A step by step guide to a 'revolutionary treatment'

This was part of an episode of the Pod Delusion a few weeks ago. Meant to put it up here then. Forgot. Doing it now. Don't worry, it's no more-or-less relevant now than it was then.

The following semi-coherent diatribe is step-by-step guide about how a ‘revolutionary treatment’ or ‘medical breakthrough’ comes into being in today’s society. What follows is theoretical chain of events based on my own experiences and understanding. As far as I know, these events has never actually happened as detailed here. As far as I know. But as far as I know, they easily could. As far as I know.

Step 1: Researcher A completes a research project. The project in question investigates the effect of substance A on biological process A. Biological process A is one of dozens that contribute to unpleasant disease X. Researcher A’s results indicate that substance A significantly reduces the rate at which biological process A occurs when administered to a small group of subjects that have been genetically modified so that process A occurs in them. The subjects are members of species A. Otherwise known as mice, because they definitely do exist.

Step 2: Researcher A, having spent 6 months on the project, writes it up as a paper for submission to a relevant scientific journal. He then forwards it to his immediate superior for checking before it is submitted. He then goes out to celebrate, become dangerously inebriated by consuming excessive amounts of alcoholic substance A, tries to chat up unknown attractive woman A, makes several appalling conversational errors due to drunkenness, eventually receives a vicious kick to testicles A and B, then limps home and sleeps for 18 hours straight.

Step 3: Researcher A’s immediate superior, Professor A, eventually reviews researcher A’s paper and considers it sound. However, Professor A is also putting together a large grant proposal and is keen to cite impressive research his department has produced, in order to improve its chances. As soon as the paper is accepted into a journal, Professor A sends an email detailing (and somewhat exaggerating) the results and implications of researcher A’s project. He includes the role of process A in disease X. The email is sent to the public relations department of his institution (Institution A), with the intention of getting his department some publicity, which could potentially aid his grant proposal.

Step 4: The public relations department, understaffed and underfunded after recent budget cuts, are similarly keen to gain attention for institute A and hopefully obtain extra funding. They quickly read Professor A’s email, and after adjusting it for succinctness by removing some of the ‘minor details’ they include it in their regular press release, which is sent to a wide variety of media sources.

Step 5: Journalists at a number of media outlets receive institute A’s press release. Several of the less-scientifically literate journalists read through it quickly and notice the phrases “results show” “substance A” “reduces occurrence of process A” “which is” “an” “important” “part of” “disease X”. There is also a collection of numerical results and analyses accompanying this, but numbers are boring and tend to put readers/listeners off so these are ignored. Many of the journalists know a relative/acquaintance/celebrity who was a victim of disease X, ergo many people must know/care about it. Logically, this discovery is newsworthy.

Step 6: After the story is passed between seeral people, becoming distorted with each retelling, public relations department at institute A receive dozens of phone calls regarding the discovery of a cure for disease X. After 2 hours of noncommittal responses made in purely to buy time, someone in the department recalls mention of disease X in the recent press release. This is traced to professor A, and all subsequent requests for information are directed to his office.

Step 7: Professor A spends an afternoon responding to enquiries from journalists about his ‘discovering a cure for disease X’. Mindful of the danger of making unsubstantiated claims, but also aware of the positive effect publicity could have on his grant application, he responds cautiously, but plays up the possible implications of the research while downplaying the fact that it is just a small result from a small study on a small component of a complicated disease, expressed entirely via an analogue of the disease as experienced by a non-human species. Mice, in this case.

Step 8: Professor B, of institute B, who is widely known for his work on disease Y (which affects similar areas to disease X) is contacted by journalists and asked for his opinion on professor A’s ‘revolutionary treatment’. Professor B, currently on holiday in Cannes, points out that he has not seen the findings of the experiment, is not an expert in the area in question, and doesn’t actually know who it is calling him and interrupting his holiday. After much cajoling, he admits that the results sound ‘intriguing’ but expresses his doubts at the ‘cure’ claims, given the scant information provided to him. Following several calls of this nature, he experiences an uneasy feeling for the rest of the day. He switches his phone off for the rest of the trip, and then spends 2 days on the toilet, as his uneasy feeling resulted in him being distracted and eating shellfish, which he had forgotten he was allergic to.

Step 9: A news story hits the media outlets about the new ‘revolutionary treatment’ for disease X, accompanied by pictures of a celebrity sufferer. The story is reported via each source in a manner alarmingly similar to the original press release, but with the removal of much of the data and experimental description, and with the inclusion of ‘criticism from professor B’ and a great deal of worrying but ultimately irrelevant statistics about the prevalence of disease X in society. In some media source, names and pictures of a few more famous sufferers are also included as an afterthought, mostly female ones who have at some point in their careers been photographed wearing a bikini.

Step 10: A nightly news programme features the ‘revolutionary treatment’ as part of the news round-up. Researcher A, watching this in his pants while eating corn-based chip-snack 'A' at home, recognises some of the terms and names used, but concludes that it can’t be anything to do with his research; he wasn’t investigating anything so ground-breaking (process A only occurs in disease X in 15% of reported cases at any rate), and anyway, somebody would surely have told him if his research was in the news. Surely…?

Step 11: Support groups for sufferers of disease X welcome news of the new treatment, substance A. However, they react angrily when they discover that it is not readily available on the NHS. Attempts are made by representatives to explain that the NHS does not treat patients with untested, unproven substances that are not readily available and would only work on a small percentage of sufferers if they were. However, the only aspect of this that registers is the term ‘small percentage of sufferers’. Accusations abound about the NHS sacrificing people in order to save money.

Step 12: Professor A is more regularly contacted by people asking him to explain or defend things he never actually said. Other experts in his field criticise Professor A for his ‘self-aggrandising’, ‘dangerous exaggerations’ and ‘bringing the profession into disrepute by potentially costing lives in order to satisfy his own ego’. This means he is dropped as a speaker form several conferences. After every third phone call or email, he finds himself searching the job vacancy listings for anything with the word ‘farm’, ‘library’ or ‘monastery’ in it.

Step 13: In response to the extensive media coverage of the ‘revolutionary cure’ for disease X, GPs report a significant increase in patients claiming to be suffering symptoms of disease X. Although disease X is a complex one with features and symptoms varying between sufferers, the symptoms reported correspond significantly to the ones described in the more popular results provided when ‘disease X’ is googled. GPs attempting to suggest a psychosomatic issue (as well as pointing out that ‘revolutionary treatment’ substance A is only shown to affect one facet of the disease in specially bred mice who don’t actually suffer from disease X in the strictest sense) become the subject of a media campaign attacking ‘uncaring, unfeeling health professionals’. This campaign has the opposite effect to that which is presumably intended, as it increases the level of contempt GP’s feel toward typical patients, and the general public overall.

Step 14: The journal in which researcher A’s original paper was published report that the paper has been requested/downloaded no more or less than what is typical for a paper in that area.

Step 15: Researcher A begins a new project, studying the effect of substance B on process A. He notices no change in his daily life, except that Professor A doesn’t answer many of his emails any more.

Step 16: The shadow government accuse the government of ‘spending lives, rather than money’ by neglecting to provide substance A on the NHS. The fact that ‘providing a relatively unknown substance which has not been deemed fit for human use to sick patients’ is a perfectly acceptable method of not risking lives is never mentioned by either political party.

Step 17: A pharmaceutical company that began a ridiculously accelerated drug development project to develop and patent a substance A based treatment for disease X decides that the marketing opportunity has passed. The project is slowed, and then abandoned as the realisation occurs that the accumulated data was obtained via such a rushed and haphazard method that it is effectively useless.

Step 18: Interest in substance A as a cure for disease X abruptly vanishes when researcher B at institute J discovers that common substance epsilon may contribute to disease J. The media then focuses on that for a total of two weeks, then lose interest entirely as a famous posh person reveals that they are engaged to a slightly less famous posh person.

Step 19: Researcher A begins actively asking people in his department where Professor A is. He is told that he is ‘on sabbatical in Nepal’, probably not returning. Researcher A is offered his vacant job. Researcher A is confused, but accepts. Occasionally he receives emails asking him to speak as ‘the discoverer of the cure for disease X’. He deletes them immediately, assuming that they’re spam.

Step 20: Disease X effectively dies out as, over time, an effective vaccine is developed. This is not given the same level of media coverage as the supposed ‘revolutionary cure’ as 1) it was a gradual development, and 2) a vaccine makes sure something doesn’t occur; thing’s not occurring are not newsworthy.

Step 21: Disease X sees a sudden resurgence when, years later, a ‘maverick doctor’ makes a fatuous link between the vaccine and illiteracy in children.

"Dear HRH Prince Charles, from Science" (No. 23)

He's at it again, the crazy old Prince of Wales. What with his Dad monopolising the outrageously-offensive-behaviour-toward-foreigners-while-completely-missing-the-irony-that-technically-he-is-one approach to public engagement, and his mother covering the waving-and-looking-stern-at-public-functions side of things, Prince Charles has opted to compensate for the ever-diminishing power of the monarchy by attempting to use his influence and position to promote alternative medicines to the general public via numerous means.

He also sells biscuits, like you'd expect of anyone who's first in line to the throne.

His Foundation for Integrated Health closed due to the small matter of a massive case of fraud

(that's the 'unofficial' reason of course, the 'official' reason is that the FFIH closed because it had 'achieved all its aims' or something, which suggests that its aims were 1. Spout gibberish. 2. Have funds nicked by a notorious swindler. 3. Go home)

However, much like another sort of fictional Doctor, it has regenerated into a different form as a 'College of Medicine'. This does seem to be pushing it a little bit, so time for somebody to receive a communique...

"Dear HRH Charles Windsor, Prince of Wales

All right Chuck? How's it hanging? It's me, Science, the anthropomorphic personification of that concept you try to avoid as if it were a diseased commoner.

Still peddling those organic biscuits? You do realise that being 'organic' (whatever the hell you think that means) doesn't automatically make a food healthy, right? I'm not saying that eating one of your biscuits is like injecting 500ml of tans-fats directly into your aorta, but they could be compared to deep fried place-mats on the healthy-eating scale of things.

Obviously, it would be very naive of me to assume you had a grasp of even the most basic principles of health, given the increasingly mad theories and pseudoscientific guff you keep trying to push into the public domain, like a man trying to force a courgette into a passing strangers ear (an equally pointless and potentially damaging activity, no matter what his intentions).

Normally I expect such activity from people in your position. You have been raised to believe in the notion that people like yourself deserve to live in unrestrained luxury funded by others because you're inherently superior due to who your ancestors are. There is no logical basis or evidence for this conclusion aside from the 'it's been this way for a very long time'. A fair point, a system that persists for a very long period of time must work because it endures, right?

On a related note, have you ever considered living in the sea? Technically, your ancestors lived there for a lot longer than they lived in palaces. Just wondering...

But I don't really feel it fair to antagonise you for your questionable faith in alternative medicine, given that you've received an upbringing which doesn't really encourage much questioning and rational thought, and that's no fault of your own. And you may not know this, but alternative medicine may have a long history with the Royals. Allow me to explain.

If you look closely at history, it seems that while it was Samuel Hahnemann who is credited with the creation (yes, creation, not discovery) of Homeopathy, the concept may have been first established around 200 years older, by your own ancestor and namesake!

Remember Charles I? You probably don't personally, unless you've aged a lot better than most people. He was a Monarch called Charles who tried to impose his illogical self-serving beliefs on others, and look what happened to him (I'm not saying you'll be decapitated for your behaviour, I'm just letting you know that there is a precedent).

According to reports from the time (nearly 400 years old, so that makes them more reliable, right?) when King Charles' head was severed from his body (that's what happened, in case your parents always told you that he "went to live on a Scottish farm with a castle" if ever you asked about him), people crowded round in order to collect as much of his blood as possible. I imagine there was a fair bit of it, the carotid artery alone would have had quite a copious output when suddenly exposed to the air.

Why would anyone do this? I'll admit there may have been some cynical Vatican-like people who thought they could make a quick profit from an influential figure dying by splashing some t-shirts (or whatever the 17th century equivalent was) with suddenly-much-rarer Royal blood and selling them to the crowds. But this was a time when the common people believed Monarchs were imbued with magical powers by God (note the past-tense, there), and it is said they collected the blood believing it to have healing properties.

It's only a simple logical step to conclude that, given the meagre amounts anyone could have collected, it was diluted to prolong it's use. Diluting something without affecting its healing potency? Now, why does that sound familiar? This is just conjecture though, it never caught on as a method at the time. Maybe they overlooked the 'like cures like' law of similars preached by modern homeopaths? If this were true, diluted kings blood would probably have treated nonsensical delusions of superiority. Or maybe in this case, headaches.

So maybe your love of homeopathy is based on a subconscious desire to follow in the footsteps of your namesake? (excluding the public execution bit, presumably). Or maybe its just that, considering the size of your gene pool (gene-puddle?), whatever rational parts of your subconscious mind are remaining recognise the problem and are constantly screaming about the benefits of dilution, but the message is being scrambled by your powerful bullshit processing centres? I'd be happy to discuss this with you some time, get you some help if you want it.

Anyway, enough preamble. I noticed that your Foundation For Integrated Health (or 'Foundation For Shite' as I call it, FFS for short) is now a 'College of Medicine'. You think this is acceptable? I know that officially you 'aren't involved', just as 'officially' you probably don't hand-make each of those lard biscuits you sell, but let's drop the pretence. But Colleges of Medicine are quite blatantly my territory, not yours. You can't just borrow my terminology because you don't have enough credibility! I'm not a politician, I won't stand for it.

So here's the ultimatum; change the name, or at least make it clear that you aren't teaching and giving degrees in medicine. If you don't, then in every credited scientific teaching establishment throughout the world, I'm going to introduce a new qualification for scientists. It'll be a one page exam, all they have to do is fill in their name. They instantly pass the moment they turn up, and they shall be have achieved the qualification of 'Highly Ridiculous H'exam' (the extra H makes it sound posh). As such, anyone who passes it shall be able to put the letters HRH before their name.

Consider this a formal warning. Your move, your Highness.

Love and kisses

Science (BA hons)

email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

twitter: @garwboy

"Dear Cheap Viagra, from Science" (No. 22)

Just received another rejection for a job I really hoped to get, so somebody somewhere has to bare the brunt of my rage. The worst part of it is that the complete inability to change the situation leaves me feeling frustratingly impotent. So what a good time to get a relevant spammer on my blog...

"Dear Cheap Viagra

Hello. I notice you've been leaving quite a few comments on my previous letters. I'd like to say thanks for the feedback, but that would be dishonest of me as I'm not particularly grateful. In all honesty I can't think up a genuine response any more pleasant than 'I sincerely hope you die a hideous slow death in a ditch filled with the unspeakable fluids that the products you keep trying to sell would (if they worked) inevitably end up producing', and that seems a bit long winded if nothing else.

Seriously, is this the best way you can think of of flogging your merchandise? Posting unsolicited comments on a relatively unknown blogs? As the personification of an anthropomorphic concept that usually writes to other anthropomorphic concepts, I can't even be said to be male, let alone be in possession of a set of male genitals which are presently experiencing an inability to perform their primary function.

I can't say the same for anyone who reads this, but as I tend to write these for the benefit of the scientific community there's a good chance that it's true for them too.

Of course I jest. It's been proven many times that scientists are the best possible lovers in both a physical and mental sense, and therefore would never need any erectile-dysfunction medication, so either way you're wasting your time.

I am starting to wonder if all those emails I keep getting are from you as well? Do spammers have rivals like real businesses do? Or are you just one sad man with an inability to spell, sat at home in front a computer in a house filled to the rafters with bottles of non-brand name 'viagra' tablets which you obtained as a result of a massive clerical error on the part of an industrial delivery company? I like this possibility, as it make me thing that somewhere there's a pharmaceutical warehouse which just contains a used computer desk and an inflatable sex toy with your name on them.

Seriously, do you ever sell anything? And what is it you're actually selling? My first theory is that you're selling basically worthless tablets which contain no useful active components, and are flogging them to gullible people in the hope that the placebo effect alone will make them 'work'. If this is what you're doing, you've got a long way to go if you're going to rival the experts at this method.

Interesting side note, I've not come across any homeopathic treatments for erectile dysfunction, but surely there is such a thing? Given their 'like treats like' belief, it's probably something like a pill with the barest hint of lager (6 pints minimum), or maybe just highly diluted pictures of Gillian McKeith?

But if you are selling dud pills, I can't officially condone that. Unofficially however, despite my complete adherence to the principle of evidence based medicine, I'm willing to turn a blind eye to this, largely because the sort of person who would purchase 'viagra' from an internet spammer is exactly the sort of person who would be better off not reproducing. I can bring myself to tolerate your actions by classifying you as an agent of Darwin, so that's ok.

However, I am willing to acknowledge the possibility that you are in fact some sort of rogue pharmaceutical company, willing to produce genuine medications but selling them at rock bottom prices in an effort to topple the monopoly of the big Pharma companies. Sort of like a 'Wikidrugs' thing. If this was the case, I would understand the need for less conventional means of marketing, what with having to stay unnoticed by the 'Big Boys'.

Were this the case, I would be tempted to applaud your actions, except for one thing; WHY DO YOU ONLY SELL VIAGRA!? Seriously, you have the means to manufacture and produce high quantities of effective medicines and you think the main health issue facing society is 'not enough erections'? You could be getting generic antihistamines, anticoagulants, antibiotics etc. to people who need them! (And that's just the anti- medications).

But no, before all the sick people who can't afford the vital medicine they need can be catered for, men must be able to have erections! Not just impotent ones, but all men who may have even the slightest concern about their sexual prowess (which is all men, except the ones who are scientists of course).

Is it wise to flog powerful pills which have drastic effects on blood pressure and flow and exert an accompanying demand on the heart? And that's just the men, apparently it's even worse for women. Why would you want to reduce the act of physical union to something akin to those water-filled nodding head bird things? Just sterile repetitive motion that seems fun at first but quickly becomes tedious and pointless.

So, stop leaving me comments. And if you are producing genuine medicines, for God's sake (or the sake of the fictional deity of your choice) branch out a bit. Hay-fever remedies alone would sell well, surely, stop thinking with and about the penis.

Love and kisses

Science (BA hons)

e-mail: humourology(at) live.co.uk

twitter: @garwboy

"Dear Alternative Medicine, from Science" (No. 10)

This is recycled from an old blog, but seems more pertinent now so I've adapted it into a letter. Sort of a conciliatory gesture for the insanity involving spoons. I shouldn't adopt the persona of science post-wine, is what we learn from that.

Also, all contributions to the list welcome (read letter, then you'll understand). It won't stop the Alternative medicine brigade, but it might help pre-empt them somewhat.

"Dear Alternative Medicine

Hello, it's me, Science. Remember me? You should do, you've sued me often enough. Just further proof that Law is a whore (hey, that rhymes!). Just thought I'd drop you a line to let you know I'm thinking about you.

I plan to write to each individual aspect of you eventually. I would do it face-to-face, but that's not an option as you've banned me from all your meetings and gatherings. Also, us abstract concepts don't have faces per se, but I can't be certain you believe otherwise. It's not the stupidest thing you've put faith in thus far, admittedly.

As previously mentioned, your main response to me when I cast doubt on your wild, unverified claims is to sue. Seems easier than providing evidence, but then it doesn't really disprove my point. I've learned that your most devout adherents would scream in the face of reason until foaming at the mouth rather than doubt your claims, so I tend not to talk to them.

But don't think I don't learn from our interactions. That's pretty much exactly what my purpose is. Your purpose seems to be to come up with some vaguely plausible sounding theories, claim to able to use them to manipulate health by some bizarre mechanism, then charge obscene amounts for your special 'skills'. Often, you'll add a few big words so you'll sound like me and exploit my credibility. I haven't sued yet, but don't rule it out.

So, in order to limit any further spread of your influence, here are several alternative therapies that I've 'discovered'. If I catch any of your lot using them at any point, then I will sue you into oblivion. That'll make a nice change, won't it.

Organ-Shui

It's well established that the arrangement of your surroundings can make you feel good, and imbue a sense of wellness. Well, imagine how much better you would feel if your internal environment was correctly arranged? Modern life and the intrusions of modern medicine have enforced a disharmonious arrangement on our internal organs, but a brand new therapy now allows you to place your vital organs into a healthy, harmonious configuration. Think how much better does it feel when you re-arrange your external organs manually.

Sadly, the genitals are the only external organs available for manipulation to the untrained, but a number of techniques are available, all administered by a certified Nonsensica (tm) organ manipulator for a variety of bargain prices, all guaranteed to make you feel at least 67% more well and harmonious once the immediate pain and soreness that results from forced organ adjustment has worn off. These include

Kidney Synchronosis - £25

Liver Morphotosis - £45

Spinal Space contrarotation - £60

Brain-Skull repositioning - £100

Heart cavity Resetting - £150

Colonoscopic refinement - £3000

And many others. Book now to ensure you exist in a well balanced environment, inside and out.

NeoHomeopathy

It is well established that water retains a memory for all the active components that have been dissolved in it. But the water on this planet has been around for millions of years, so who could possibly know what has been in it at any point? Homeopathy can only go so far, but brand new techniques, pioneered by Nonsensica (tm), actually break down the structure of water itself through advanced 'electrolysis'. Water is reset to its original, primordial state.

All ill health in modern society can be traced to the consumption of contaminated water, so by purchasing your water from Nonsensica (tm) you can be among the healthiest people on Earth, providing you avoid all contact with non-reset water. From just £49.99 litre, re-set water prevents ill health, cures illness, and the special electrolysed reset water (£79.99 a litre) even contains residual electricity, giving you a spring in your step and more energised blood to aide respiration.

NutriVulcanism

Everyone knows that food grown in volcanic soil is better than standard food. And people who live on or around volcanoes live longer lives (barring eruptions). Clearly, the energies of mother Earth itself are infused into their diet, and now they can be for yours too. At just £9.99 a sachet, you can now add the minerals and nutrients of materials that are 100% guaranteed to have been part of a high energy natural process to your food and drink (but not soft drinks, the poisonous caustic properties of these tend to denature the active elements).

Simply purchase your £9.99 sachets from Nonsensica (tm), or £18.99 for the extra dense materials which provide even more energy and goodness to your system, and add them to your meals. Obviously, the raw energies of the Earth are too much for some people, so you may not feel benefits straight away, but any ill effects are purely due to your body adapting to the new powers it is being exposed to. Embrace the Earth, it's the best idea you'll ever have!

Autoelevatory therapy

"On top of the World". "As high as a kite". "Up, up and away". All positive sayings. And have you ever noticed the top athletes train at high altitudes in order to achieve the best performance? What do all these things have in common? That's right, Height!

Humans evolved from tree dwelling creatures and mountain dwelling life forms. Since we crawled out of the primordial seas, we've always aspired to get higher and higher. Clearly, our bodies crave to be higher than all others. This is why tall people are so much happier than short ones and midgets.

Our social and physical ills can be traced to a lack of height in our daily lives, but help is now available. Nonsensica (tm) now offer specially designed autoelevator slip-ins for your shoes. These painstakingly designed elevators (£59.99 each) fit snugly into your everyday shoes and mould to the natural shape of your feet, but raise your average height by crucial inches in a manner utterly dissimilar to that of high-heels or platform shoes. Unless your ideal body height is greater than that provided by the autoelevators, you will feel a noticeable sense of well being and health that can only come from being 'high'.

So yeah. Those are mine now. You can't have them.

You're cynically

Science (BA hons)

(Also, for the rational people, here's what you get for the money.

Organ-Shui = A rather aggressive, inexpert massage.

Neo-Homeopathy = Distilled water, with a dash of lemon juice. 2 dashes for the electrolysed type.

Nutrivulcanism = Wood ash, with added grit for the denser sachets.

Autoelevatory therapy. = Two large lumps of wax, the kind they use for ear plugs).

Please add more if you can think of them.

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

"Dear Antivaxxers, from Science" (No. 8)

Needs doing, might as well kick them when they're down.

(N.B. Some anti-vaccination protesters may indeed be otherwise pleasant, rational people undeserving of scorn or ridicule, but I'm not going to start making detailed exceptions. Some people have complained to me that this sort of generalisation is unfair and non-scientific so I shouldn't do it, completely missing the point that that's why I do this. Science being non-scientific is pretty much the theme of this series. If anyone else feels slighted or upset by the generalisations I've made, that you feel unfairly cast you or your chosen profession/beliefs in a negative light then send me a self-addressed jiffy bag and I'll return it full of good feelings, to replace the ones I've hurt)

"Dear Antivaxxers

Hello, how are you? This might end up being a bit confusing, as I'm the personification of the abstract concept of Science, and as such don't really exist, whereas when I say 'antivaxxers' I'm referring to the sum of individuals who collectively oppose the use of vaccination on the spurious and completely contradictory grounds that they're damaging to health.

I'm pretty sure you aren't part of one international organisation, but I'm lumping you together anyway. Aside from that detail, you do exist in a physical form, whereas I don't, so this letter might be weird for you, especially as it contains actual words and information.

It must be as if Santa Claus wrote to you first. In July. And you hate Santa Claus because he endangers your children (not like the traditional Santa Claus, a perfectly harmless symbol of goodness and generosity that teaches children to appreciate it when a fat sweaty old man in disguise breaks into their room at night bearing gifts, and to be really quiet about it when he does). But I digress.

Believe it or not, this is actually a thank you note. I wanted to say I appreciate it, all the things you've done to help me over that past decade. Not only have you helped me cut my research costs, but you've also opened up new fields of research for me that will no doubt prove very lucrative once I've made some headway, and in these troubling financial times that's nothing to be sniffed at.

For instance, I've managed to trim my research and associated costs by nearly 50% thanks to your shining example. Rather than have my people spend countless hours in labs and clinics, endlessly churning out data and results that might not even give the findings they want, before tediously writing them up then having numerous experts check their findings so that they can ensure the conclusions are appropriate, I've assigned most of them to adopt your approach.

Hysterical nonsensical screaming. Seriously, rather than do all that work to prove their theories about health, I've just got them going out into their street and yelling at passers by, about how if people ignore their theories then the children will be in danger (although with some of the physicists this is coming across as more of a threat, will work on that).

I've even got the paediatricians doing it. I did think that having people responsible for children's health wasting their time by shouting about children's health rather than doing things which were known to improve children's health would be detrimental to children's health, but I just followed your example; keep saying 'children's health' enough and it makes it OK.

Took me by surprise, but I have to admit it gets things done. I've seen a noticeable drop in reports about sick children, which may or may not be related to the fact that I've not bothered taking reports or analysing data for a while, it just gets in the way of all the shouting.

And another nice call on the spokespeople. I've been relying on trained and qualified people to convey facts and information about their chosen field, and it's never worked. If only I'd thought to get some middle-aged female celebrities to tell people what's what. The beauty of it is, they don't even need to be trained! They can talk about anything and people will believe them because media says they should. How ingenious. I only wish I'd gotten hold of some big celebrity spokespeople before Scientology snapped them all up (I'm also thinking of suing Scientology for copyright infringement, but that's another matter)

Either way, I now know in future to use only angry women as spokespeople, seeing as how they interpret every criticism and argument against them as wishing death upon their children, or potential children, giving them the upper hand in every debate even if they're stark raving mad. Maternal anger seems to trump reason and logic every time, I'll bear that in mind.

Also, as I said, thanks for opening new fields of research for me. For instance, I now know that 'harmless' low level or even inert doses of viruses injected from a young age are inherently dangerous, more so than exposure to the full strength virus which a non-vaccinated person is far more likely to succumb to. What an intriguing concept, the fact that tiny doses of measles/mumps/rubella can cause autism but the full-strength viruses don't. Inverse efficacy? I can't explain it. But I agree, can't be having children getting autism, much better they die of an easily preventable disease. Think of the children!

Unless you're one of those people like I implied Santa Claus, in which case do anything but think of the children.

And well done on exposing Big Pharma. That brute needs taking down a peg, admittedly. I mean, I thought I understood how business worked. I was wrong (you may be unfamiliar with this phrase, but just look it up). You revealed that Big Pharma is selling harmful/ineffective vaccines purely for profit. I would have thought that it would have been a major marketing mistake for a business to maim/kill potential customers, but I guess I was wrong. Toyota seem to agree. If I can work out how this is the case, I could make some serious money from it. Killing customers is a valid marketing strategy? I can't wait to ride the Disneyland Decapitator (The Decappiest place on Earth!), or enjoy a delicious McDonalds Cyanide burger. Mmm, lethalicious! I'm lovin' it! (For about 6 seconds)

So yeah, thanks for everything you've done, I appreciate it.

Love and Kisses

Science (BA hons)

P.S. You might want to watch where you tread, I dropped a vial of smallpox the other day, can't seem to find it. I'm sure it'll be fine, though

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

The Humourology Lectures No. 2: The Appendix

Hello.

As well as the new and ongoing 'From Science' letters series, which can be found here, I'm also trying to arrange a pseudo-regular series of amusing video lectures.

Here's the second one, courtesy of my good friend and Medic Student Dave Steele, all about that tricky organ that is the appendix

Enjoy!

More letters and videos to follow. Requests, questions, suggestions, complaints and outright naked abuse is always welcome, just drop a line.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy