Important

Perhaps people should be demonstrating on the streets about actual evil perpetrated, rather than spurious G20 silliness.

This is a shocking chapter from  the new edition of Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’. It was not originally published in the first edition due to this deeply unpleasant Matthias Rath character attempting – and failing – to sue Dr Goldacre and The Guardian into oblivion.

Read it and pass it on…

—————————–

This is an extract from
BAD SCIENCE by Ben Goldacre
Published by Harper Perennial 2009.

You are free to copy it, paste it, bake it, reprint it, read it aloud,

as long as you don’t change it – including this bit –
so that people know that they can find more ideas for free at www.badscience.net

The Doctor Will Sue You Now

This chapter did not appear in the original edition of this book,

because for fifteen months leading up to September 2008 the

vitamin-pill entrepreneur Matthias Rath was suing me personally,

and the Guardian, for libel. This strategy brought only

mixed success. For all that nutritionists may fantasise in public

that any critic is somehow a pawn of big pharma, in private they

would do well to remember that, like many my age who work in

the public sector, I don’t own a flat. The Guardian generously

paid for the lawyers, and in September 2008 Rath dropped his

case, which had cost in excess of £500,000 to defend. Rath has

paid £220,000 already, and the rest will hopefully follow.

Nobody will ever repay me for the endless meetings, the time

off work, or the days spent poring over tables filled with

endlessly cross-referenced court documents.

On this last point there is, however, one small consolation,

and I will spell it out as a cautionary tale: I now know more

about Matthias Rath than almost any other person alive. My

notes, references and witness statements, boxed up in the room

where I am sitting right now, make a pile as tall as the man

himself, and what I will write here is only a tiny fraction of the

fuller story that is waiting to be told about him. This chapter, I

should also mention, is available free online for anyone who

wishes to see it.

Matthias Rath takes us rudely outside the contained, almost

academic distance of this book. For the most part we’ve been

interested in the intellectual and cultural consequences of bad

science, the made-up facts in national newspapers, dubious

academic practices in universities, some foolish pill-peddling,

and so on. But what happens if we take these sleights of hand,

these pill-marketing techniques, and transplant them out of

our decadent Western context into a situation where things

really matter?

In an ideal world this would be only a thought experiment.

AIDS is the opposite of anecdote. Twenty-five million people

have died from it already, three million in the last year alone,

and 500,000 of those deaths were children. In South Africa it

kills 300,000 people every year: that’s eight hundred people

every day, or one every two minutes. This one country has 6.3

million people who are HIV positive, including 30 per cent of

all pregnant women. There are 1.2 million AIDS orphans under

the age of seventeen. Most chillingly of all, this disaster has

appeared suddenly, and while we were watching: in 1990, just 1

per cent of adults in South Africa were HIV positive. Ten years

later, the figure had risen to 25 per cent.

It’s hard to mount an emotional response to raw numbers,

but on one thing I think we would agree. If you were to walk

into a situation with that much death, misery and disease, you

would be very careful to make sure that you knew what you

were talking about. For the reasons you are about to read, I

suspect that Matthias Rath missed the mark.

This man, we should be clear, is our responsibility. Born and

raised in Germany, Rath was the head of Cardiovascular

Research at the Linus Pauling Institute in Palo Alto in California,

and even then he had a tendency towards grand gestures,

publishing a paper in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine

in 1992 titled ‘A Unified Theory of Human Cardiovascular

Disease Leading the Way to the Abolition of this Disease as a

Cause for Human Mortality’. The unified theory was high-dose

vitamins.

He first developed a power base from sales in Europe, selling

his pills with tactics that will be very familiar to you from the

rest of this book, albeit slightly more aggressive. In the UK, his

adverts claimed that ‘90 per cent of patients receiving

chemotherapy for cancer die within months of starting treatment’,

and suggested that three million lives could be saved if

cancer patients stopped being treated by conventional medicine.

The pharmaceutical industry was deliberately letting

people die for financial gain, he explained. Cancer treatments

were ‘poisonous compounds’ with ‘not even one effective treatment’.

The decision to embark on treatment for cancer can be the

most difficult that an individual or a family will ever take, representing

a close balance between well-documented benefits and

equally well-documented side-effects. Adverts like these might

play especially strongly on your conscience if your mother has

just lost all her hair to chemotherapy, for example, in the hope

of staying alive just long enough to see your son speak.

There was some limited regulatory response in Europe, but it

was generally as weak as that faced by the other characters in

this book. The Advertising Standards Authority criticised one of

his adverts in the UK, but that is essentially all they are able to

do. Rath was ordered by a Berlin court to stop claiming that his

vitamins could cure cancer, or face a €250,000 fine.

But sales were strong, and Matthias Rath still has many

supporters in Europe, as you will shortly see. He walked into

South Africa with all the acclaim, self-confidence and wealth he

had amassed as a successful vitamin-pill entrepreneur in

Europe and America, and began to take out full-page adverts in

newspapers.

‘The answer to the AIDS epidemic is here,’ he proclaimed.

Anti-retroviral drugs were poisonous, and a conspiracy to kill

patients and make money. ‘Stop AIDS Genocide by the Drugs

Cartel’ said one headline. ‘Why should South Africans continue

to be poisoned with AZT? There is a natural answer to AIDS.’

The answer came in the form of vitamin pills. ‘Multivitamin

treatment is more effective than any toxic AIDS drug.’‘Multivitamins

cut the risk of developing AIDS in half.’

Rath’s company ran clinics reflecting these ideas, and in 2005

he decided to run a trial of his vitamins in a township near Cape

Town called Khayelitsha, giving his own formulation, VitaCell,

to people with advanced AIDS. In 2008 this trial was declared

illegal by the Cape High Court of South Africa. Although Rath

says that none of his participants had been on anti-retroviral

drugs, some relatives have given statements saying that they

were, and were actively told to stop using them.

Tragically,Matthias Rath had taken these ideas to exactly the

right place. Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa at the

time, was well known as an ‘AIDS dissident’, and to international

horror, while people died at the rate of one every two minutes

in his country, he gave credence and support to the claims of a

small band of campaigners who variously claim that AIDS does

not exist, that it is not caused by HIV, that anti-retroviral

medication does more harm than good, and so on.

At various times during the peak of the AIDS epidemic in

South Africa their government argued that HIV is not the cause

of AIDS, and that anti-retroviral drugs are not useful for

patients. They refused to roll out proper treatment programmes,

they refused to accept free donations of drugs, and they refused

to accept grant money from the Global Fund to buy drugs.

One study estimates that if the South African national

government had used anti-retroviral drugs for prevention and

treatment at the same rate as the Western Cape province (which

defied national policy on the issue), around 171,000 new HIV

infections and 343,000 deaths could have been prevented

between 1999 and 2007. Another study estimates that between

2000 and 2005 there were 330,000 unnecessary deaths, 2.2

million person years lost, and 35,000 babies unnecessarily born

with HIV because of the failure to implement a cheap and

simple mother-to-child-transmission prevention program.

Between one and three doses of an ARV drug can reduce transmission

dramatically. The cost is negligible. It was not available.

Interestingly, Matthias Rath’s colleague and employee, a

South African barrister named Anthony Brink, takes the credit

for introducing Thabo Mbeki to many of these ideas. Brink

stumbled on the ‘AIDS dissident’ material in the mid-1990s,

and after much surfing and reading, became convinced that it

must be right. In 1999 he wrote an article about AZT in a

Johannesburg newspaper titled ‘a medicine from hell’. This led

to a public exchange with a leading virologist. Brink contacted

Mbeki, sending him copies of the debate, and was welcomed as

an expert. This is a chilling testament to the danger of elevating

cranks by engaging with them.

In his initial letter of motivation for employment to Matthias

Rath, Brink described himself as ‘South Africa’s leading AIDS

dissident, best known for my whistle-blowing exposé of the

toxicity and inefficacy of AIDS drugs, and for my political

activism in this regard, which caused President Mbeki and

Health Minister Dr Tshabalala-Msimang to repudiate the drugs

in 1999’.

In 2000, the now infamous International AIDS Conference

took place in Durban. Mbeki’s presidential advisory panel

beforehand was packed with ‘AIDS dissidents’, including Peter

Duesberg and David Rasnick. On the first day, Rasnick

suggested that all HIV testing should be banned on principle,

and that South Africa should stop screening supplies of blood

for HIV. ‘If I had the power to outlaw the HIV antibody test,’ he

said, ‘I would do it across the board.’When African physicians

gave testimony about the drastic change AIDS had caused in

their clinics and hospitals, Rasnick said he had not seen ‘any

evidence’ of an AIDS catastrophe. The media were not allowed

in, but one reporter from the Village Voice was present. Peter

Duesberg, he said, ‘gave a presentation so removed from African

medical reality that it left several local doctors shaking their

heads’. It wasn’t AIDS that was killing babies and children, said

the dissidents: it was the anti-retroviral medication.

President Mbeki sent a letter to world leaders comparing the

struggle of the ‘AIDS dissidents’ to the struggle against apartheid.

The Washington Post described the reaction at the White House:

‘So stunned were some officials by the letter’s tone and timing –

during final preparations for July’s conference in Durban – that

at least two of them, according to diplomatic sources, felt

obliged to check whether it was genuine.’Hundreds of delegates

walked out of Mbeki’s address to the conference in disgust, but

many more described themselves as dazed and confused. Over

5,000 researchers and activists around the world signed up to

the Durban Declaration, a document that specifically addressed

and repudiated the claims and concerns – at least the more

moderate ones – of the ‘AIDS dissidents’. Specifically, it

addressed the charge that people were simply dying of poverty:

The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clearcut,

exhaustive and unambiguous … As with any other chronic

infection, various co-factors play a role in determining the risk

of disease. Persons who are malnourished, who already suffer

other infections or who are older, tend to be more susceptible to

the rapid development of AIDS following HIV infection.

However, none of these factors weaken the scientific evidence

that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS … Mother-to-child transmission

can be reduced by half or more by short courses of antiviral

drugs … What works best in one country may not be

appropriate in another. But to tackle the disease, everyone must

first understand that HIV is the enemy. Research, not myths,

will lead to the development of more effective and cheaper

treatments.

It did them no good. Until 2003 the South African government

refused, as a matter of principle, to roll out proper antiretroviral

medication programmes, and even then the process

was half-hearted. This madness was only overturned after a

massive campaign by grassroots organisations such as the

Treatment Action Campaign, but even after the ANC cabinet

voted to allow medication to be given, there was still resistance.

In mid-2005, at least 85 per cent of HIV-positive people who

needed anti-retroviral drugs were still refused them. That’s

around a million people.

This resistance, of course, went deeper than just one man;

much of it came from Mbeki’s Health Minister,Manto Tshabalala-

Msimang. An ardent critic of medical drugs for HIV, she

would cheerfully go on television to talk up their dangers, talk

down their benefits, and became irritable and evasive when

asked how many patients were receiving effective treatment.

She declared in 2005 that she would not be ‘pressured’ into

meeting the target of three million patients on anti-retroviral

medication, that people had ignored the importance of nutrition,

and that she would continue to warn patients of the sideeffects

of anti-retrovirals, saying: ‘We have been vindicated in

this regard.We are what we eat.’

It’s an eerily familiar catchphrase. Tshabalala-Msimang has

also gone on record to praise the work of Matthias Rath, and

refused to investigate his activities. Most joyfully of all, she is a

staunch advocate of the kind of weekend glossy-magazine-style

nutritionism that will by now be very familiar to you.

The remedies she advocates for AIDS are beetroot, garlic,

lemons and African potatoes. A fairly typical quote, from the

Health Minister in a country where eight hundred people die

every day from AIDS, is this: ‘Raw garlic and a skin of the

lemon – not only do they give you a beautiful face and skin but

they also protect you from disease.’ South Africa’s stand at the

2006 World AIDS Conference in Toronto was described by

delegates as the ‘salad stall’. It consisted of some garlic, some

beetroot, the African potato, and assorted other vegetables.

Some boxes of anti-retroviral drugs were added later, but they

were reportedly borrowed at the last minute from other

conference delegates.

Alternative therapists like to suggest that their treatments

and ideas have not been sufficiently researched. As you now

know, this is often untrue, and in the case of the Health Minister’s

favoured vegetables, research had indeed been done, with

results that were far from promising. Interviewed on SABC

about this, Tshabalala-Msimang gave the kind of responses

you’d expect to hear at any North London dinner-party discussion

of alternative therapies.

First she was asked about work from the University of Stellenbosch

which suggested that her chosen plant, the African

potato, might be actively dangerous for people on AIDS drugs.

One study on African potato in HIV had to be terminated

prematurely, because the patients who received the plant extract

developed severe bone-marrow suppression and a drop in their

CD4 cell count – which is a bad thing – after eight weeks. On

top of this, when extract from the same vegetable was given to

cats with Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, they succumbed to

full-blown Feline AIDS faster than their non-treated controls.

African potato does not look like a good bet.

Tshabalala-Msimang disagreed: the researchers should go

back to the drawing board, and ‘investigate properly’. Why?

Because HIV-positive people who used African potato had

shown improvement, and they had said so themselves. If a

person says he or she is feeling better, should this be disputed,

she demanded to know, merely because it had not been proved

scientifically? ‘When a person says she or he is feeling better, I

must say “No, I don’t think you are feeling better”? “I must

rather go and do science on you”?’ Asked whether there should

be a scientific basis to her views, she replied: ‘Whose science?’

And there, perhaps, is a clue, if not exoneration. This is a continent

that has been brutally exploited by the developed world, first

by empire, and then by globalised capital. Conspiracy theories

about AIDS and Western medicine are not entirely absurd in this

context. The pharmaceutical industry has indeed been caught

performing drug trials in Africa which would be impossible

anywhere in the developed world. Many find it suspicious that

black Africans seem to be the biggest victims of AIDS, and point

to the biological warfare programmes set up by the apartheid

governments; there have also been suspicions that the scientific

discourse of HIV/AIDS might be a device, a Trojan horse for

spreading even more exploitative Western political and economic

agendas around a problem that is simply one of poverty.

And these are new countries, for which independence and

self-rule are recent developments, which are struggling to find

their commercial feet and true cultural identity after centuries

of colonisation. Traditional medicine represents an important

link with an autonomous past; besides which, anti-retroviral

medications have been unnecessarily – offensively, absurdly –

expensive, and until moves to challenge this became partially

successful, many Africans were effectively denied access to

medical treatment as a result.

It’s very easy for us to feel smug, and to forget that we all have

our own strange cultural idiosyncrasies which prevent us from

taking up sensible public-health programmes. For examples,we

don’t even have to look as far as MMR. There is a good evidence

base, for example, to show that needle-exchange programmes

reduce the spread of HIV, but this strategy has been rejected

time and again in favour of ‘Just say no.’ Development charities

funded by US Christian groups refuse to engage with birth

control, and any suggestion of abortion, even in countries

where being in control of your own fertility could mean the

difference between success and failure in life, is met with a cold,

pious stare. These impractical moral principles are so deeply

entrenched that Pepfar, the US Presidential Emergency Plan for

AIDS Relief, has insisted that every recipient of international

aid money must sign a declaration expressly promising not to

have any involvement with sex workers.

We mustn’t appear insensitive to the Christian value system,

but it seems to me that engaging sex workers is almost the

cornerstone of any effective AIDS policy: commercial sex is

frequently the ‘vector of transmission’, and sex workers a very

high-risk population; but there are also more subtle issues at

stake. If you secure the legal rights of prostitutes to be free from

violence and discrimination, you empower them to demand

universal condom use, and that way you can prevent HIV from

being spread into the whole community. This is where science

meets culture. But perhaps even to your own friends and neighbours,

in whatever suburban idyll has become your home, the

moral principle of abstinence from sex and drugs is more

important than people dying of AIDS; and perhaps, then, they

are no less irrational than Thabo Mbeki.

So this was the situation into which the vitamin-pill entrepreneur

Matthias Rath inserted himself, prominently and expensively,

with the wealth he had amassed from Europe and America,

exploiting anti-colonial anxieties with no sense of irony,

although he was a white man offering pills made in a factory

abroad. His adverts and clinics were a tremendous success. He

began to tout individual patients as evidence of the benefits that

could come from vitamin pills – although in reality some of his

most famous success stories have died of AIDS. When

asked about the deaths of Rath’s star patients, Health Minister

Tshabalala-Msimang replied: ‘It doesn’t necessarily mean that if I

am taking antibiotics and I die, that I died of antibiotics.’

She is not alone: South Africa’s politicians have consistently

refused to step in, Rath claims the support of the government,

and its most senior figures have refused to distance themselves

from his operations or to criticise his activities. Tshabalala-

Msimang has gone on the record to state that the Rath Foundation

‘are not undermining the government’s position. If

anything, they are supporting it.’

In 2005, exasperated by government inaction, a group of 199

leading medical practitioners in South Africa signed an open

letter to the health authorities of the Western Cape, pleading for

action on the Rath Foundation. ‘Our patients are being inundated

with propaganda encouraging them to stop life-saving

medicine,’ it said. ‘Many of us have had experiences with HIVinfected

patients who have had their health compromised by

stopping their anti-retrovirals due to the activities of this Foundation.’

Rath’s adverts continue unabated. He even claimed that his

activities were endorsed by huge lists of sponsors and affiliates

including the World Health Organization, UNICEF and

UNAIDS. All have issued statements flatly denouncing his

claims and activities. The man certainly has chutzpah.

His adverts are also rich with detailed scientific claims. It

would be wrong of us to neglect the science in this story, so we

should follow some through, specifically those which focused

on a Harvard study in Tanzania. He described this research in

full-page advertisements, some of which have appeared in the

New York Times and the Herald Tribune. He refers to these paid

adverts, I should mention, as if he had received flattering news

coverage in the same papers. Anyway, this research showed that

multivitamin supplements can be beneficial in a developing

world population with AIDS: there’s no problem with that

result, and there are plenty of reasons to think that vitamins

might have some benefit for a sick and frequently malnourished

population.

The researchers enrolled 1,078 HIV-positive pregnant

women and randomly assigned them to have either a vitamin

supplement or placebo. Notice once again, if you will, that this

is another large, well-conducted, publicly funded trial of vitamins,

conducted by mainstream scientists, contrary to the

claims of nutritionists that such studies do not exist.

The women were followed up for several years, and at the end

of the study, 25 per cent of those on vitamins were severely ill or

dead, compared with 31 per cent of those on placebo. There was

also a statistically significant benefit in CD4 cell count (a measure

of HIV activity) and viral loads. These results were in no sense

dramatic – and they cannot be compared to the demonstrable

life-saving benefits of anti-retrovirals – but they did show that

improved diet, or cheap generic vitamin pills, could represent a

simple and relatively inexpensive way to marginally delay the

need to start HIV medication in some patients.

In the hands of Rath, this study became evidence that

vitamin pills are superior to medication in the treatment of

HIV/AIDS, that anti-retroviral therapies ‘severely damage all

cells in the body – including white blood cells’, and worse, that

they were ‘thereby not improving but rather worsening

immune deficiencies and expanding the AIDS epidemic’. The

researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health were so

horrified that they put together a press release setting out their

support for medication, and stating starkly, with unambiguous

clarity, that Matthias Rath had misrepresented their findings.

Media regulators failed to act.

To outsiders the story is baffling and terrifying. The United

Nations has condemned Rath’s adverts as ‘wrong and misleading’.

‘This guy is killing people by luring them with unrecognised

treatment without any scientific evidence,’ said Eric

Goemaere, head of Médecins sans Frontières SA, a man who

pioneered anti-retroviral therapy in South Africa. Rath sued

him.

It’s not just MSF who Rath has gone after. He has also

brought time-consuming, expensive, stalled or failed cases

against a professor of AIDS research, critics in the media and

others.

His most heinous campaign has been against the Treatment

Action Campaign. For many years this has been the key organisation

campaigning for access to anti-retroviral medication in

South Africa, and it has been fighting a war on four fronts.

Firstly, it campaigns against its own government, trying to

compel it to roll out treatment programmes for the population.

Secondly, it fights against the pharmaceutical industry, which

claims that it needs to charge full price for its products in developing

countries in order to pay for research and development of

new drugs – although, as we shall see, out of its $550 billion

global annual revenue, the pharmaceutical industry spends

twice as much on promotion and admin as it does on research

and development. Thirdly, it is a grassroots organisation, made

up largely of black women from townships who do important

prevention and treatment-literacy work on the ground, ensuring

that people know what is available, and how to protect

themselves. Lastly, it fights against people who promote the

type of information peddled by Matthias Rath and his like.

Rath has taken it upon himself to launch a massive

campaign against this group. He distributes advertising material

against them, saying ‘Treatment Action Campaign medicines

are killing you’ and ‘Stop AIDS genocide by the drug

cartel’, claiming – as you will guess by now – that there is an

international conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies intent

on prolonging the AIDS crisis in the interests of their own

profits by giving medication that makes people worse. TAC

must be a part of this, goes the reasoning, because it criticises

Matthias Rath. Just like me writing on Patrick Holford or

Gillian McKeith, TAC is perfectly in favour of good diet and

nutrition. But in Rath’s promotional literature it is a front for

the pharmaceutical industry, a ‘Trojan horse’ and a ‘running

dog’. TAC has made a full disclosure of its funding and activities,

showing no such connection: Rath presented no evidence

to the contrary, and has even lost a court case over the issue,

but will not let it lie. In fact he presents the loss of this court

case as if it was a victory.

The founder of TAC is a man called Zackie Achmat, and he

is the closest thing I have to a hero. He is South African, and

coloured, by the nomenclature of the apartheid system in

which he grew up.At the age of fourteen he tried to burn down

his school, and you might have done the same in similar

circumstances. He has been arrested and imprisoned under

South Africa’s violent, brutal white regime, with all that

entailed. He is also gay, and HIV-positive, and he refused to

take anti-retroviral medication until it was widely available to

all on the public health system, even when he was dying of

AIDS, even when he was personally implored to save himself

by Nelson Mandela, a public supporter of anti-retroviral

medication and Achmat’s work.

And now, at last, we come to the lowest point of this whole

story, not merely for Matthias Rath’s movement, but for the

alternative therapy movement around the world as a whole. In

2007, with a huge public flourish, to great media coverage,

Rath’s former employee Anthony Brink filed a formal

complaint against Zackie Achmat, the head of the TAC.

Bizarrely, he filed this complaint with the International Criminal

Court at The Hague, accusing Achmat of genocide for

successfully campaigning to get access to HIV drugs for the

people of South Africa.

It’s hard to explain just how influential the ‘AIDS dissidents’

are in South Africa. Brink is a barrister, a man with important

friends, and his accusations were reported in the national news

media – and in some corners of the Western gay press – as a

serious news story. I do not believe that any one of those jour-

nalists who reported on it can possibly have read Brink’s indictment

to the end.

I have.

The first fifty-seven pages present familiar anti-medication

and ‘AIDS-dissident’ material. But then, on page fifty-eight, this

‘indictment’ document suddenly deteriorates into something

altogether more vicious and unhinged, as Brink sets out what

he believes would be an appropriate punishment for Zackie.

Because I do not wish to be accused of selective editing, I will

now reproduce for you that entire section, unedited, so you can

see and feel it for yourself.

image

image

The document was described by the Rath Foundation as

‘entirely valid and long overdue’.

This story isn’t about Matthias Rath, or Anthony Brink, or

Zackie Achmat, or even South Africa. It is about the culture of

how ideas work, and how that can break down.Doctors criticise

other doctors, academics criticise academics, politicians criticise

politicians: that’s normal and healthy, it’s how ideas

improve. Matthias Rath is an alternative therapist, made in

Europe.He is every bit the same as the British operators that we

have seen in this book. He is from their world.

Despite the extremes of this case, not one single alternative

therapist or nutritionist, anywhere in the world, has stood up

to criticise any single aspect of the activities of Matthias Rath

and his colleagues. In fact, far from it: he continues to be fêted

to this day. I have sat in true astonishment and watched leading

figures of the UK’s alternative therapy movement applaud

Matthias Rath at a public lecture (I have it on video, just in case

there’s any doubt). Natural health organisations continue to

defend Rath. Homeopaths’ mailouts continue to promote his

work. The British Association of Nutritional Therapists has

been invited to comment by bloggers, but declined. Most,

when challenged, will dissemble. ‘Oh,’ they say, ‘I don’t really

know much about it.’ Not one person will step forward and

dissent.

The alternative therapy movement as a whole has demonstrated

itself to be so dangerously, systemically incapable of critical

self-appraisal that it cannot step up even in a case like that

of Rath: in that count I include tens of thousands of practitioners,

writers, administrators and more. This is how ideas go

badly wrong. In the conclusion to this book, written before I

was able to include this chapter, I will argue that the biggest

dangers posed by the material we have covered are cultural and

intellectual.

I may be mistaken.

This work is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works License described here, you’re free to copy it wherever you like as long as you keep it whole, and do please point people back here to badscience.net so that if they like it, they know where to find more for free.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Science. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s