Get your QED ticket now!

It’s been a little while since the furore over the pro-homeopathy EDMs and David ‘hand in the till’ Tredinnick‘s one-quack crusade to have homeopathy recognised as the greatest thing since succussed bread, but one name that stood out to me on the roll-call of signatories and seconders was that of Luciana Berger MP, and it was a name I couldn’t let lie.

You see, Luciana is MP for Wavertree, Liverpool – not more than a couple of miles from my home, and the constituency in which I’ve spent much of my 9 years in Liverpool. What’s more, Luciana seems to be a pretty reasonable MP – she’s in favour of equal rights for women, equality for those of all sexualities, against all forms of racial discrimination and generally appears to be a fairly-well-informed MP, certainly when compared to Mr Tredinnick, whose EDMs she’s signed.

It struck me that rather than based on ideology, Luciana’s support for Tredinnick’s pet pills might well be a simple case of her not knowing what homeopathy is really about – which is relatively understandable, given the high percentage of the public who think ‘homeopathy’ is just another term for ‘herbal medicine’ and aren’t acquainted with the scientific literature.

Clearly, then, the best approach would be to politely offer to engage over the issues and present the science, rather than berate Luciana with the intensity and single-mindedness we ought to save for those whose belief in homeopathy is blindly ideological (Tredinnick, yes, we mean you). To this end, on the 11th of August I took it upon myself as representative of the 10:23 Campaign and the Merseyside Skeptics Society – a pro-science group with significant numbers in her very constituency – to contact Luciana and offer her our side of the story.

She hasn’t yet responded, which is what has prompted me to share this letter with the MSS readers, to not only convey what I believe to be the best way to engage with those who may not fully understand what homeopathy is, and also to prompt Luciana into the response I sincerely hope she is willing to provide. To reiterate – I don’t believe she deserves abuse, or indeed anger, but wish to simply open the lines of dialogue to put forward the science on homeopathy. Perhaps when given the chance to hear what homeopathy is, and why it’s implausible, the evident common-sense Luciana displays in other policies will win out on the subject of the sugar pills. The full letter is provided below.

Dear Luciana

May I first of all offer my congratulations on much of the work you have taken part in whilst an MP. I’m glad to see a local MP supporting gay rights, fighting child abuse and child abusers, campaigning for the equal rights of women and supporting the value of the arts. All of these policies I find to be excellent, and supported by both good reason and good conscience.

However, I must admit to being a little disappointed at what appears to be the only real blip on your recent record – your support for NHS funding of homeopathy, and support for evidence put forward by those who sell it. It’s this point, unfortunately, that I’m writing to contest – amongst the sensible and reasonable policies you support, this one stands out. As a health campaigner in your city (I am a founding member of the Merseyside Skeptics Society, and our ’10:23 Campaign’ earlier in the year set out to raise awareness of homeopathy, the science, the evidence and the dangers), I thought it best to engage with you directly, rather than criticise you unhelpfully from afar.

I can understand where you might be coming from: many people see appeals by doctors, pharmacists, scientists and pharmacologists to remove something from the NHS as the ordinary patient ‘losing’ something. I know patient choice was recently cited by the Government as the most important factor in what gets funded on the NHS, placed ahead of effectiveness even. This I find to be a baffling position – for the Government to promote a pill based specifically on the fact that it doesn’t work (a fact accepted without contention in the recent response to the Science and Technology Committee report) but that it should be available for choice alone seems to be a remarkably strange position to take, and one open to all manner of extrapolations. If effectiveness is no longer a concern, then the argument used to justify the funding of homeopathy can be applied to all manner of other disproven therapies – Reiki, voodoo, blood-letting and the casting out of demons, for example.

While the above may seem a glib extrapolation, it is in fact sound: by promoting choice ahead of usefulness, the very foundations of modern medicine are upturned, with potentially disastrous results. While homeopathic pills – being chemically and literally identical to unprepared blank sugar pills – are not intrinsically dangerous in themselves, the implicit reliance upon them to the abandonment of real medicine is incredibly dangerous. Examples are not hard to find – the death at 4 months old of Gloria Thomas from treatable eczema, the recent colon cancer death of Penelope Dingle, the studies conducted in Kenya by members of the UK-based Society of Homeopaths into using homeopathic pills to attempt to treat AIDS and malaria. People die when directed at placebo pills over real, proven medicine.

To clarify, I contact you with this not to berate you, but to understand your position and open dialogue. My suspicion is that you may not entirely acquainted with the literature and history of homeopathy – indeed, this is far from a crime, as we discovered in researching prior to starting the 10:23 Campaign that more than 80% of people questioned are not able to define homeopathy, and are inclined to believe it is an alternative modality akin to herbalism. This lack of clarity in the population is almost certainly behind the continuing support the treatments receive, and I suspect it’s also behind the support this system receives in parliament.

I urge you to engage with the literature on homeopathy, to acquaint yourself with what is involved in making the pills, and the ludicrous nature of this practice. A ‘layman’s terms’ explanation can be found at (http://www.1023.org.uk/what-is-homeopathy.php) with an explanation of the objections to homeopathy here (http://www.1023.org.uk/why-you-cant-trust-homeopathy.php).

In a time of economic belt-tightening, and where science-literacy is falling in the face of assaults from many different pressure groups, I feel this is one particular area where common sense can prevail. To this end, I would be more than willing to spend some time face-to-face discussing these issues with you, in order to best put forward the scientific side of the debate.

Yours sincerely
Michael Marshall
Merseyside Skeptics Society / QED
http://www.qedcon.org
http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk

I will update you all should I receive a reply.

However, there are still significant challenges ahead – not least in the form of David Tredinnick MP, recently appointed to the Health Select Committee despite his beliefs that astrology has a role to play in healthcare, and that surgeons won’t operate under a full moon as the lunar cycle has an effect on the clotting of blood. Both of which are, of course, untrue. This isn’t the extent of Mr Tredinnick’s misunderstanding of health advice – he recently tabled 4 Early Day Motions, urging MPs to support homeopathy and to ignore the findings of the Science and Technology Select Committee. These EDMs are based on flawed science and false assertion, and should not be supported by your local MP.

Fortunately, Julian Huppert MP has tabled amendments to each of Mr Tredinnick’s motions, in order to correct the inaccuracies, misunderstandings and misguided support for homeopathy. These amendments are based on clear reviews of the studies in question, and are backed by scientists and experts in the fields – as such, they also have the backing of the Merseyside Skeptics Society, and the 10:23 Campaign.

At the moment, many MPs may not know much about homeopathy, and may not know it is based on quackery and magical thinking; most crucially, they may not know how important an issue it is to you. With this in mind, we urge you to write to your MP to let them know how strongly you feel. The website Write To Them (http://www.writetothem.com/) makes writing to your MP very easy, and for your convenience you can find below a standard letter to copy and paste into the body of your letter.

Please, take 2 minutes to let your MP know that homeopathy is not an effective healthcare option, does not offer value for taxpayer money, and should not be supported. Ask your MP to sign EDM amendments 284A1, 285A1, 286A1 and 287A1. Ask your friends to do the same. Spread the word – together, we can make a difference.

Visit http://www.writetothem.com/ and paste the following into the body of your letter – as Write To Them blocks identical letters, please adjust the wording in the letter as you see fit, to best express your views:

Dear <your MP>

I am writing to you to alert you to an important issue you might not be aware of – while the role of an MP is doubtlessly a busy one, and the challenge to keep on top of all of the various issues put to you is likely significant, I can appreciate that you may not have been made aware of the ongoing debate regarding government funding for homeopathy on the NHS.

At a time when cuts are increasingly likely, it was refreshing to see the Science and Technology Select Committee advise the cutting of homeopathy – a 200-year-old pseudoscience – from NHS funding. I applaud the committee, and their reliance on evidence to come to a solid conclusion. It is, therefore, disappointing in the extreme to see the Early Day Motions EDM284 [Bma Annual Representative Meeting Motions On Homeopathy], EDM285 [Effect Of Homeopathic Remedies On Breast Cancer Cells], EDM286 [Homeopathic Medicines In The Treatment Of Moderate To Severe Depression] and EDM287 [Homeopathy And Chronic Primary Insomnia] call for support for this disproven quackery.

Indeed, it’s further distressing that, upon examination, the studies cited as proof of the effect of homeopathic treatments in EDM284, EDM285 and EDM286 are in fact riddled with deep and significant flaws. Given that EDM285 applauds the use of homeopathic substances to treat breast cancer – a claim which would be illegal if made by a UK practitioner – it’s clear to see how support for this motion could lead to real and significant harm.

I applaud the actions of Julian Huppert MP – who has tabled clear and reasonable amendments to these misguided motions, amendments which correct their inaccuracies and redirect them back in line with real science and evidence. These amendments are titled as follows: EDM284A1 [Bma Annual Representative Meeting Motions On Homeopathy], EDM285A1 [Effect Of Homeopathic Remedies On Breast Cancer Cells], EDM286A1 [Homeopathic Medicines In The Treatment Of Moderate To Severe Depression] and EDM287A1 [Homeopathy And Chronic Primary Insomnia].

I therefore urge you to consider the issues and the serious ramifications to both the taxpayer in funding disproven treatments on the NHS, and to the overall health of the nation in recommending pseudo-medicine for such serious issues as severe depression and breast cancer. If you agree that cancer, depression and other illnesses should only be treated with modalities that have been proven to work, I urge you to sign EDM284A1, EDM285A1, EDM286A1 and EDM287A1.

Thank you for your time

Godfrey Bloom MEP - pro-homeopathy, anti-immigration, anti-climate change, anti-science, and rude to boot

One of our main aims with the 10:23 campaign was to get people involved. For a long time, people have railed against the sheer nonsense of homeopathy, but have done so in their own homes, the pub, their workplaces, the pub again, and then bed. Instead, we tried to get people to take that energy and passion and turn it to more productive action… which is why I was delighted to hear from an old friend (and long time MSS supporter) who, inspired by our campaign, has emailed MEPs in order to get their thoughts on EU Homeopathy Day – the entirely-self-elected-and-utterly-unofficial-Europe-wide-quackery-awareness-day. Marc (for that is his name, and you’ll see him comment on this blog from time to time) forwarded me his email, and I was happy to read it over and see some of the fruits of our campaigning.

I’d love to tell you our MEPs he contacted were scientifically-literate and met Marc’s concerns and appeals with a rational response. I’d even be OK with telling you that they were reluctant to get too involved, but were polite and diplomatic in their answers. However, as the below response from Godfrey Bloom of UKIP (I know, I know) will show, I can’t. FYI, Godfrey Bloom also has a blog outlining his opinions on climate change, as well as some very misogynistic views towards women:

“No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age”.

That’s not poisoning the well by the way – that’s context. Anyway, Marc’s email read:

From: Marc Callinan
Sent: 23 March 2010 10:46

Dear Edward McMillan-Scott, Linda McAvan, Godfrey Bloom, Timothy Kirkhope, Andrew Brons and Diana Wallis,

I am writing to you all as my MEP’s with regards to the 3rd EU Homoeopathy Day. I sincerely hope that you all will reject its call for ”politicians and decision makers in Brussels to take action in favour of homeopathy for the benefit of European patients and citizens, as part of a more integrated and holistic approach to health care in Europe.” (Quote taken from the website: http://www.euhomeopathyday.eu/more)

Homoeopathy has been proven through research to work on the placebo effect. One of the key beliefs of homoeopathy is that water can remember a substance that has been diluted out of it. After 12C there is statistically not one single molecule of the original substance left in the dilution and homoeopathy happily sells solutions of 30C and even 200C. Funding and support should not be given to a treatment that has no benefit beyond a placebo, after all the placebo effect can be obtained much more cheaply by using sugar pills that have not been exposed to water that many dilutions ago was exposed to something that may or may not have any healing properties to begin with. The recent 1023 campaign did a wonderful job of raising awareness of what homoeopathy is and isn’t and showing that there literally is nothing in it.

Again I ask of you do not be taken in by misrepresented studies and cherry picked low quality trials as was presented to the commons select comity when it conducted the evidence check of homoeopathy. The evidence check was able to cut through the smoke and mirrors to see that homoeopathy should not be funded by the NHS in the UK let alone supported and given false credibility on a European scale.

Many thanks for your time

Yours sincerely,
Marc Callinan

As I’m sure you’ll agree, Marc was polite, to the point, and most of all accurate. So, imagine his surprise when the following response dropped through his metaphorical inbox door:

From: Godfrey Bloom <gbloom@ukip.org

Sent: Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Dear Mr Callinan

Thank you for your letter concerning homeopathy.

Unfortunately for your case, homeopathy works. You apply tests appropriate to pharmaceutical drugs in order to ‘prove’ that homeopathic remedies are no better than placebos. I feel sure that you would not wish to test pharmaceutical products on the reverse principal.

There are many good reasons for using homeopathy as the first resort, but the main one is that homeopathy can do no harm – one of the first aims of Hippocrates – as opposed to the long printed list of dangerous side effects accompanying most pharmaceutical products, and we believe that people should have a choice.

Incidentally, the Royal Family seem to survive pretty well on homeopathy.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely
Godfrey Bloom

*sigh*

For those of you counting fallacies, I make that 1 special pleading, 1 strawman, 2 appeals to authority, 1 Big Pharma/Western Medicine/Teh Pharmaceuticalz paranoia, 1 false dichotomy involving patient choice, and 2 outright factual untruth. It’s a fallacial buffet.

What’s more, the response is curt, smug and with an underlying sneer – note the casual ‘unfortunately for your case’ and the ‘incidental’ appeal to authority (were I Marc, I’d point out that it’s likely quite easy to survive pretty well when you’re born into one of the richest and most privileged families on the planet, not to mention the fact that the Royals also use real medicine – the very best, in fact). The whole email from Bloom strikes me as having the air of self-importance we often see of the science-illiterate when championing their ‘your science doesn’t know everything’ nonsense. For the record, taking his ‘points’ in order:

• Unfortunately for his smug sense of superiority, homeopathy doesn’t work
• A test is a test – there is no special science set aside by which homeopathy works. Tests are appropriate to pharmaceuticals because they’re appropriate to reality. Many pharmaceutical drugs fail these tests – presumably Bloom’s happy for those to be sold too, based on the idea that the tests weren’t appropriate to them?
• I’m not quite sure what reverse principal he wants drugs to be tested on, that makes them fail when compared to homeopathy. I’m not quite sure he’d be sure either, but I’d be delighted to have him write out a test criteria and we could go over it together.
• There are no good reasons to use homeopathy as a first resort – it doesn’t work. It’s not a first resort. It’s not even a resort.
• Homeopathy can do harm – see? See? OK, so the harm isn’t direct (there’s nothing in it!), but in the omission of a real first resort people can get very sick very quickly. Or, if they’re lucky, they’re just throwing their money away.
• Pharmaceutical products do often have side effects, and some of these can be dangerous (not most, as Bloom believes). And it was Science that discovered that, not magic, and not homeopathy. So he’s happy to go with science when it supports his quackery, but to lambast it the rest of the time. What’s more, we know about those side effects, and we can therefore judge accordingly – consumers are rarely given this depth of information on homeopathy, because if they did they wouldn’t buy it.
• People should have a choice, but an uninformed choice is not a real choice. Homeopathy has been proven not to work – to deny this fact is to really deny people the right to choose.
• The Royal Family are not doctors, they’re not scientists and they’re not experts. They are, however, in a position of rare privilege whereby they can afford to dabble with quackery, safe in the knowledge that the very best help is at hand when conditions start to get more serious. Most people don’t have the wealth and the privilege to afford this luxury, and even if they did – it’s their choice to make, based on real information.

Phew. OK, rant over. Still, I’m not alone in my annoyance with Bloom’s attitude and response, and in fact Marc has followed up with a second email:

From: Marc Callinan
Sent: 30 March 2010 11:39

Dear Mr Bloom

Many thanks for taking the time to reply to my email regarding Homoeopathy, I appreciate the effort you took in doing this.

I certainly would not wish to test pharmaceutical drugs in the same way that homoeopathy is tested, relying on anecdotal ‘evidence’ has been shown to be a terrible method of testing treatments.That however does not mean that homoeopathic pills should not be required to prove their efficacy with high quality trials. DBRCT’s are more than capable of testing the efficacy of homoeopathy and unfortunately they show it to work as a placebo.

You say that homoeopathy can do no harm, while for direct harm it is true that homoeopathy being an inactive substance will cause no ill effects, this is because an inactive substance causes no effects. However I believe that in the recent evidence check a claim was made that homoeopathy could not be a placebo because it can cause side effects, clearly this is something that homoeopaths disagree on. There is also the indirect harm that can be caused by homoeopathy, are you familiar with what happened to Baby Gloria Thomas? Her father is a homoeopath that mistakenly believed that homoeopathy could cure her eczema, this sadly was not the case and at the age of 9 months she lost her life to a disease that can be treated very easily by medicine. Had homoeopathy been required to meet the same standards of proving efficacy before being allowed to be sold as a treatment then this little girl would still be alive today.

I have no issue with people choosing to use homoeopathy if they wish, however I do not believe that it should be funded with public money until it proves its efficacy. Placebos can be a great treatment for self limiting illnesses such as headaches or colds etc. however they need to be regulated so they are not supplied in place of malaria tablets or other essential medical interventions.

The Royal family may be supporters of homoeopathy but this is still no proof of its efficacy. If Public money is to be used on a treatment of any sort do you not feel that there should be strong evidence for its efficacy? this is the case with conventional treatments why should it be any different for homoeopathy?

Again many thanks for taking the time to reply to my correspondence

Regards
Marc Callinan

I eagerly await the response he receives from Bloom, and from the other MEPs he contacted. Great work, Marc.

However, even I was surprised to see the angle taken by the Huff-Po this week, when I spotted Patricia Martin’s column ‘The Politics of Astrology and the Secret Lives of CEOs‘. In an interview with Astrologer Susan Miller, the article explores the ways in which astrology can play a part in politics and business… and, bizarrely, doesn’t come to the conclusion ‘none’. Quoting the article:

Over slabs of glazed salmon at the Drake Hotel dining room, Ms. Miller and I discussed the astrological year ahead for American politics. Cheerful even when delivering hard news, Ms. Miller offered up the following outlook:

So, lets take a look at what the stars predict for the political year ahead in America -

Healthcare reform will pass, but undergo tweaks and revisions for several months to come.

I think that’s fair to call it a hit. I think it’s also fair to say it’s a hit I could have come up with – the political weight behind the healthcare reform definitely had it in the ‘plausible’ pile, and the opposition to it most certainly had it in the ‘undergo tweaks and revisions’ pile. What’s more, what controversial bill doesn’t get tweaked and revised? Poor hit.

President Obama should not stop with health care reform, she twinkled. “He’s going to be very powerful these next few months and he should use it to his advantage”

Excellent, this is interesting – for one, she’s saying the President of the USA will be powerful. Which is obvious. What’s more, she’s not actually making a prediction there at all – his level of power isn’t quantifiable, for one thing, so nobody can dispute it. On top of that, she’s said he should use it to his advantage, not that he will, or can, or anything definite. So if he doesn’t make the most of it, she can claim that she told him he should have! These kind of predictions of potential (rather than actuality) are classic examples of cold reading, and something to look out for – a good psychic (ie someone who’s good at faking magical powers) will never tell you anything for certain, instead they’ll give you statements about your potential, leaving themselves the exit strategy of the ‘untapped potential’. Add to that the fact that Obama’s potential is to use his power to ‘his advantage’ – an entirely vague outcome – and we can see how lame this ‘prediction’ really is.

The sky holds a rare alignment for an eclipse on June 26 that’ll brew up trouble in Washington. For Leos like President Obama, it could mean the departure of a trusted ally or assistant. Is that a potential dateline for Rahm Emmanuel’s return to Illinois? I didn’t ask.

Again, this is a classic example of cold reading – for one thing, she’s appearing to make a prediction with a specific date – June 26th – yet that date is of an eclipse, not of her prediction. We know when the eclipse is coming – there’s a partial lunar eclipse on June 26th, and another on December 21st of this year too. So she anchors her prediction onto a date we can verify, but leaves the prediction itself vague.

Check the wording again – it’ll ‘brew up trouble in Washington’. At best, this could be a specific political event – but events happen all the time in politics. That’s kinda what politics is, what it actually means. It could be regarding a bill, a congressman, a senator, an aide, a leaked document, Obama, his wife, drywall in the White House – anything really. Shoot wide and see what hits. However, like any good psychic would, she also offers a potential specific event to relate to… seemingly. ‘For Leos like President Obama, it could mean the departure of a trusted ally or assistant’. Could. Could mean. So again, nothing certain.

Also, an ally or assistant could be anything from Vice President to his chauffeur (in which case Miller could sell it as ‘well, he was very close to the chauffeur, and think of all the things he must have heard – there’s clear trust there’). If it’s none of those things, and nobody leaves anything on June 26th, Miller has a few days grace either side – if someone announces they’re leaving in the week before, she can say it’s those vibes she’s homing in on (‘right on the specific event, but the date was slightly off, what do you want – miracles?’). If someone leaves in the weeks after, she can say she was picking up on the intention to leave.

What’s more, if nobody leaves at all, she just vanishes that side of the claim – after all, she said it *could* mean the departure. ‘But this isn’t an exact science, and we’re not right all of the time’. If someone joins the staff, then that’s a hit too – ‘I sensed a change in the staff, but misinterpreted it as a departure rather than someone joining‘. Even a holiday would count, at a stretch.

What’s interesting, too, is the way the interviewer speculates as to who the departure might be – this kind of detail-providing is a classic example of the sitter filling in the blanks the cold reader leaves for them. If it does turn out to be Rahm Emanuel leaving (something political spectators could speculate on without astrological help), then the sitter remembers the prediction as containing the specifics they themselves added – ‘She told me Rahm Emmanuel would leave on the 26th‘. So you can see how something simple can be incredibly wide and open to make a hit.

(Miller) gave me the low-down on who’s seeking her advice these days. Interestingly, it’s media moguls and CEOs who make up her A-list. “It’s not politicians or movie stars,” she told me. Rather, it’s the sectors experiencing the most turbulence in uncertain times — media, publishing and finance.

This makes a lot of sense, and it’s something we see often – when times get dicey, people are more likely to turn to woo-peddlers to put their mind at ease. Easy answers, no matter how false, are much more desirable and seductive when things are tough.

Of course, this isn’t the first time astrologers have been connected with American politics – famously Joan Quigley was used by President Reagan and his wife Nancy during their White House days. After the attempt on Reagan’s life on March 30, 1981 Nancy asked Quigley if she could have foreseen, and possibly prevented, the assassination attempt. Quigley – surprisingly enough – said she could have, and if she’d been looking, she would have known.  Quigley used to consult the Reagan’s regularly, including advising them on when would be a good time to fly. Still, these are more enlightened times… except for the Huffington Post, I mean.

As it happens, Susan Miller has some advice on her Astrology Zone website ‘latest news’ section regarding the astrological implications of the discovery of Sedna, a potential planet in our solar system, back in 2004. Which never turned out to be a planet, yet her astrology didn’t manage to detect that it wouldn’t. Yet the Huff Po think she’s a good choice for advice for politicians and business CEOs.

This month Mercury will be retrograde and won’t regulate its orbit until April 30. In the meantime we will all need to have lots of patience while delays and glitches crop up. Be sure to back up your computer and try extra hard to double check facts and figures.

Well, I for one remember all those glitches and data losses in April 2004. The Great Data-Loss of April 2004, they called it. Poets wrote about it, to this day kids still sing songs about it in the playground, and wizened old men in the corners of pubs recoil in recollection of those dark times. Or not. More accurately, nothing happened and thus her prediction, meaningless and insignificant, drifted into the bowels of forgotten history.

The new moon solar eclipse fell in Aries on April 19 and may have stirred up some rather dramatic events in your life.

She does love a good eclipse! If you listen to her, all dramatic events are eclipse-based.

And, to sum up Miller’s level of dedication to fact, I just have to leave you with this awesome testament to her analytical powers, quoted in full for bonkers bonus points:

Astrologers also believe that the name a planet is given by the scientific community may give us clues to the planet’s meaning.

In that regard, let’s digress for a moment. To test out this theory, look closely at the names of people around you and of people you read about in the news. See if you can find a link between the name and the kind of work that person does for a living. Or, find a link between the person’s reputation and their name.

Once you start to pay attention to names, it will be amazing how closely you will find the meanings linked.

I have an example in my own life. As you know my last name is Miller, meaning “one who mills the grain.” When I took Astrology Zone off Disney servers when their Internet site, GO.com closed its doors, Disney could not give me back the HTML code for the site. It needed to be written again, a strenuous, time consuming, and expensive chore. I had not anticipated this obstacle and it through me into a crisis. Back in the summer of 2001 I was looking into an abyss where I realized the sudden end of Astrology Zone could be near.

I spoke to many engineers but I wasn’t finding a workable solution. The site is big-500 screens—and the problems of getting the code written quickly with all the hyperlinks that were imbedded deep within the site, was extensive. I was very depressed. Then, I received a recommendation from top-level executive at Barnes & Noble who suggested I see Tom Warmbrodt of Tom Warmbrodt Consulting in Austin, Texas.

When I met Tom, he told me he could write new code for our 500-screen site within the impossibly tight time deadlines we would have to meet. In so doing, Tom Warmbrodt became Head of IT for Astrology Zone and saved Astrology Zone in 2001.

“Warmbrodt” literally means warm bread. I have always felt that Tom was able to take Miller’s grain (my written words) and baked those words into bread, serving it up piping hot to you, dear reader.

Warm bread also suggests a substance that has a very short shelf life, which would accurately describe the topical material I write on Astrology Zone. Readers would never be able to see (“digest”) my words without Tom Warmbrodt’s expertise.

I feel this is a perfect example of how names can give you clues to what is underlying truths.

Astounding. Obama should call her right now. So long as the name ‘Obama‘ means ‘One who listens to any old bullshit put across in a mystical enough way‘.