What's with the bad science?

Holy mother of Meatloaf, but Iron Man was awesome! I was a little skeptical about it when I heard Robert Downey, Jr. was... all right, stop right there. Breathe. This post isn't going to be about Iron Man, as fantasti-awesome as it was. And sticking around until after the credits was--STOP. RIGHT. THERE. BREATHE! This post is not going to be about Iron Man!

There, are you feeling better now? Can we get on with this? All right, then.

As many of you are painfully aware, I'm not a fan of bad science, especially as it is foisted upon a wilfully ignorant public via emotional statements (eg. "Won't someone think of the children?"), playing off of people's laziness and unwillingness to do their own damn research (eg. "Videogames kill children."), hiding behind a sacred cow ("If you disagree, you're insulting the children!"), or just plain stupidity (eg. "Science can't explain everything, not even children!"). Even in fiction, if the science is inconsistent with the overall level of disbelief required for the setting, I have problems with it. For example, I'm okay with the pseudoscientific explanations behind the blaster bolts and lightsabers of Star Wars because that setting is largely fantasy, but I'm not as forgiving with near-catastrophic holodeck breakdowns in Star Trek, since that setting is based much more on real-world scientific concepts.

So what's brought on this sudden burst of science?

Bill C-51. Now, be careful when looking it up, as C-51 could refer to a Nunavut Waters Act or something about gun control that I don't think has any bearing on the C-51 that's got some people flailing their arms about and gnashing their teeth and screaming "police state" like it's going out of style. Some of my Facebook friends have joined the fight against this bill, and there are even (gasp!) internet petitions against it! This bill, in part an amendment to the Food and Drug Act, is being fast-tracked and has gone through its first two readings in April. I'm sure you're wondering, as I was, what the heck is the big deal? Why the hubbub?

The main shouting point from the arm-flailers appears to be the wording of the Food and Drugs Act's formal title. It's current formal title is "An Act respecting food, drugs, cosmetics and therapeutic devices". The proposed bill will change that formal title to "An Act respecting foods, therapeutic products and cosmetics". Note the combination of drugs and therapeutic devices into the heading "drugs." This has caused no small amount of furor, from some people claiming that C-51 will criminalize vitamins and supplements to those who believe that Big Pharma is trying to control and monetize every pill we put into our bodies.

With all of this panic in the air, I did what it appears none of the teeth-gnashers have done. I took a look at the C-51 proposals myself. And what I found was far from the police state, panic-inducing cause for national alarm that I had read from many, many different sources. Instead, I found what appeared to be an effort to better regulate the myriad "natural," "homeopathic" and/or "holistic" supplements, balms, tinctures, elixirs, devices, and other ephemera that currently occupy the same shelf space as tested and regulated items like antacids, analgesics, anti-inflammatories, and laxatives. Heck, Aspirin faces more regulation and scrutiny than a "magnetic" bracelet that's supposed to "cure" a number and variety of illnesses and conditions. Aspirin! C-51 appears to wish to curb the more outrageous promises (ie. the bad science) made by the purveyors of such devices and supplements, and to highly encourage, if not force, such claims to be tested in regulated, consistent clinical trials, just as new drugs are tested. "Clinical trials" as defined by the Act are:

an investigation in respect of a therapeutic product for use in human beings that involves human subjects and that is intended to discover or verify the therapeutic product’s clinical, pharmacological or pharmacodynamic effects, to identify adverse events in respect of the therapeutic product, to study the absorption, distribution, metabolism or excretion of the therapeutic product or to ascertain its safety or efficacy

Here's the point I think will be affecting a lot of these purveyors:

14. No person shall manufacture, process, label, package, sell, import for sale or advertise a therapeutic product in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its benefits, risks, conditions of use, quality, quantity, composition, design, construction, performance, origin or authorization status.

Another shouting point appears to be the far-reaching, fascist powers that inspectors and enforcers will be granted under this new regime, comrade. Among them:

- inspectors can enter private property without a warrant
- inspectors can take your property at their discretion
- inspectors can dispose of your property at will
- inspectors will not reimburse you for your losses
- inspectors will charge owners shipping and storage of seized property
- inspectors will be empowered to store your property indefinitely
- inspectors will levy fines to a maximum of $5,000,000 and can seek 2 years incarceration per incident.
- you must provide the inspector assistance and you must provide the inspector information
- inspector may enter on or pass through or over private property without being liable for doing so and without the owner of the property having the right to object to that use of the property
- (and for a private dwelling) refusing entry in a dwelling is sufficient grounds for a warrant

Now, on their face, yes, these powers are very disturbing. But let's see what C-51 actually says about enforcement.

23. (1) Subject to subsection 23.1(1), an inspector may, for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, at any reasonable time enter place, including a conveyance, in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that an activity that is governed by this Act or the regulations is conducted or a document relating to the administration of this Act is located.

Oh, look at that. I bolded the important parts of that "Authority to enter a place" section (okay, not the "23." That was there already. But the difference between GAAAAAAAAAH! WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE ARRESTED BY THE JACKBOOTS and, well, reality, is that in order to properly enforce some of these proposals, inspectors are going to need the ability to get into places where they believe infractions are taking place, and they need to be able to get past (potentially) unscrupulous people who might not want to let them in to investigate. And that includes private (or commercial) property like a warehouse, office or a shop in a mall. Hence, Section 23. The operating words here are "may" and "reasonable".

But wait, I hear you say, what about my house? Will inspectors be able to treat my house the same way as they treat restaurants or grocery stores? Here's what 23.1 has to say about that:

23.1 (1) If the place referred to in subsection 23(1) is a dwelling-house, an inspector may not enter it without the consent of the occupant except under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (2).

Wow, just like if the police were investigating a crime and had reasonable cause to search your house. With a warrant. Okay, Kojak, but like the lady said, if all it takes to get a warrant is someone refusing the inspectors entry, why shouldn't we be panicking? I'm not Kojak, but I believe Telly Savalas would say that, like a police warrant, the inspector would have to swear an oath that he believed something bad was going down in the house... baby... and that getting inside was necessary in order to investigate what he believed was an infraction of a part of the Act (ie. unsafe or unsanitary production conditions, illegal foods, unauthorized drugs, etc.). Just like a police warrant. We don't see the cops busting down doors every which way on a whim. And on that note:

(3) In executing a warrant issued under subsection (2), the inspector may not use force unless the inspector is accompanied by a peace officer and the use of force is authorized in the warrant.

So not only does the inspector have to have reasonable cause to enter your house, he has to swear that it's necessary in order to get the warrant, that warrant has to authorize the use of force, and he'll have to be accompanied by the actual cops. Seems reasonable to me, especially if a cat lady is using radioactive boron to make snake venom waffles that promise to cure cancer.

So you could believe this guy, who says the Act will:

Restrict research and development of safe natural alternatives in favor of high risk drugs.

· Punish Canadians with little or no opportunity for protection or recourse for simply speaking about or giving a natural product without the approval of government. More than 70% of people in Canada use a Natural Health Product. The new law goes so far as to warrant action against a person who would give another person an unapproved amount of garlic on the recommendation that it would improve that persons health.

Or you could take a look at C-51 without the paranoia and realize that there are a lot of unregulated, untested "safe natural alternatives" on the market that have either no effect or have unknown long-term side effects or interactions with real drugs, all developed and recommended by any Joe Medico on the street, and that this Act aims to put those same "safe natural alternatives" in the same category as drugs and medicines, even the over-the-counter ones. What's wrong with trying to better ensure that the "safe natural alternatives" are, in actuality (due to testing, clinical trials and accurate labeling), both safe and natural?

When I started looking at the organizations and websites who were raising all this ruckus, I found that they were all groups and people who believe that "safe natural alternatives" are on par with (or are far healthier and/or more efective than) real medicine. Seriously, folks, when I'm full of the gout or the tendonitis or the back strain, I could get No-Gout X: Made from the foot spines of the Norwegian masked wombatelope, a natural product, or I could go for my indomethacin, which has been tested, regulated, and proven to work in clinical trials long before doctors were able to prescribe it to me in 2001. Indomethacin's developers say that the drug works a certain way, and sure enough, it works that way. No matter where you go or who you try it on or who's performing the same experiments, indo will work the same way (with allowances for statistical error, of course). But No-Gout, according to the label, "works with the body's natural floon to energize the bloodstream to make it twice as phase-compliant," so that should be... wait, what? Have you ever read some of that marketing?

One magnet therapy site states that magnets "are used to apply magnetic fields to the blood to improve circulation, easing the discomfort caused by arthritis, raynards disease, back pain, joint & muscle problems as well as many other painful ailments. Bad science! Not only that, but that site also states that "Magnetic jewellery products believed to aid pain relief and promote well-being." Well, I'm sure you could test that somehow, but how...? Or a site touting its "hexagonal water," which will, "once spun" in the $500 device that spins water, "hold its hexagonal shape for approximately 22 days." Or a seemingly ordinary bracelet "designed to balance the negative and positive energy forces in your body". In fact, the main website for that company doesn't even make any claims about what its products do or how they do it--they're literally making money by selling a "therapeutic device" without telling you what the therapy is! For as little as $70, you can get a bracelet that's worn by a million people, including Olympic athletes; is made to fit comfortably around your wrist; has two flat terminal ends, not to knobbly ends that can hurt wrists; and whose design holds three patents. But wait, there's more! You can buy a pure titanium "one of these" bracelets for only $300! And they're raking in millions, people! This is why I hate bad science!

In closing, I urge you all to go see Iron Man.