I guess I’m slow on the uptake. I expected that the Globe & Mail would receive a flood of objections to, and ridicule for, Jessica Leeder’s cheerfully uncritical Feb. 27 blogpost about the activities of a Canadian “naturopathic doctor” who was rushed to Haiti by a charity to “help” with relief efforts. Instead, the paper has promoted Leeder’s story to the front page of its website. Denis Marier, whose own website proclaims him to be a “humanitarian”, brought 100 pounds of homeopathic medicines with him to Haiti; by his own account, this has enabled him to begin “administering homeopathic remedies to several children with scabies (Psorinum)”.

What’s psorinum, you ask? Good question! On the homeopathic “principle” that “like cures like”, practitioners sometimes apply what they call “nosodes”: these are diluted secretions from sick people, which may include excrement, blood, or diseased tissue. Psorinum is described in one favourable literature abstract as “an alcoholic extract of scabies, scrub, slough, and pus cells”. “Dr.” Marier has also been enthusiastically prescribing “pyrogenium”, an English homeopathic remedy that consists of diluted extract of rotten beef.

It’s all related to the “miasmatic theory” of disease, whose abandonment in the 19th century you may have heard some wild rumours of. I say “abandonment”; the truth, of course, is that miasmatic theory had to be positively bulldozed out of the path of Koch, Pasteur, John Snow, Ignaz Semmelweis, and other early investigators that we now, with all our hegemonic Western prejudices, regard as the first proper scientists in medicine. But Marier, evidently not one to take a hint, is passionately investigating the “application” of miasmatic theory to “relief medical work”. The charity that’s footing the bill for this experimentation—performed on human subjects who could not possibly be under greater duress, and for whom informed consent is inconceivable—is Hearts Together For Haiti, a troubled Catholic institution for which anointing sick children with pus may actually represent something of an upgrade, ethically.

Leeder, who is an award-winning investigative reporter, writes that “Integrating medical relief work with homeopathy is an approach that’s only in its infancy.” But homeopathy, in the form that Denis Marier practices, is what we had before real medicine: i.e., folk notions and metaphysical nonsense. Advocates of various styles of quackery always emphasize the great antiquity of their ideas, usually just as they’re about to complain that those same ideas have never been given a fair hearing by the Establishment. And characterizing something as “being in its infancy” implies that it is on course to grow into adulthood if uninterrupted by calamity. It’s precisely the kind of word choice a neutral reporter ought to avoid—I would say most especially when in the process of documenting the wasteful, possibly harmful activities of a delusional, selfish idiot.

The long-standing controversy over the link between therapeutic abortion and breast cancer found its way onto unexpected territory—the Globe and Mail website—on Friday. The pro-life movement has long been quarrying the epidemiological literature for the smoking gun of what it calls “ABC“. This is what pro-lifers ask Santa for Christmas, or wish for when they see a falling star: that abortion will turn out to carry previously unsuspected harms which might become the pretext for outlawing it completely, for imposing severe restrictions on it, or, at the very least, for stigmatizing it like tobacco and allowing clients to receive a scary mandatory lecture on cancer risk in the name of informed consent.

Thus far, science hasn’t been much help to them. ABC is a tricky topic because there are confounders in the picture: in general, spending less time pregnant (and more time menstruating) gives women a slightly greater lifetime risk of breast cancer. Abortion probably does increase breast cancer risk insofar as it eliminates one pregnancy—just as being able to drive increases one’s risk of ending up with shards of windshield glass under one’s eyelids.

Whether abortion imposes a distinct burden of cancer risk is another question, one much harder to answer. Occasionally a study will turn up that suggests it might. And that’s what has happened now. Gloria Galloway writes:

Three years ago, [Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott] helped to bring an American doctor and activist to Parliament Hill to tell Canadian women that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. It turned out that the doctor, Angela Lanfranchi, was speaking from a defined religious point of view that had little apparent basis in science.

And, at the time, the link between the procedure and the disease had been discounted by the National Cancer Institute in the United States, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (and their U.S. counterparts), as well as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Breast Cancer Network.

But a study released last fall (available here but only for a fee) by the respected Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute in Seattle by a number of distinguished cancer experts including Louise Brinton, the chief of the Hormonal and Reproductive Epidemiology Branch of the National Cancer Institute, lists induced abortion as being “associated with an increased risk for breast cancer.” Background documents further suggest that it increases the risk of the disease by 40 per cent.

An e-mail to Dr. Brinton on Friday was returned by an Institute spokesman named Michael Miller who said: “NCI has no comment on this study. Our statement and other information on this issue can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/ere.” …Requests for an explanation of the apparent discrepancy between that position and the information contained in the study released last spring went unanswered by NCI.

I visited the library to double-check whether Galloway had characterized the study’s findings correctly. The data behind the study come from a breast-cancer surveillance project in the Seattle area that included interviews with 897 women who had suffered invasive breast cancers before the age of 45. Here’s the part that’s the cause of all the excitement—a line in a table of odds ratios for “known and suspected risk factors among women 45 years of age and younger”:

The odds ratios were derived by adjusting for age, family history of breast cancer, lactation history, and duration of oral contraceptive use: the double dagger indicates that only women who had been pregnant at least once were included in the “never” row under the “Abortion” heading, so the statistically significant 40% apparent increase in background risk actually leaves never-pregnant women out of the background completely. This is notable, especially given that the study is population-based (the authors boast that it is the “largest of its kind”; their goal was not just to measure breast-cancer risk but to differentiate between etiologic subtypes of breast cancer).

On the other hand, it’s not that notable. If you look at the raw numbers, you’ll see that the randomized control group of 1,569 Seattle-area women with no history of breast cancer broke down between “Never [had an abortion] and “Ever” pretty much the same way that the breast-cancer victims did. Most of the “40%” extra risk, in other words, is the product of statistical adjustments, and may, in part, be attributable to confounding variables that weren’t controlled for. Income wasn’t controlled for, and as you can see in the table itself, it might make a difference; neither was obesity. And 40% is not a big number in epidemiology. In general researchers don’t get worked up about an odds ratio until it is at least 2.0, and it is seen over and over again in multiple studies.

Galloway is, frankly, not being careful enough when she describes the study as implying that abortion “increases the risk of the disease by 40 per cent.” This study is strictly about breast cancer in women under 45—a small fraction of all breast-cancer cases (though, to be sure, it is a fraction that is of special concern). In no way can it provide justification for any statement about overall lifetime breast-cancer risk.

Moreover, there is really no “discrepancy” between the NCI’s stated position on ABC and this particular study. Here’s what the NCI says officially:

The relationship between induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk has been the subject of extensive research beginning in the late 1950s. Until the mid-1990s, the evidence was inconsistent. Findings from some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results. Only a small number of women were included in many of these studies, and for most, the data were collected only after breast cancer had been diagnosed, and women’s histories of miscarriage and abortion were based on their “self-report” rather than on their medical records. Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted. These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings.

Although the new Seattle study is large and features randomized controls, it too is a retrospective, questionnaire-based study, reliant on self-reporting; it does not meet the gold standard for epidemiological evidence. The NCI has no reason I can see to change, or apologize for, its position.

In 20 years in journalism I have never seen anything resembling the systematic and sustained repudiation to which Christie Blatchford, the Globe and Mail’s marquee columnist, is being subjected by her own newspaper. There is room in any good paper for disagreements among colleagues, and frankly there should, for a long time now, have been room for more of that at the Globe. But this goes further. This is breathtakingly methodical. And I believe it was needed. Continue…

On May 31, 2006, two days before the Canadian Press reported an estimate that 30 percent of transferred detainees were tortured, the Globe published a story from Washington after an interview with Gen. Michel Gauthier. He explained, regarding the Geneva Conventions, that detainees are “are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status but they are entitled to prisoner-of-war treatment.” Gordon O’Connor, the defence minister at the time, seemed to split the same difference when asked in the House about Gen. Gauthier’s comments.

Perhaps most interesting, in the current context, is the observation at the very end of that piece.

Gen. Gauthier said there is no risk that ordinary soldiers or junior officers could face war-crimes charges, even if detainees handed over to the Afghans were tortured or killed. ”Our intention certainly isn’t to leave junior folks hanging out to dry at all on this,” he said. “We are on firm legal ground . . . we have no worries about the possibility of prosecution . . . or allegations of criminal wrongdoing for having transferred detainees.”

Full story after the jump. Continue…

Gen. Michel Gauthier made reference Wednesday afternoon to the Globe and Mail’s reporting in April 2007 as to when he first became aware of allegations of torture. Without the transcript of his comments it’s unclear—from my memory and what’s being reported elsewhere—how precisely he qualified that statement, whether he was referring to specific allegations of general torture, specific allegations related to detainees transferred by Canadian Forces, or something else entirely.

In terms of third-party sourcing—and in lieu, so far, of Mr. Colvin’s full reporting—there are at least three general reports that precede the Globe’s investigation. On March 3, 2006 UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, a Canadian, reported that complaints of “arbitrary arrest, illegal detention and torture” were common in the Afghan justice system. The U.S. State Department’s 2005 report on Afghanistan appears to have been published on March 8, 2006. It states that “credible observers reported that local authorities in Herat, Helmand, and other locations routinely tortured and abused detainees.” And on June 2, 2006, a Canadian Press story was sent out on the wires that cited a spokesman for the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission who estimated that human rights violations were experienced by approximately 30 percent of transferred prisoners.

Diane Finley

So, hot on the heels of that Globe teaser that ITQ mentioned in her last post comes the official (if still curiously vague) confirmation from the government that, yes, they do still have big plans for employment insurance reform. Well, medium-sized plans, at least:

Government of Canada to Help Long-Term Workers When Parliament Resumes

MONTREAL, QUEBEC – Today, the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture), the Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, the Honourable Diane Finley, announced that the Government will introduce measures early in the fall session that will help long-tenured workers who have lost their jobs because of the global recession.

“This will be an important step in helping Canadian workers who have had steady employment and contributed to our economy for years and have become unemployed by no fault of their own,” said Minister Blackburn. “These measures will help ensure that these long-tenured workers who have paid into the EI system for years are provided the help they need while they search for new employment.”

“These measures will help Canadians who have worked hard and paid taxes their whole lives and have found themselves in economic hardship and need a hand up,” said Minister Finley.

There’s no explanation for why the minister didn’t bring this package to the table during the summer of blue-ribboned love, of course, which leaves two possibilities, as far as ITQ can see.

The first is that Scott “Yes, That Scott Reid” Reid does, in fact, have a fully functioning magic eight ball, and those crafty Conservatives had planned all along to allow the EI working group to descend into a very dull version of Lord of the Flies, at which point Diane Finley would swan off to the microphone and save the day with a comprehensive reform package that she just happened to have in her briefcase. The second? That they came up with this idea pretty much on the fly after Ignatieff’s no-he-really-means-it-this-time declaration of non-confidence at last week’s caucus, and figured it would totally throw a spanner in the works as far as the Liberals’ most tender hopes for electoral gains in Quebec and Ontario. And, as the possibly prescient Mr. Reid put it, what have they got to lose?

Continue…

October 10. Whatever you think of him, the Stephen Harper of today is not the Stephen Harper of 2004 or earlier. The “firewall” temperament has largely subsided, despite the odd recurrence on matters such as artists who choose free expression over popularity. He is in better control of his emotions. He is smart enough and adaptable enough to recognize that his tendencies toward pettiness and hyper-partisanship hold him and his party back.

Today. Instead, the Prime Minister should focus this fall – and beyond, if he has the opportunity – on developing policies to help rebuild the economy and allow it to emerge from the recession stronger than it entered it. That, more than the familiar pattern of political gamesmanship, would help Mr. Harper make his case the next time Canadians go to the polls. (It is probably not a coincidence that his polling numbers tend to improve when he is seen to be statesmanlike in his international travels, rather than taking potshots at his opponents in Ottawa.)

Well, a link to the Globe and Mail’s presentation thereof, at least. ITQ knows she’s not the only one out there who awaits his triweekly politicophilosophical stylings with almost immodestly eager anticipation. In today’s installment, he seems to be urging the Conservatives not to balk in the face of lilylivered nambypambering from the Liberals over their latest round of attack ads, which perform “a public service” by “repeating the words and recounting the deeds of political opponents” – which, he says, is the “most moderate and usually most effective genre of negative campaigning.”  (ITQ is now almost seriously entertaining the thought that the latest anti-Ignatieff ten percenter may actually be a craftily executed viral campaign to sell more copies of Blood and Belonging, but that’s another story.)

He gives an entertaining, if ever so slightly revisionist recap of Liberal attack campaigns of the past — none of which, it’s fair to note, meet the standard he sets for such a campaign serving as a public service, with the exception of a “website full of old quotes from Stephen Harper”, which for some reason only gets mentioned in the penultimate sentence.

He also delivers a sadly too-late tonguelashing to John McCain for his failure to blast the Obama campaign out of the water with ads targeting his ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a strategic misfire that he blames on how much media resonance there was over the Democrats’ terror of the “Republican attack machine”. So really, if the Conservatives do buckle under to anti-attack ad pressure and go soft and cuddly – like a kitty! –  it’ll almost certainly be our fault.

(Oddly, I’ve been told by Conservatives that it is also our fault when parties are forced to go negative, because if we won’t report on all the awful things the other guy has said or done, then they’ll just have to do it for us. For Canadians, that is – as a public service. For some people, it’s always our fault is what I’m gathering here.)

Oh, and he also takes a totally unprovoked potshot at “whiny schoolgirls”, to whom he compares the current crop of cowardly lion Liberals. (Honestly, professor, what did they ever do to you?  Leave the kids alone. )

Anyway, the gist of today’s Flanaganistics: Attack ads? Bring ‘em on. Liberals? Quit carping and fight back, but under Flanagan’s version of Marquess of Queensbury rules, which — as far as ITQ can tell — basically leaves them with nothing. Oh, and never – never –  listen to the media. We’ll only break your heart. Just ask John McCain.

Colleague Anne Kingston’s article on the big changes at the Globe and Mail is here. It has fun gossip. Anne’s piece doesn’t mention, but we have talked about this and it’s such a striking change I’m surprised nobody else has remarked on it, that within days after the new guy Stackhouse took over, the paper’s daily Ottawa file took a marked turn toward serious and often un-sexy questions of policy and governance, and away from the paper’s seven-year fixation on High School Confidential crap. All of which is to say that, while I had no expectations regarding Stackhouse one way or the other, I think that in the early going he has made very encouraging moves.

Globe editorial employees vote 97% for a mandate to strike.

New Wells column, in which I give the Globe a little tough love.

Office email from wordy Globe publisher Phil Crawley:

The need to restructure our business, to meet the challenges of the current economic environment and the rapid changes in media consumption habits, has been our overarching goal during FY09.

As we head towards FY10, that evolutionary process takes a leap forward today with the reorganization of our senior executive team.

Reimagination-inspired teamwork during the last four years has reinforced the value of a more collaborative way of managing our business.  By drawing on the collective strengths of the team, we are all better able as individuals to contribute to the success of The Globe and Mail.  With that objective in mind, I have reviewed the composition of the Executive Team, and identified priority areas for improvement.

New skills and different styles of leadership are needed to take The Globe and Mail to levels of achievement which meet the ambitions of our shareholders, to cement our standing as the best in Canada at creating high-quality content for consumption on whatever platform is most desirable for our readers, users and advertisers.

We are building on a position of strength not enjoyed by many of our competitors. The executive changes outlined below are intended to ensure that The Globe and Mail is in the prime spot to take advantage of the market opportunities that will arise when the recession eases.

To deliver the required results, I am adding one extra position to the senior team and changing responsibilities and reporting lines in three other parts of the business.

Ed Greenspon, who has been our Editor-in-Chief for almost seven years, is stepping down and is succeeded by John Stackhouse, the Editor of Report on Business since 2004.

Continue…