« Older Entries

Dr Oz and phthalates

phthalateThe title of the segment on the Dr. Oz Show was “The Secret Ingredient Companies are Hiding in Your Food.” What could that be? Some opiate to keep you coming back for more? Tetrahydrocannabinol to increase appetite? No. The segment was all about chemicals called phthalates. And companies are not hiding their presence any more than they are “hiding” the presence of numerous substances that are not added to our food supply on purpose but can be detected through sophisticated analytical methods. These include pesticide residues, corrosion inhibitors, PCBs, detergents, chloroform, cadmium, radium, mercury, aflatoxins, bacteria and a host of others. Some of these are man-made, some occur naturally, but all are potentially toxic if present in a high enough dose. They end up in our food supply for the simple reason that if substances come into contact with each other, there will be a transfer of material from one to the other. If chloroform forms in water as a result of chlorination, which it does, some will be transferred to food that comes into contact with the water. Flourinated compounds used to produce grease-proof packaging can leave residues in food, aspergillus fungi can contaminate apple juice with their toxic metabolite patulin, wine may harbour residues of isinglass, a fish protein used to remove fine particles, and the potential carcinogen acrylamide forms when bread is baked.

None of these substances appears on food labels, not because there is some conspiracy to hide them, but because they are unavoidable. So it is with the phthalates. They do end up in our food supply because these chemicals have widespread applications. They lend flexibility conveyor belts, tubes used in milking machines and to plastic water pipes. They help the dispersal of pesticides, they’re found in caulking and in printing inks used on food packaging.

It’s no surprise to anyone familiar with chemical analysis that phthalates can be detected in our urine. Their presence, though, did come as a big surprise to the ten women Dr. Oz selected to have their urine analyzed for phthalates. None of the women had ever heard of phthalates before, which is quite surprising given the amount of publicity they have received. Their faces filled with panic when Oz revealed that they all tested positive for phthalates, chemicals that had been associated with endometriosis, weight gain, respiratory problems as well as brain and behaviour changes in children.

But here is the crux of the problem. Associations do not prove cause and effect. Just because women are more likely to suffer from endometriosis if they have higher levels of phthalates in their urine doesn’t mean that phthalates are the cause. Perhaps they have greater phthalate exposure because they eat more fatty foods like dairy and meat which are known to have higher amounts of phthalates. Perhaps they used more scented products most of which contain phthalates to inhibit the evaporation of the scent and they were somehow reacting to some of the numerous chemicals that make up scented products.

None of this is meant absolve phthalates from all blame because there are sufficient laboratory studies, animal experiments and human epidemiological data that suggest the need for further investigation. But there is no need for panic. There are numerous other substances that could be detected in our urine that could also be vilified in the same fashion as the phthalates. How many? At least 3,079 compounds can be detected, of which 2,282 come from diet, drugs, cosmetics or environmental exposure. Enough chemicals there for Dr. Oz to discuss and panic audiences for many years.

Read more

The Catholic Church and Science

Screen Shot 2014-11-07 at 10.31.47 PMPope Francis’ recent statement at the Pontifical Academy of Science that evolution and the Big Bang model are not contrary to Catholic beliefs created quite a stir. Afterall, for many people the notion that the Church is anti- science is a given. And they have many examples to support their opinion. Galileo was put under house arrest for claiming that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of our planetary system. Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for his free-thinking ideas, is considered today to be a martyr to science.

However, the position of the Catholic Church on current scientific issues is much more in line with the scientific consensus. Many US Protestant denominations believe in a world created by God in its present form less than 10,000 years ago. This is a view shared by 40% of Americans according to a 2014 Gallup survey. In contrast, the Catholic Church has had a much more open attitude toward evolution.

For the first 100 years or so after the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species the Church did not take an official position (although local clergy tended to be hostile). This allowed for a relatively open discussion of the topic among catholic scholars. It led Pope Pius XII, in the 1950 Encyclical Human generis, to accept evolution as a possibility (as opposed to a probability) which warranted further studies. Subsequently Pope John Paul II declared in 1996 in a pronouncement to the Pontifical Academy of Science that Evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” It is interesting to note in this light, that before Darwin, the French Jesuit, Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), was the first to postulate that species could develop new traits as needed for their survival and that these traits could be passed on to their offspring. And when it comes to the Big Bang it was first proposed by the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre who himself was president of the Pontifical Academy of Science.

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences was established in 1936 by Pope Pius XI to advise the Pope on scientific matters. Its membership consists of 80 members and includes numerous Nobel Prize winners including Canadian John Polanyi and Israeli Aaron Ciechanover. The current president is Werner Arber, 1978 Nobel laureate, for his work on recombinant DNA technology. Werner Arber is the first Protestant to hold that position. The Academy does not shy away from controversial issues. In 2009 a group of its members, led by Werner Arber, released a statement praising GMOs as a useful tool to help the world’s poor. The statement takes issues with objections made by critics and states that their misguided opposition prevents, or slows, the development of crops for the public good, especially in Third World countries.

The Pope, who has a scientific background with a master in chemistry, has come strongly in favor of sustainable development. In a recent address he has argued for the “respect of the beauty of nature.” In his speech he stressed the need to “Safeguard Creation because if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us.”

The openness of the Church does not extend to what it considers to be moral or ethical issues. It is widely accepted that the use of condoms is the most reliable way, outside the unrealistic abstinence method promoted by the Church, to prevent the spread of AIDS. Still when Pope John II visited Tanzania, a country where AIDS is rampant, he declared that condoms were a sin in any circumstances.  It should be interesting to see if the Catholic Church under Pope Francis will evolve on this issue as well.

Read more

The Hippocrates Health Institute Dispenses Unhealthy Advice

ALLDo parents have a right to make a decision about how a minor’s cancer is to be treated? Or not treated? This is not just a hypothetical question, it is a very current one. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia is a bone marrow cancer that untreated leads to death but with appropriate chemotherapy has an over 90% cure rate. The parents of an eleven year old Canadian girl have decided to end the recommended treatment before it was completed in favour of a “natural” therapy, stating that this was more in line with their native traditions. They elected to have their child treated at the Hippocrates Health Institute in Florida which features alternative therapies based on the theories of Ann Wigmore, a Lithuanian émigré to the U.S. who had become convinced of the healing power of grasses after reading the Biblical story of Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king who went through a seven year period of insanity from which he apparently cured himself by eating grass.

Wigmore reflected on this story, considered how dogs and cats sometimes eat grass when they feel ill, and came up with a theory about the magical properties of wheatgrass juice. Food rots in the intestine due to improper digestion, she maintained, and forms “toxins” that then enter the circulation. The living enzymes in raw wheatgrass prevent these toxins from forming and ward off disease. So she claimed. By 1988 Wigmore, who had no recognized scientific education, was even suggesting that her “energy enzyme soup” was capable of curing AIDS and cancer. Ann is no longer with us but her “live enzyme therapy” is still a mainstay at the Hippocrates Health Institute.

The term “live enzyme” is meaningless since enzymes are not living entities. They are not composed of cellular units, they cannot reproduce, they cannot carry on metabolism and they cannot grow. Ergo, they are not alive. Enzymes are specialized protein molecules that are essential because they catalyze the numerous reactions that go on in our bodies all the time that are necessary to sustain life. But our bodies make all the enzymes that are needed and enzymes present in food are not the same as the enzymes our cells need and in any case are broken down during digestion. Claims that cancer can be cured by live enzyme therapy are bogus and dangerous. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia requires treatment that has been worked out by decades of research, not concoctions based on folklore and wishful thinking. Should authorities step in and override the parents’ wishes? If this young girl is to have a chance at survival, yes.

Read more

The US EPA approves a new herbicide system …but for the first time ever, with restrictions

EPAThe Environmental Protection Agency disregarded critics by approving Enlist Duo, a new herbicide developed by Dow AgroSciences. In fact Enlist Duo is not totally new. It is a combination of two widely used herbicides, glyphosate and 2,4D. The herbicide, to be used with Dow‘s genetically modified corn and soybean seeds, was developed to counteract the problem of weed resistance.  A serious issue, caused among other things, by the overuse of single herbicide systems based on glyphosate, the herbicide developed by Monsanto for use with its Roundup Ready crops.

Critics attack the EPA decision, claiming that it will lead to more health and environmental problems and to more weed resistance. EPA’s reply was that all possible risks were taken into account and that the use of the choline salt of 2,4D, which sticks better to leaves, should significantly reduce the problem of drift and volatilization.

But where the EPA decision really stands out is that it was made with a number of restrictions. The agency indicates that these will be a model for future approval of herbicides designed for use with genetically modified crops.

The agency will require Dow to closely monitor and report the use of Enlist Duo to ensure that the weeds are not developing resistance. EPA is also ordering a “no spray” buffer zone around application areas and also banned the use of Enlist Duo when wind speeds are over 15 miles per hour (24 km/h).

In contrast to previous country-wide approval, Enlist Duo will initially be allowed only in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. It is only after public consultations that the EPA will consider approving the product for use in other states. Also EPA will review its approval of Enlist Duo in six years rather than the usual 15 years.

Still the EPA’s decision did not go unnoticed and has already sparked a legal challenge by a group of farmers who claim the agency did not fulfill it its duties in its assessment of the risks posed by the herbicide to human health and endangered species. The Natural Resources Defense Council is also taking legal action pointing out that the potential dangers to human health and the environment, in particular to monarch butterflies, had not been properly evaluated.

An interesting aspect of this situation is that Canada approved Duo last year with none of the restrictions proposed by the EPA without generating any controversy. However, Dow has not yet launched the product here, waiting for US approval. With the controversy starting to brew is the US the situation may change.

Read more

Ebola scams are sickening

ebolaWe’ve seen it before. A medical crisis emerges and the scam artists crawl out of the woodwork. Fearful citizens pop open their wallets and fork out hard-earned money for nonsensical “cures.” When it comes to a disease for which science cannot offer an effective treatment, quacks quickly rush in to fill the vacuum. This is just what is happening with Ebola. Claims about preventing infection, and even treating the disease, range from the laughable like eating organic dark chocolate to the totally inane recipe from a Norwegian homeopath for preparing a remedy from the body fluids of an Ebola victim. Homeopathy is based on the scientifically bankrupt notion that a substance capable of causing symptoms in a healthy person can cure those symptoms in an ill person if it is sufficiently diluted. This is nonsensical at any time, but handling the body fluids of an infected person is not a recipe for a cure, it is a recipe for disaster.

One would think that reasonable homeopaths, if such a term is ever applicable, would not support this absurd regimen. But homeopaths certainly have supported other “remedies” for Ebola, such as those concocted from various types of snake venom. Why? Because snake venom can cause intense bleeding, so in the perverse world of homeopathy, in an extremely diluted version it should be a remedy to stop hemorrhaging, a classic sign of Ebola infection. Of course the treatment is useless, but at least the only person at risk is the one collecting the snake venom. And that is unlikely to be the homeopath.

Homeopathic remedies are not the only ones being touted as effective tools in the battle against the Ebola virus. “Nanosilver” is also a hot item thanks to some clever pseudoscientific promotional lingo. Silver has been shown to have antimicrobial properties, begins the sales pitch, and then goes on to describe how silver is used in water purifiers and is even woven into socks to reduce odour caused by microbes. True enough. But deodourizing socks is a long way from destroying the Ebola virus in the body. Colloidal silver can, however, do something. It can cause an irreversible condition known as argyria in which skin colour is permanently altered by deposits of silver. Essential oils from plants won’t fare any better than silver in dealing with the Ebola virus. “Thieves oil,” a blend of cinnamon, rosemary, clove, eucalyptus and lemon oils, is hyped by some as an infection preventative. Seems like an appropriate name for a product that takes money and offers nothing in return.

Other plants, such as bitter kola, astragalus and elderberry are also said to contain compounds that can destroy the Ebola virus and are promoted by some hucksters as a treatment. They clamor for testing such herbal remedies and complain that while untested pharmaceutical products such as Zmapp are being fast-tracked, there is no will to test herbs. Yes, Zmapp is being fast-tracked because it has a plausible chance of working, backed by the solid science of monoclonal antibodies. Vague claims of herbal preparations “boosting immunity” will not do. The immune system is a complex network of organs, specialized cells, antibodies, vitamins, hormones and various other molecules. Nobody knows just what should be boosted to help fight the Ebola virus. This is not to say that herbal remedies have no potential. Honeysuckle tea, for example, has recently been shown to contain a “microRNA” that interferes with messenger RNA and is capable of silencing two genes that flu viruses need to replicate.

In Africa, there have been cases of desperate Ebola victims seeking out healers who claim to have herbal cures. There is at least one account of such a healer actually having exacerbated the problem when infected people came to be healed and ended up inadvertently spreading the disease including to the healer, who reportedly then died of Ebola.

Perhaps the greatest publicity for a supposed preventative has been garnered by vitamin C, a substance that in most minds is associated with health and justifiably so. An extreme deficiency of this vitamin causes scurvy and more mild deficiencies can lead to an increased release of the stress hormone cortisol from the adrenal glands. Cortisol raises blood sugar, suppresses the immune system and decreases bone formation. But none of this means that it can treat an Ebola infection. Yet that is the obvious implication of a product that has seen a meteoric rise in sales recently. The cleverly named Ebola-C sells for $34.95 for 60 tablets of vitamin C, 500 mgs per tablet. This is about ten times the price of no-name brands available everywhere. There is zero evidence that Ebola-C has any effect on the prevention or treatment of an Ebola infection.

The brains behind this marketing scam is New York businessman Todd Spinelli who claims to have gotten the idea from Dr. Oz. Well, I’m not one to come to the rescue of a guy who has dispensed a truckload of questionable advice, but in this case he did not claim that vitamin C could prevent Ebola infection. He did have a show on Ebola that included a segment in which he talked about stress and how vitamin C could reduce the negative effects of cortisol but he did not link this to Ebola. Of course it may be true that Spinelli heard him prattle on about vitamin C on the same program as his Ebola discussion and that sparked a marketing idea.
Some promoters of vitamin C supplements have rationalized that Ebola and scurvy have similarities in that both conditions are associated with excessive bleeding. Since vitamin C treats scurvy it may have an effect on an Ebola infection as well, they suggest. This is like arguing that since brain tumours are associated with headaches, they could conceivably be treated with aspirin. Makes no sense.

Even vitamin C supplement advocates, and there are many in the medical community, agree that small doses of oral vitamin C are ineffective in the battle against viruses. But some claim that massive intravenous doses, of the order of 30-50 grams a day, can wipe out viruses and should be tried on Ebola victims. They base this on baseless reports that large doses of vitamin C have cured victims of polio, Yellow Fever and Dengue Fever. Of course since intravenous vitamin C hasn’t been tried on Ebola patients, it is impossible to say categorically that it will not cure Ebola, but given what we know about infectious diseases, it’s a good bet that the only result of intravenous vitamin C would be diarrhea. Not the best thing for a dehydrated patient.

Read more

Green coffee beans give science a black eye

Dr. Oz
Dr. Oz  didn’t mince his words when he described the wondrous effects of green coffee been extract. “Magical,” “staggering,” an “unprecedented discovery!” “Finally, a cure for obesity” he breathlessly gushed. I gasped too. Not at the results of the study that sent Oz into rapture, but at the credulity of the man. Losing 10.5% of one’s body weight and 16% of body fat in 22 weeks without any dieting or exercise? Just by taking green coffee bean extract? That would indeed be a miracle. If only the study had been properly conducted and involved more than 16 people.

But what we actually had was a study so sloppy that it was rejected by the journals to which it was originally submitted. That’s when, as the story goes, the manufacturer of the green coffee bean supplement, Applied Food Sciences, hired University of Scranton Professors Joe Vinson and Bryan Burnham to rewrite the paper to make it acceptable for publication. It seems these two had nothing to do with the research and were more or less hired guns. Obviously there is a major ethical issue here with university professors basically writing a paper about research that they were not involved in.

Granted, Dr. Oz could not have been aware of the sordid history of the publication but having been trained in science he should have known better than to tout a piece of ragged research that involved so few subjects as a “miracle.” His unbridled enthusiasm for the supplement led to skyrocketing sales but a pretty rough landing for the hopeful who bought into the easy weight loss scheme. But the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the U.S. didn’t buy  the outrageous claims and launched an investigation, quickly concluding that the lead investigator in the study had altered some of the data and was even unclear about which subjects had taken the coffee bean extract and which the placebo. “Sloppy” would be the kind expression, “fraudulent” the more realistic one.

The FTC doesn’t take kindly to such fiddling with data and initiated legal proceedings. The result was a fine of $3.5 million for the company and a promise to desist from false advertising in the future. By this time Vinson and Burnham were feeling the heat and have now decided to retract the paper because as they said, “the sponsors of the study cannot assure the validity of the data.” What on earth are they talking about? Being the authors of the paper, didn’t they think of verifying the data before? They relied on the manufacturer of the product being tested to check the data? Does one ask the fox to check on the welfare of the chickens in the hen house? If it turns out that Vinson and Burnham were really paid to write this paper without having been involved in the research, some sort of disciplinary action is indicated.

“Green coffee bean-gate” should be widely publicized because it is an excellent example of how a credulous TV personality, shoddy science and a curious lack of judgment by a couple of professors can result in the runaway sales of a questionable product. A black eye for science.

Read more

Cherry Picking Cranberry Juice Data

cranberry juiceCranberry juice manufacturers are adept at cherry-picking data. Of course this is not a unique pursuit. Be it milk, or blueberries or pomegranates or artificial sweeteners or beef or turmeric or bottled water or virtually any other food or beverage that is on the market, its producers scour the scientific literature for any study that can be used as promotional material. And given the vast number of scientific papers that are published, something can always be found and relatively insignificant data can be seductively exaggerated. How about this press release cooked up by a cranberry juice company’s publicity agency. “Feeling Lovesick? Scientists Say Cranberry Juice Can Help.” Actually no scientist said that.

The twisted reference is to a study that involved subjects drinking a non-commercially available cranberry drink and donating blood from which a special type of immune cell was isolated and its proliferation in a Petri dish was studied. The researchers discovered that the immune cells isolated from the juice drinkers proliferated more quickly. But this was a study carried out in a test tube. The subjects also were asked about cold and flu symptoms and once again the juice drinkers reported reduced severity although there was no difference in frequency of illness. So how does this rather pedantic data convert cranberry juice into a love potion for a Valentine’s Day promotion? With some clever wording. “If you want to smooch, not sniffle, grab a glass of cranberry juice,” starts the enticing copy.

But if you do grab that glass, you will also be grabbing about ten spoonfuls of added sugar. That’s what you get in a soft drink or any other fruit juice. Cranberry juice producers are feeling the heat about sugar and are upping the ante about the benefits of the juice, claiming that these benefits are not wiped out by the sugar. The question of course is, what really are those benefits? In many minds cranberry juice is associated with reducing the risk of urinary tract infections and even with curing those infections. These are not rare. There are millions of urinary tract infections every year in Canada and their treatment with antibiotics contributes to antibiotic resistance.

It would be great if there were a simple preventative regimen, such as drinking cranberry juice. While there are some studies that have shown a marginal benefit, when all the high quality studies are lumped together in a “meta analysis,” the evidence for the prevention of urinary tract infection by cranberry juice is just too weak to recommend its consumption for this purpose. But a little more data dredging can unearth studies that suggest cardiovascular and gastrointestinal benefits. You can even find studies that imply a reduction in dental plaque with cranberry extract mouthwashes as well as inhibition of the growth of cancer cells. But these are mostly esoteric laboratory studies with little practical application. If it’s a choice between a soda pop and cranberry juice, by all means choose the juice. However, when it comes to adding it to the diet hoping to improve health, juicing the berries comes with squeezing of the data.

 

Read more

We need rational discussion about pesticides, without rhetoric

pesticideDavid Copperfield performed many an illusion on his television specials with his hair blowing in the wind, tussled by an offstage fan. I was reminded of that effect by an episode of the Dr. Oz show in which the hot air so often generated by the host was amplified by a fan à la Copperfield. And Oz, too, was performing a sort of illusion if we go by the definition of the term as “something that deceives by a false perception or belief.” In this case, Oz dumped a bunch of yellow feathers on a patch of synthetic turf adorned with some synthetic plants to demonstrate pesticide drift. The flurry of feathers was meant to illustrate how neighbouring fields, as well as people who happen to be nearby, may be affected. A powerful visual skit to be sure, but a gross misrepresentation of the risks posed by pesticide drift.

The reason for the demo at this particular time was that, in Oz’s words, “the Environmental Protection Agency is on the brink of approving a brand new toxic pesticide you don’t know about.” The reference was to Enlist Duo, a mixture of the weed killers glyphosate and 2,4-D (short for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), designed to be used on corn and soy grown from seeds genetically engineered to resist these herbicides. Fields can then be sprayed to kill weeds without harming the crops. Enlist Duo is already approved in Canada.

The need for the new combination was generated by the development of resistance to glyphosate by weeds in fields planted with crops genetically modified to tolerate this herbicide. Such resistance has nothing to do with genetic modification, it is a consequence of biology, since some members of a target species will have a natural resistance to a pesticide and will go on to reproduce and yield offspring that are also resistant. Eventually, the whole population becomes resistant. This is the same problem we face today with bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics.

Oz got one thing right. Pesticides are toxic. That’s exactly why they are used. And that is why there is extensive research about their effects and strict regulation about their application. Remember that there are no “safe” or “dangerous” chemicals, just safe or dangerous ways to use them. As far as 2,4-D and glyphosate go, there is nothing new here, since both of these have been widely used for years, although not in this specific combination. What is new is the development of crops resistant to 2,4-D, which will allow for its use to kill weeds in corn and soy fields, something that was not possible before. This has raised alarm among those who maintain that 2,4-D is dangerous and that its increased use is going to affect human health. Dr. Oz apparently is of this belief, and as the feathers were flying around the stage, he chimed in with how “2,4-D is a chemical that was used in Agent Orange which the government banned during the Vietnam War.”

2,4-D, was indeed one of the components in the notorious Agent Orange used to defoliate trees in Vietnam. Tragically, it was later found to be contaminated with tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), a highly toxic chemical linked to birth defects and cancer. This dioxin, however, has nothing to do with 2,4-D. It was inadvertently formed during the production of 2,4,5-trichloroacetic acid, or 2,4,5-T, the other component in Agent Orange. That is why the production of 2,4,5-T, but not 2,4-D, was banned.

It is deceitful to imply that the new herbicide is dangerous because it contains the harmful compound that was used in Agent Orange. Not only does Enlist Duo not contain any TCDD, the form of 2,4-D it does contain is also different from what was used in Vietnam. Enlist Duo is formulated with “2,4-D choline” which is far less volatile than 2,4-D itself and has an even safer profile. While legitimate concerns can be raised about genetic modification, it is disingenuous to scare the public by linking the newly proposed herbicide to Agent Orange. It is also irresponsible to show videos of crops such as green peppers being sprayed, insinuating that Enlist Duo will be used on all sorts of crops whereas it would only be suitable for Dow’s genetically engineered corn and soy.

Now on to the issue of pesticide drift, which can happen in two ways. Tiny droplets of the spray can be carried by air currents, and the chemicals can also evaporate and spread as a vapour after being deposited on a field in their liquid form. These are realistic concerns especially given that some schools are located in the vicinity of agricultural fields. But these are just the sort of concerns that are taken into account when a pesticide is approved. For example, one well-designed study concluded that a person standing about 40 metres from a sprayer would be exposed to about 10 microlitres of spray, of which 9 microlitres are just water. Calculations show that the amount of 2,4-D in the 1 microlitre is well within safety limits, and of course spraying isn’t continuous, it is done a few times a year. Consider also that 2,4-D choline, which is what is found in Enlist Duo, has far lower volatility and tendency to drift than 2,4-D itself, further improving its safety profile.

While no pesticide can be regarded as risk-free, the portrayal of Enlist Duo by Dr. Oz amounts to unscientific fear mongering. His final comment that “this subjects our entire nation to one massive experiment and I’m very concerned that we’re at the beginning of a catastrophe that we don’t have to subject ourselves to” totally ignores the massive number of experiments that have been carried out on pesticides before approval, based on a scientific rather than an emotional evaluation of the risk versus benefit ratio. True, when it comes to pesticides, there is no free lunch. But without the judicious use of such agrochemicals producing that lunch for the close to 10 billion people who by 2050 will be lining up for it becomes a challenge. What we need is rational discussion, not the spraying around of feathers and ill-informed rhetoric in a deception-laden stage act. If I want deception on the stage, I’ll stick to watching David Copperfield.

Read more

« Older Entries
Blog authors are solely responsible for the content of the blogs listed in the directory. Neither the content of these blogs, nor the links to other web sites, are screened, approved, reviewed or endorsed by McGill University. The text and other material on these blogs are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or information of McGill.