Interestingly, Tom was also able to confirm to me that the moggy in Birmingham was indeed located pretty much exactly where the psychic said it would be – in the sense that it was somewhere that children play. OK, sure a wendy house seems like a great hit there (although, of course, missing cats are more likely to be found by/with children than you’d imagine, I expect). However, Tom would not share any other details of that case, when I asked. Data protection? Possibly. I’ll come back to that.

Even more interestingly, Tom seemed to be a little confused as to the timelines involved with missing Ollie. As the papers have all reported, the psychic has been drafted in to help. When I asked Tom when this involvement occurred, he told me it was last week (roughly the time of the article). Which I found a little interesting, given that the website ‘ThisIsLincolnshire’ reported on Sue’s contact with a psychic back in December 2009. As I say, not one to shy away from the research. So, of course, I mentioned this to Tom… who confirmed that Sue contacted psychics to locate her missing cat 6 months ago. And, amazingly, the cat still isn’t found. Which says an awful lot about the quality of the psychic’s information, if you ask me.

So, bearing all of this in mind, one particular question springs to mind: Why is it that a story which essentially boils down to ‘psychic fails to help find missing cat after 6 months of involvement’ makes the national press, while supposedly a week before the story the same psychic successfully helped locate a missing cat in Birmingham, in a tale that’s not even been reported in local media in Birmingham?

Why is it that the success story gets no column inches, whereas the ongoing and unsuccessful search makes headlines across the world?

And why is there not a single report of a cat called Chiquitita in Birmingham, a missing cat being found in a wendy house, or Animal Search UK locating a missing cat in Birmingham? Isn’t it strange that even the company themselves don’t feature this amazing success story on their website, despite having a ‘Latest News‘ page and a ‘Happy Tails‘ page?

Is it me, or does anyone sense a shaggy cat story here?

Finally, just to cap off the story, it’s worth noting that the tale gets a whopping 850-word write-up in the Mail, in the most glowing and positive of terms, with the psychic angle largely peripheral throughout. As would be consistent, say, with a piece of PR.

However, alongside the honest, up-front, god-fearing quacks and charlatans, we’ve had to fight the homeo-forces on another front: the media. Almost universally, when homeopathy is discussed in the media, they ask a homeopath. At best, they also ask a healthcare professional, or (failing that) me, to represent the other side, while leaning the conversation in the favour of the water-wizard. The homeopath gets the first and last word, and the balance of the debate is very firmly on terra homeo. That’s when they’re not just outright selling homeopathic treatments, or allowing homeopaths to wax lyrical about how ‘it worked for me’ and ‘it can’t be placebo as it works on my baby/animal/etc’. This is the battle ground, and it’s this fight we choose to fight – so be it.

But it still pisses me off when it’s the BBC drinking the homeopathic Kool-Aid.

I mean, I love the BBC – they’re meant to be fair, unbiased by commercial concerns, free to investigate and report, educate and entertain, and all that good stuff. Sure, they may spend a little too much money giving Graham Norton a career, or padding out Saturday night’s with Dr Who and fancy dancing (neither of which I particularly care for), but they’re still ace. Except, when they do this:

The view of the regulatory body for pharmacists, who are consulting their members about how the products are currently marketed, is that people who buy homeopathic products should be advised that they do not work and only have a placebo effect.

But according to homeopaths, the real issue behind the consultation is the threat complementary medicine is posing to the highly lucrative relationship between the drug companies and the Health Service.

Face – meet palm.

The Newsline report featured here is really one of the most shockingly-biased, intellectually-dishonest and factually-bereft pieces of reporting I’ve ever seen. In 2 minutes, it manages to squeeze more logical fallacies, outright and long-debunked inaccuracies (the placebo effect DOES work on babies) and Big Pharma innuendo than I thought possible, and serves it up with a huge helping of the kind of smug-snark that only comes with CAM. If you want a summary of what I felt was utterly unprofessional about the report, check out below, where I’ve included the full text of the complaint letter I sent to the BBC yesterday (if you’re equally offended by the report, please feel free to complain to them too, and you can use my complaint as a template if you like. Please do, I urge you, the actually listen to these). Needless to say, the report followed the classic media pattern of interviewing homeopaths, rather than healthcare experts, and allowing their countless statements and facts to go unchecked – with the added bonus of backing their claims of Big Pharma conspiracy to keep the poor homeopath down, and topping off with an appeal by the ‘Health correspondent’ to find a way of accepting homeopathy into the bosom of actual healthcare. Based on nothing more than anecdote, rumour and conjecture, naturally. What do you want – proof? Evidence? Journalistic integrity?!

The BBC should not be behaving like we’d expect the Daily Mail to behave – they’re meant to be better than this. This is the organisation who gave us Brian Cox, Simon Singh and David Attenborough, yet – as was pointed out to me on Twitter yesterday – for insiders in the corporation, anti-science is rife:

“Producer on BBC series on alternative medicine told me he enjoyed “taking scientists down a peg or two”, hence his pro-woo film”

“…Full stand up row in the office with him. But scientist who presented show also at fault”

‘Taking scientists down a peg or two’ – I couldn’t have summed up the feel of the Newsline piece any better myself. We expect this of the Daily Fail, and we expect it of crackpots and quacks like Dana, Nancy and Greg. We don’t expect this of our BBC. You’re better than this. Start acting like it.

Dear BBC

The article entitled ‘Health Focus: Homeopathy’ contains a large number of issues which are great cause for concern:

• The tone and bias of the article leaves a clear impression that homeopathy is effective, given that the case for ineffectiveness is not stated (it’s merely stated that the regulatory body advise it be considered ineffective), whereas the counterarguments to this position are detailed, with language leading the reader towards believing the claim as being likely correct (‘real issue‘, ‘threat to the highly lucrative relationship‘)
• The videos are clearly supportve of homeopathy, starting with ‘it’s an alternative way of treating and illness, but more and more people are turning to homeopathy‘. This lacks both balance and scientific/factual insight.
• The interview puts forward that babies do not experience the placebo effect – this is factually inaccurate, but goes uncorrected – leaving the viewer under the false misapprehension that this statement is true, and that placebos really are not active on babies.
• ‘It has worked for my family for years‘ – again, this is a factually unproven statement that the viewer is not encouraged to question, despite being demonstrably implausible
• ‘Once frowned upon by conventional doctors‘ implies it’s now accepted – it is not, and conventional doctors are still aware that the evidence proves homeopathy does not work
• ‘here, there are only 5 (homeopathically) registered doctors‘ – clearly the implication from the journalist is that there should be more homeopathy in Northern Ireland – this is blatant editorialising, and is not supported in the views of healthcare experts
• ‘house of commons reports raised questions about its effectiveness‘ – in fact, the report examined the evidence and concluded homeopathy was not effect – no questions were raised, they were demonstrably answered
• ‘…unreliable… cannot for the basis of any NHS treatment‘ – this is a cynically-selected quote – in actual fact, the report concluded comprehensively that homeopathy can be reliably shown not to be effective, as the authors will gladly attest to (please contact me if you’d like me to demonstrate this)
• The balance of the whole piece is entirely lop-sided, interviewing a pharmacist for 15 seconds on the issue of labelling, before returning to a pro-homeopathy stance with an interview with a homeopath
• ‘some feel there’s more behind this current debate…’ – here, the journalist (and by extension, the BBC) are clearly and implicitly adding weight to the unfounded accusations of collusion and conspiracy between doctors and pharmaceutical companies. This is disappointing in the extreme, and in my view is deeply irresponsible journalism.
• ‘In Europe, there are over 100million people for whom homeopathic medicine is their first choice of treatment‘ – an unproven claim, not supported by the data in the video, and disproven by even a cursory level of research
• The statment regarding the growing ‘success’ of homeopathy is misleading – this success is not clinical success, nor scientific success, nor is it a growth in usage; the clear implication is that the opposition to homeopathy is financially based, rather than based on the paucity of evidence for this unproven treatment. This goes unchecked, again, by the report.
• ‘Where the real challenge lies is for the homeopaths and the pharmacists to work together, to provide a service that’s safe, productive, and cost-effective‘ – again, this is biased and baseless. There is no challenge in getting homeopaths to work with pharmacists – the challenge is in proving homeopathy has a place in healthcare, and it has failed this challenge consistently. Further, the implication from the reporter is clearly that only homeopathy is ‘safe, productive and cost-effective‘ – again, this is baseless and irresponsible editorialising, and is not supported by data.

Having watched this video, and the supporting extended pro-homeopathy interview, a number of times, I must conclude that it’s one of the most biased, one-sided and evidence-free pieces of reporting I’ve witnessed by the BBC. Not once is the lack of evidence for homeopathy addressed, indeed there’s not even a qualified medical professional involved in the whole report. Facts supporting homeopathy are not questioned (if they were addressed even in passing it would be clear that those presented here are simply false), and no facts regarding the continual failure of homeopaths to show any efficacy of their pills and tinctures are presented.

In short, I find this to be an irresponsible, biased and potentially very misleading article, which does nothing to add clarity to the public understanding of healthcare.

Yours dissapointedly
Michael

PS – it’s not all bad news on the homeopathy front, of course: not with the closure of the Price of Wales quackfest FIH; the BMA Young Doctors going on record with ‘Homeopathy is akin to withcraft; and a little-birdy-style rumour regarding some pretty interesting developments with NHS Primary Care Trusts here in our very own Liverpool… more of which to follow soon I’m sure…

I really can’t get to grips with the psychology at work here. Maybe the newspapers just get bored:

Journo 1: I’m sick of this abuse stuff…

Journo 2: Let’s drown the readership in a load of inane crap about a civil service memo then instead!

Journo 1: Yeah! Woohh! *types on keyboard enthusiastically*

This kind of thing pisses me off. Now, my lack of knowledge about newspaper offices aside, something dodgy is going on here. I don’t care who is responsible, but all I know is that right at the moment when something serious and important is happening in this country, right when popular opinion finally comes into line with reality, suddenly everyone seems to take a left turn and run down the “I can’t cope with this serious stuff anymore” alley of shite:

Citizen 1: Wow, the Catholic Church is really fucked up and corrupt isn’t it? I am so disgusted and angry. They need to do something about it.

Citizen 2: I agree. It is an ancient and unaccountable institution that is completely morally bankrupt, and it is about time that society as a whole woke up to the situation and did something about it.

[pause]

Citizen 1: Being serious has made me tired and uncomfortable.

Citizen 2: Hey, some civil servant made a rude joke about the Pope!

Citizen 1: What a fucker! Someone should do something about this disgusting event!

Citizen 2: I’m going to write an obnoxious letter to the Telegraph… *types on keyboard enthusiastically*

It depresses me, it really does.

For those who don’t know, this “disgusting” memo was circulated through Whitehall by a group of civil servants brainstorming ideas for the Pope’s upcoming four day visit. To me, it seems like a tongue-in-cheek joke, but it could be a genuine result of a “blue-sky thinking” session, where they were trying to come up with as many off-the-wall ideas as possible. Either way, to take genuine offence at the memo requires a serious dysfunction in the reality centre of the brain. And the humour centre. Hell, it requires a serious dysfunction in the brain in general. (I feel I’m really nailing my colours to the mast in this one)

Here’s some of the suggestions in the memo for your reading pleasure:

1 – Starting a helpline for abused children

2 – Opening an abortion ward

3 – Sack ‘dodgy’ bishops

4 – Preside over a civil partnership ceremony

5 – Perform forward rolls with children (?!?)

6 – Apologise for the Spanish Armada

7 – Meet Susan Boyle

8 – Start up his own range of Benedict-brand condoms

9 – Sing a song with the Queen for charity

Now, as I’ve already indicated, the main problem with this whole debacle is that the memo is obviously silly. There should be no “disgusted” response. Even for those suggestions which people may feel skim too close to the Catholic bone, if you look at them objectively without the Catholic overtones they’re quite reasonable suggestions for a high profile and supposedly moral figure such as the Pope: starting helplines for the abused, raising money for charity, preventing unwanted pregnancies… All good things. They’re only bad to the warped priorities of the institution of the Catholic Church. We don’t have to kowtow to those priorities, even if we’re Catholic. Reality is outside the window. Let it in.

I am just angry at the level of offence some people seem to take at this memo, like they’ve forgotten the last few months of abuse revelations. This is not a serious issue: this is diplomats making a gaffe. They didn’t firebomb the popemobile, just their careers. I can understand the Foreign Office making an official apology after the memo was leaked, which they did, but beyond that it’s simply shrug your shoulders time as far as I’m concerned.

But no: Malcolm McMahon, bishop of Nottingham, said the memo reflected: “appalling manners… I think it’s bad that we invite someone into this country – a person like the Pope – and then he’s treated this way.”

What way? The Pope was never supposed to read the memo. Plus, I’m sure he’s got a thick skin. He’s still coming to Britain for his visit, anyway.

Jim Murphy, the cabinet minister overseeing the Pope’s visit, and a practising Catholic, said the memo was: “absolutely despicable. It’s vile, it’s insulting, it’s an embarrassment.”

No, it isn’t. It’s a joke. I think Mr Murphy seems to be confusing irony about an institution’s pisspoor response to the systematic abuse of children with the abuse itself. Even if the letter was meant seriously, there’s nothing remotely at the level of “vile” or “despicable” there. Get a grip. Opening a childline for abused victims of the organisation you are supposedly the figurehead of is “vile”? It’s the least he could do! Especially as he’s done fuck all so far except write an insultingly weak letter which did nothing to address the reality of the children raped under the care of his Church. If the Pope had been the head of a company or a government minister, he would have had to resign by now as a matter of course, as a symbol of the organisation’s shame and its willingness to do something in response to a serious situation. No-one would dispute that decision to resign.

Speaking of the Pope’s letter – a far more “disgusting” document than the memo – in that letter the Pope suggested that the victims of the abuse should seek the comfort of Jesus. That’s all the response he bothers to give them, other than “well, we at the Catholic church will try to do better in the future, honest, guv, we feel really bad about the whole thing… ” The abused children didn’t find the comfort of Jesus in the Church where it’s supposed to be mediated, so how are they going to find it elsewhere? Passing the buck much, Pope Benedict? The letter also makes no suggestion of the abuse victims who killed themselves. Presumably as suicide victims they’re not eligible for Jesus’ love. Now, I think it’s worth pointing out that the Pope is quite literally supposed to be Jesus’ representative on Earth. So shouldn’t he be comforting them himself to start with? Or is he just going to sit there?

I wonder.

The Pope could actually step down if he wanted. There’s nothing in the Church’s rules that says he can’t. No Pope has stepped down in 300 years, but that would just make it a more profound gesture. Considering the gravity of the situation, it would be perfectly appropriate. Any gesture would do, really, considering the lack of them so far. To go back to the memo’s suggestions, opening a childline would be a minor act of kindness, not something “vile”. It would be a charitable act. It would make Jesus proud. Maybe the Pope could man the line himself, being Jesus’ representative.

To me, the daftest thing to have come out of all this is the Foreign Office’s response to the staff involved in writing the memo. It sent them on ‘diversity training’. Diversity training. What for?

A Foreign Office spokesperson said:

“The idea is to instill in people the need to treat others with respect, whatever their background.”

This isn’t about background, it’s about ideologies. The memo took the piss out of  what are dangerous and morally bankrupt views held by the Catholic Church. It did not disrespect the Pope’s background. If this is an issue about background, then so is any joke about anyone ever: everyone with an opinion has a background.

Ultimately, my concern is with perspective. If something so serious can be deflected by something so trivial, then something is very wrong with our collective sense of perspective. Hopefully, the real issues will come back to the forefront and not just float away. I don’t know, but I hope.

Fake orgasm story? Trot out a Meg Ryan pic

To help me vent my frustration and ongoing obsession with the dodgy PR stories that make the papers on a daily basis, I thought I’d start a bit of a ‘BadPR’ series, taking a look at stories as they appear in the papers, the press release that inspired them (often word-for-word inspiration, no less), and the companies who benefit. Regular readers of the blog will know the score, and irregular readers of the blog will soon pick it up, so without further intro I give you today’s offering:

Ex girls top at fake fun

The fake orgasm capital of Britain is Exeter, claims a new survey. A whopping 57 per cent of women in the Devon town admit to feigning it. Meanwhile, girls in Oxford were happiest in bed with only a third faking their big O. Nationally, one in 10 women admits acting most times. And a fifth said they thought about another man if they wanted satisfaction. – Source: The People

And, alternatively:

Poor show, chaps: Survey reveals nearly one in ten women fake it between the sheets

It is enough to make even the most confident lover a little worried. One in ten women fake an orgasm almost every single time they make love, according to a poll. Researchers found that 48 per cent of British women had faked the height of passion. But an Oscar-worthy 9 per cent admitted it happened every time they have sex. Seven per cent have ended a relationship because they were unsatisfied in bed but just one in ten of those told their partner the real reason for the break-up.  

Not surprisingly, one in five women claims to be extremely unhappy with their sex life, with 16 per cent complaining about a lack of foreplay, and 11 saying their partner orgasms too quickly. Even more worrying for men, the poll of 3,000 women revealed that almost 38 per cent of women reckon their partner would struggle to tell the difference between a real and fake orgasm. One in five women even admitted to thinking about another man in bed to help them reach orgasm, with a famous actor or a male friend the most popular people to fantasise about. - Source: Daily Mail

So, answers on a postcard – who do you think’s behind this? Let’s take a look at the themes of the story – half of women in Exeter are sexually dissatisfied, 10% of UK women aren’t fulfilled by their men, a fifth want other men; men are bad at sex, men don’t know what they’re doing, even men who are confident in bed should worry, men’s poor performance is often the reason for the end of a relationship.

Pretty much an anti-men message there, then. The aim of both articles seems to be to undermine men and make them doubt their performance. Any clues yet? Let’s take a look at the press release the articles were taken from:

FAKE IT

One in ten women fake an orgasm almost every single time they have sex, a new study has found. Researchers found that a whopping 48 per cent of British women have faked it in bed, with nine per cent admitting they do it most of the time, or even every time they have sex. Seven per cent have even dumped their other half because they didn’t satisfy them in bed, but just one in ten of those told them the real reason for the break-up. Not surprisingly, one in five women claims to be extremely unhappy with their sex life, with 16 per cent complaining about a lack of foreplay, and 11 saying their partner orgasms too quickly. - Source: One Poll (bless em)

Wow, that’s uncannily almost word-for-word what appeared in the papers! Funny that. Read on…

A spokesman for Stimul8, a fruit flavoured energy soft drink reputed for its aphrodisiac and performance enhancing ingredients, which commissioned the survey said: ”It appears guys in the UK have their work cut out if one in five women are saying they are extremely unhappy with their sex life. ’But it’s not all down to the blokes as women need to communicate a bit more with their partner to let them know what it is they really want. ’Although it may be down to tiredness or stress, if a guy isn’t doing it right, he’s not going to know unless he is told.”

I think we can stop there. “Stimul8, a fruit flavoured energy soft drink reputed for its aphrodisiac and performance enhancing ingredients”. So this is all to peddle a soft drink with dubious ‘reputed’ claims to aphrodisiac properties. Interesting wording – note how the claims are not only softened by ‘reputed’, they’re also attached to the ingredients, not the drink. Because claiming it about the drink, would require substantiation, and would be liable to ASA complaints. However, it seems you can makes claims about the ‘reputed’ benefits of ingredients, without needing to back it up with proof.

Do you like sex? Are you a susceptible moron? Then you should buy... Stimul8!

For completion, let’s take a look at the Stimul8 website – ooohh, bikini-clad girls, loud Nuts-style fonts and lots of shots of the magic liquid (erm, I mean Stimul8 there!), all hidden behind an age-verification warning. Attached to a press release aimed at undermining a guy’s sexual confidence. In order to sell a drink which claims to ‘enhance performance’:

Stimul8® is designed to enhance your performance. It comes in a discreet 60ml bottle so you can give yourself the edge anytime, anyplace, anywhere. We think this is the fruitiest tasting shot product on the market.

This fruity little number is packed with a special blend of leaves, roots and berries derived from Damiana, Korean Ginseng, Echinacea, Schizandra and Ginkgo Biloba – all renowned for their aphrodisiac properties. Add to that energy boosting L-Arginine, Caffeine, Anthocyanin, plus sugars and you’ve got a heady liquid performance enhancer.

I checked – all of those ingredients are indeed ‘renowned’ for their aphrodisiac properties (if by ‘renowned’ you accept ‘sometimes claimed to have’)… however, try and find a herb that hasn’t been claimed to have aphrodisiac properties. Really, try – I did: Marapuama, Catuba, Cajueiro, Suma, Maca, Avena Sativa, Yohumbune, Ajwain (aka Bishop’s Weed), Ashwaghandha, Shitawari and even Hemp (hemp for fuck’s sake!) were all claimed to have such properties on a single page I picked out of Google. It turns out, if you’re going to make up a property for a herb, a good one to pick is one that men are prone to be susceptible to – sexual performance. And with newspapers, PR departments and fucking soft drinks trying to perpetuate these fears for gain, it’s easy to see why this sexual hang-up persists.

Thanks for playing.

Sources

• The People –  http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=ex-girls-top-at-fake-fun%26method=full%26objectid=22109518%26siteid=93463-name_page.html
• Daily Mail – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256134/Poor-chaps-Survey-reveals-nearly-women-fake-sheets.html
• OnePoll – http://www.onepoll.com/press-archive/survey-reveals–women-fake-it

1. Londoners ‘Least Friendly’ in England – Metro
2. Why Women Are Better Handling The Family Cash – Daily Express
3. Cheryl Cole Is Celebrity Most Brits Want To Holiday With Unlike Katie Price – Metro
4. Kids’ £1.8 Billion Repair Cost – The Mirror
5. DIY Ability ‘In The Genes’ – Press Association

OK, there’s your headlines, have a quick guess (no peeking), answers below.

#1: ‘Londoners ‘Least Friendly’ in England’ / ‘Londoners are rudest people in Britain: Poll’

Londoners have emerged as Britain’s most unwelcoming people in a new poll conducted recently.  They have been branded by visitors as being nothing like the legendary chirpy Cockney image the city was once famous for. People in the capital were slammed for their inability to make friendly conversation and a lack of basic manners and politeness.  The city was also named as having the worst customer service in shops.  Southampton was voted the friendliest city, followed by Norwich, Exeter, Brighton and Plymouth. - Source: Multiple, including Metro, Times of India

I’ll point out, the above story appears as part of ‘British Tourism Week’, and associated stories ran with the emphasis on Southampton as the friendliest city in the UK. But this isn’t a piece by the Southampton tourist board – that would be too easy. Instead, this story appeared via a poll conducted by polling company One Poll, commissioned by hotel firm Jurys Inn. This might look like a bad idea – after all, you’d think Jurys Inn would be trying to encourage people to visit their London hotels, but there a couple of things at play here: firstly, the result that Londoners are the rudest in the country is something akin to received wisdom – we’ve all heard it for years, and we’re all used to the idea (true or otherwise – this was merely an opinion poll, after all). Therefore, it’s unlikely that disparaging London would have to great a negative effect on the business at the Chelsea Jurys Inn. Secondly, the supporting quote attributed to the hotel chain in the Daily Express mops up any anti-London sentiment headed in the hotel’s direction:

“A warm welcome goes a long way,” the Daily Express quoted hotel chain Jurys Inn

London may be rude, but our warm and accommodating staff will make you forget all about it. Lovely.

#2: ‘Why Women Are Better Handling The Family Cash’

MEN have traditionally always taken charge of money matters in the home but research has found they would be better off handing over the task to their wives.

Women are more skilled at budgeting and keeping track of household spending, the study revealed. They are also less likely to build up debts and will endeavour to pay off any money they owe, unlike men who often prefer to make minimum payments. And fewer women pay bills late or forget to pay them altogether unlike their less sensible other halves. - Source: Multiple, including Daily Express, Daily Telegraph

Another one from opinion poll company One Poll (who are kind enough to have an entire Media page of their sites, showing the great work their little PR puff-pieces are doing). Again, we have all of the textbook elements of a PR piece here – come up with a finding that can be portrayed with a nicely attention-grabbing headline, smooth over any complex issues in the data to give simple, black and white absolutes… and get the name of the company in the fourth or fifth paragraph:

A spokesman for money management website love money.com, which carried out the study, said: “For years, women have been thought of as the big spenders, splashing their cash on clothes and shoes. But it seems men are gaining their own reputation when it comes to managing their finances while women are learning how to handle their money.”

LoveMoney.com, there’s your answer. Now, there may be a legitimate case for saying that men are less on-the-ball with their finances… or it might well be selection biases within the demographics polled as part of the 3000 participants. Skew the sampling by polling more men than women in their 20s and more women than men in their 40s or 50s, and you’ll find that more women are financially-aware than men, I’d wager. Poll significant numbers of young, unmarried couples and you might find that the boyfriends more often pay for meals, drinks, small items – making it harder to honestly say ‘I watch every penny carefully’ in an opinion poll. I’m not saying this is definitely the case, I’m just pointing out potential wrinkles in the data. Wrinkles that don’t make it into the press release, where only the sensationalist result appears… along with the company name, of course.

#3: Cheryl Cole Is Celebrity Most Brits Want To Holiday With Unlike Katie Price

Katie Price and Gordon Brown surprisingly have something in common – they have been voted Britain’s least popular choice of celebrity holiday partners.

The poll, which was carried out by the UK’s TNT Travel Show, also showed Cheryl Cole to be the top choice for female celebrity holiday buddy.

Stephen Fry won first position for the male celebrity that most Brits would want to go away with. – Source: Multiple, including Metro

If any one of you didn’t guess that this was for a travel agent or travel show, I’d be disappointed. This is textbook PR – cashing in on the pro-Cole feeling as well as the anti-Price feeling, with a peppering of anti-Gordon Brown in case one of the grown-up papers fancied running it. Top it off with the unsurprising opportunity to feature a nice big photo of an attractive celebrity (Cheryl Cole, I mean, not Katie Price. In all honesty, I’d put Price after Brown, if I were forced to choose) and serve. It’s precisely the same thinking behind the Celebrity Mum of the Year Award (sponsored by Quality Street) – an award so prestigious it’s been twice won by Kerry ‘Iceland-and-Cocaine’ Katona.

#4: Kids’ £1.8 Billion Repair Cost - The Mirror

Families will shell out £1.8billion this year to repair damage caused by kids. Accidents such as drinks spilt on carpets, ripped wallpaper or food stains on furniture cost families an average £105 each year. The survey found other mishaps include children shoving objects into DVD players, putting stickers on walls and breaking beds by using them as trampolines. – Source: The Mirror

Come on then – who has a vested interest in stories about children breaking things? B&Q? The Big Superglue Company? The NSPCC?

Nikki Sellers, of insurers esure which did the study, said: “Easter holidays mean more family time so it’s a prime time for breakages.”

Yep, esure insurance company. Because breakages are big business for insurance companies. This one, I’ll admit, did make me chuckle – using children’s Easter breaks as a way of promoting house insurance is a kind of obscure brilliance. It’s right up there with Sheila’s Wheels Home Insurance telling us that we don’t wash our sheets often enough. Hat’s off, really.

#5: DIY Ability ‘In The Genes’

Home improvement enthusiasts who flounder with flat-pack furniture were given an excuse for their struggles – DIY ability is in the genes, say scientists.

Two in three Britons lack the necessary spatial awareness to complete DIY tasks, researchers concluded. – Source: Press Association

Speaking of obscure, this effort is a lovely curve-ball. Precisely who would benefit from having discussion of genetic inability to do DIY? Perhaps it’s the National Association of Carpenters, or perhaps it could plausibly be someone like Bosch, Black and Decker or the like – that would make sense.

Halifax Home Insurance estimated that £400 million worth of damage was caused last year by people who lack genetically pre-determined Do-It-Yourself ability.

Ah. Another home insurance article, then. I guess the one over-riding message to take away is this: home insurance companies engage in quite a lot of bullshit polls and surveys. Which reminds me, this article was brought to you by Merseyside Skeptical Insurance – the official insurance company of the Merseyside Skeptics Society. We offer fair rates, although we don’t protect against acts of god, and we’re REALLY thorough when it comes to investigating your claims…

Now, I appreciate it might seem like a bit of a nothingness, after all. So some numbers get inflated to make it look like men are shitty to their girlfriends, or that knife crime is on the rise, or that more than half of teenage girls are pregnant – these kind of issues might seem relatively minor, if slightly sexist, sensationalist or downright stupid. Nobody’s getting hurt here, you might think, and after all more than 33% of statistics are made up, and over half of the remaining two thirds are meaningless cliche anyway. However, consider the following headline, from Tuesday’s Metro:

“One in four women has been raped, a shocking new survey reveals“

I think it’s fair to say the statement that 25% of women have been raped is a shocking statement. Truly. If it were, in fact, true. But is it? Well, it’s right there in the headline, and surely nobody running those figures could do so without being 110% sure of their accuracy, and at the very least they’d make sure they were about 4/3rds positive of the interpretation? Well, a little digging around and I was able to locate a summary of the survey this stat was taken from – it was an online survey of 1061 people in London, broken down into 349 men and 712 women. There’s no indication as to how that sample of 1061 people was put together, so any discussion of the stats has to be with the caveat that any potential bias is undisclosed. Interestingly, when looked at in terms of self-defined sexuality there were only 71 homosexual, 52 bisexual and 16 asexual respondents – yet the summary merrily extrapolates the data of around four dozen bisexual respondents into statements of comparative risk, such as:

People who classify themselves as bisexual are most likely in the last 12 months to have walked home via back streets on their own (60% vs. 45% of heterosexual respondents)

People who are heterosexual are less likely to agree that “most claims of rape are probably not true” (16% vs. 44% of people who are asexual)

More bisexual adults have been made to have sex when they didn’t want to than any other sexuality (35% vs. 18% of people who are heterosexual)

Bear in mind that 35% of 52 is just 18 bisexual respondents, and 44% of 16 people accounts for just 7 asexual respondents to be used as a benchmark. Still, that’s incidental – the figures quoted in the Metro, and numerous other news sources, appear on page 7 of the summary:

How many people have actually been in the situation of being made to have sex when they didn’t want to?

• One out of five adults in London have been in a situation where they were made to have sex when they didn’t want to (20%)
• More women than men have been made to have sex when they didn’t want to (23% vs. 15%)
• More bisexual adults have been made to have sex when they didn’t want to than any other sexuality (35% vs. 18% of people who are heterosexual)

The wording here is clearly key: a situation of being made to have sex when they didn’t want to. While that may appear, at least on paper, to be a fair definition of rape, clearly the stats (and common sense) show otherwise – as it happens the definition is vague enough to be extremely problematic. While the numbers will include genuine cases of rape, they also includes, for example, an ‘I wasn’t in the mood but she was so I thought I might as well go along with it’ scenario. There are plenty of times in relationships where you find one partner more interested in sex than the other, as is likely borne out by the similarly-high figures for men who have been ‘raped’ (inverted commas to denote the survey’s definition, not my own). Compare this to stats produced by the Home Office and we see something of a different story:

23% of women and 3% of men experience sexual assault as an adult. 5% of women and 0.4% of men experience rape.

Here the prevalence of the crime is very highly against women, with an order of magnitude of difference between the sexes – a stark contrast to the 8% spread in the survey by The Havens. What’s more, in the outline of the methodology of the survey, it’s explicitly stated that the respondents were given no extra guidance:

…each respondent is presented with exactly the same question asked in thesame format. Online prevents any interviewer bias arising through the use of more than oneinterviewer on a research project.

Thus there was no clarification and no follow-up, so any confusion over exact meaning of the questions couldn’t be cleared up (assuming that the clearly erroneously-high stats were an accidental mis-firing of vague questioning, rather than something more deliberately sensationalist).

In the introduction to the survey’s summary, the Havens state that the aims of the report

“…are to challenge the stereotypes that are still widely held about rape by bringing them out into the open for discussion and to increase awareness that services such as the Havens are open to people who have been raped where they will not be judged or held responsible for whatever has happened.”

I’m sure everyone supports those aims 100% – I for one find the very fact that anyone has to live with the fear of being raped completely abhorrent, and whatever we can do to help raise awareness of the issues and promote safety and prosecute perpetrators is a good thing. But by burying those aims behind distorted (intentionally or otherwise) or sensationalist statistics, we run the risk of hiding the real issues and downplaying their severity. Personally I believe that telling people one in every four women will be raped in her lifetime, rather than emphasising severity, only serves to make the abhorrent and genuinely terrible act seem more a commonplace and everyday occurence. What’s more, I can only imagine how a genuine victim of a serious sexual assault would feel at seeing rape cases bundled in with ‘having sex when you didn’t want it’. Where the issues get more serious and severe, surely the need to reflect real, accurate data becomes all the more immediate?

Admittedly, it’s easy to see why there might be temptation, even unconsciously, to massage statistics – the ’1 in 4 women are rape victims’ made for national press in a way that the real 5% figure almost certainly wouldn’t have, and that national interest will have raised awareness of the issues, as well as potentially raising funding for rape centres and helplines. But do the ends justify the means, and does the fact that the media has been working with sensationalised figures too long to allow the real, shocking numbers to make a splash excuse the use of misleading stats? To me, it doesn’t – if we allow inaccurate information to be the norm in order to raise profile via shock tactics, we leave ourselves open to manipulation and misinformation via those very same shock tactics.

The information we’re given should always be based on solid evidence – not except when the stakes are high, but especially when they are.

Enter our hero of the hour, Ms/iss/rs(?) Beverley Turner, and her little excursion into something one or two of you will recognise…

“Even though I have this feeling, I deeply and completely accept myself.”

Got it yet?

*Taps Karate Chop Point 7 times*

“This Feeling” – including this wonderful comment by helloish123:

“Thank You…. This really works… I did this tapping today, $1200 cash all in $100 bills came to me unexpectedly. I had others ask to borrow money from me and I paid them both cash of what they asked me for and SOLD a house as well… I focused on releasing blockage of money flow. This works….enjoy jamie”

Yes, that’s it…  I can see the wide-eyed look of incredulity spreading like across your face like warm butter across hot toast:  The one and only – the 100% totally not “woo-woo or anything new-agey like that”, oh no – Emotional Freedom Technique and its merry entailment of gobshitery, insanity (“It could be long line in the fast food restaurant (sic) and I would feel like ripping slow people’s heads off – straight to EFT I go.”) and outrageous claims of efficacy over anything ranging from feeling a bit under the weather, to a lack of mathematical ability, to headaches, to short-sightedness (with added, extra quantum-woo) and, of course, the big one that they have to be able to claim:  Cancer.

Yes, this article – no relation to “This Feeling” – published in the Telegraph-ing horseshit to the masses – and penned by that presenter off of ‘Taste’, apparently, on Sky3 (does that channel really exist, or is it a barely noticed apparition in our collective subconscious?), is married to an Olympic gold medal winner, apparently, and now, apparently, qualified to flood the national psyche with healthcare advice which, in her own words, makes you “feel a bit of a wally” undertaking it.  I know, Bev, you must have felt a bit of a wally picking up that cheque as well…

Still.. It’s only about a bit of tapping, giggling and sticking it to The Man and his pesky Treatments-That-Actually-Work-But-I-Don’t-Understand in London’s LaLaLand of  well-monied, but missing-a-screw-or-two set, isn’t it?  No harm done, eh?  Of course not.

Apart from the harm you’re doing in directing people towards a nonsense non-treatment that, with a laugh and a joke, a nod and a wink, tells the credulous mass who have been conditioned to taking all manner of advice from ‘celebrities’, even homeopathic celebrities (almost certainly no celeb…  you see where I’m going), that they can stop taking their medication, because “…it (EFT) may may (sic) substantially reduce or eliminate diabetes symptoms….”

This insane article doesn’t, in itself, promote the use of EFT for severe physical conditions, but it does recommend this treatment for severe psychological trauma, with nothing but scant, ridiculously biased and credulous anecdotes as ‘evidence’.  The person doing this promotion has absolutely no right, no qualification and no hard facts to fall back on in defence of this piece.  It reeks of advertising dressed up as journalism, written with the force of semi-celebrity behind it, and immediately creditable via its publication in a broadsheet with a circulation close to 1.9 million readers per day.

Beverley Turner writes silly, trite books about her terrible time in the really, terribly machismo, anti-feminist world of F1 (dog bites man, news at 11); presents a terribly pro-feminist, err, middle-class TV cookery show and comments on healthcare that a good portion of almost 2,000,000 readers/day will ingest uncritically.  This person has a dream-like life, apparently untouched by the heinous tragedies that she then uses as pseudo-evidence for this PR piece, or to give it the old-fashioned name ’propaganda’, for people who want to sell 21^st Century Snake-Oil-as-Talk-Therapy to the masses.

I wonder if she’s happy to Telegraph credibility towards EFT for diabetes as promoted by its founder, Mr Gary – Slugbrows – Craig?

She, and the Telegraph are living in fantasyland, but not everyone can join them.  Most of us are stuck in the real world.

And what is it to have your middle-class, fashionable food fantasies brought, nodding and winking into the real world?

As most of our attempts at recreating Delia will testify:  A Nightmare.