And the hype around tawa-tawa is back

A good a time as any to repost a piece I did on this blog about a year ago.

It turns out that components in tawa-tawa actually inhibit platelet aggregation. This could be useful in other diseases, but this isnt what you want when you have DHF. You want your platelets aggregating. It may be fortunate that the decoction of tawa-tawa given to DHF patients doesnt have the concentrated amount of the platelet suppressants that the extract form contains, or else it may have done more harm than good.

Like I said, the evidence for the efficacy of tawa-tawa presented in the articles by Aspiras and Yuson, and the blog post by Zafra are anecdotal. Although I do hope that there is indeed something in tawa-tawa that alleviates the symptoms of DHF, at this time I strongly suspect that the evidence presented are of the post hoc ergo propter hoc variety. Person had DHF, person takes tawa-tawa tea, person feels better. Ergo, tawa-tawa cures DHF.

Still no studies are being cited. (Oh, wait. 'Studies' are being cited. Unnamed and unattributed mystery studies, that is.) No clinical test results. Nothing.

We need these studies. For all we know, E. hirta is the medical breakthrough the world has been waiting for, or is just a poppycock potion. We either confirm it as a cure (or at least a palliative) or junk it altogether. Either way, we need it confirmed scientifically. Don't these hospitals like St. Luke's and Makati Med which none of us can afford have labs? Surely they'd have the wherewithal, the facilities, and the personnel to take the lead in this.

In the meantime, 2.5 billion people worldwide remain at risk.

Why Catholics should stand up for freedom of expression

All in all, a good couple of weeks with the Philippine online community offering their views on art and freedom, topics that very few people cared about in their day-to-day existence before, let along understood. This was of course triggered by the Kulo exhibit which included Mideo Cruz's Poleteismo piece at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CPP). It all turned ugly when someone tried to destroy the piece. Eventually, the exhibit was shut down due to, in the words of the CCP, "numerous emails, text messages and other letters sent to various offficers of the CCP, and to the artists themselves, with an increasing number of threats to persons and property". And if that wasnt enough, cases were filed against Cruz and the CCP citing Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code with its provision against offending any race or religion. Artists are of course upset about this whole development crying 'censorship' and 'repression'.

Let's get one thing out of the way first. Although artists have freedom of expression, they do not -- do not -- have the right to be exhibited at the CCP, or any other gallery for that matter. It is absolutely abhorrent of course that the CCP had to shut down the Kulo exhibit because of threats, but let's get rid of the notion that getting kicked out of the CCP constitutes censorship and repression. (In fact, if one national artist had his way, Mideo Cruz's work wouldnt have made it to the CCP at all.) Censorship and repression are charges more properly leveled at the actions of the State, and in this case, although the head of state and therefore CCP's boss President Aquino expressed disapproval at the Cruz's piece, he didnt order the exhibit shut down. But even if he did, that doesnt constitute censorship nor repression. It's just saying, 'Exhibit somewhere else'. Poleteismo continues to be free to be exhibited elsewhere, complete with ashtray dick on the Jesus icon's forehead. This is not of course to excuse the vandals who tried to destroy the piece and issued threats against the person of the artist.

Now then... As with Carlos Celdran's Damaso stunt, Catholics have every reason to be outraged by the desecration of a revered icon. In fact I question the Catholicism of any Catholic who wasnt outraged by Poleteismo's execution of whatever it is it intended to say. But to use the power of the State on one man, to actually wish the artist jailed, is over the top and inimical to Catholic teaching on the gift of freedom and all God-given rights for that matter. The CBCP for instance, maintains that 'that freedom of expression is not absolute, especially if his method of expression offends other people.' This betrays a grave misunderstanding of the right to free expression because the right to free expression is absolute. To say that it is not absolute is to say that all other God-given natural rights are not absolute as well, and subject to State control, as they want the freedom of expression to be. This includes the right to life. Is the right to life not absolute? The theologians of the Salamanca school for instance, in asserting that freedom is a gift from God, recognize that one of the consequences of this gift is that it is not assured that man will freely choose good over evil. What the CBCP wants perhaps is for the State to step in and ensure that man will only choose the good on pain of being subjected to a lengthy jail sentence. It is the powerful that has a vested interest in controlling the right to free expression, and the Catholic Church in the Philippines does exercise a lot of power. The State welcomes this freedom-of-expression-is-not-absolute interpretation and will run with it, use it as justification for its various anti-sedition laws, and national security restrictions on people's access to information. In fact in his statement regarding the CCP exhibit, President Aquino said, 'There is no freedom that is absolute' implicitly admitting that all God-given freedoms are subject to State control, and if need be, suppression. The Church itself had a taste of this when President Aquino threatened anti-RH citizens with sedition charges for calling for a civil disobedience campaign if the RH Bill passes. So by their stand in limiting freedom of expression, the Church is shooting itself in the foot.

If that weren't enough reason for the Philippine Church to stand up for Mideo Cruz's rights, consider these cases in the UK:

A Christian woman working for British Airways who wears a cross round her neck is asked to remove it for fear of offending other people. A nurse who prays with a patient in hospital is committing an almost criminal act. Catholic adoption agencies which disapprove of gay adoptive parents on religious grounds have their licences taken away.

Filipino Catholics have it easy. They constitute a powerful majority here. What if one day they find themselves in the minority? What would they think of their own bishops' statement that 'the freedom of expression is not absolute' hurled right back in their faces? One could imagine the glee they felt when Aquino issued his statement on the CCP exhibit that probably put the nail in the coffin of its expulsion: "You have rights but when you already trample on the rights of others, there’s already something wrong." They probably didnt question exactly what those rights are that were being trampled upon. The fact is the CCP exhibit was trampling on some people's sensibilities but it wasnt trampling on any rights. By agreeing with Aquino's statement, they implicitly agree that the State can invent all sorts of rights like what the RH Bill does in their elevation of reproductive health as a basic human right (which it isnt -- it's an entitlement) which implies that any health professional who refuses to dispense artificial birth control methods said health professional doesnt approve of because of the dictates of conscience is a human rights violator and could lose the license to practice. Catholics have to realize that by fighting for Mideo Cruz's rights to free expression, they are fighting for the rights of all, including Catholics everywhere in the world. They can do this by asking those lay organizations who want to see Cruz jailed to stand down and offer to pray for him instead. The use of State power to harass one man who could not do any harm to them is just distasteful.

The case will probably not prosper anyway. In its ruling on Ang Ladlad's petition against COMELEC's disqualification, the Supreme Court said:

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or this Court to impose its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one.

If for no other reason than to spare itself of the embarrassment when the courts throw its petition out, the Catholic hierarchy should tell its most zealous adherents to withdraw the case and end this bullying, but I'd rather they withdraw it for the right reasons: that the freedom of expression is God's gift to us.

The libertarian ideal

A couple of weeks ago, a news report came out wherein firefighters in Tennessee refused to come to the aid of a homeowner whose house was burning down because the homeowner hasnt paid the annual fee of USD 75.00. (The fire department serviced a particular community for 'free'. For those outside it, they charge an annual fire services fee.) Even after promising to pay whatever fee is due after the fire has been put out, the fire department refused. As a result of this callous act, one family lost their home. Statists from all over weighed in warning that this is what would happen if limited government people, libertarians, anarchists, and Randians had their way. "The free market is evil," they cried. "We need government to provide these services. Only government could be trusted to protect our lives and property."

"The libertarian ideal," said a pal on my plurk timeline. That's what they say this illustrates, implying that those who hold libertarian views are amoral, selfish cranks. But is it the libertarian ideal?

Let us forget the fact that the fire department was a government agency, not a private one. The fee has been in place for 20 years. The fee in question was a government fee and the charging of the fee was government policy. Leaving that aside, why is this being used as an illustration of the 'libertarian ideal'? It is because we grew up thinking that government is good. That's what they teach us in school. So we better let them confiscate a huge chunk of our earnings to spend on whatever it is they deem for 'the common good'. And woe unto those who refuse.

In the libertarian ideal where the market is free, there would be no monopoly. Here was a homeowner who was irresponsible enough to forget to pay for fire insurance. A fire begins to destroy his home. Before the fire does a lot of damage, he calls his fire protection service provider, who refuses to help him. He then promises to pay whatever fee is due. The provider still refuses. In the present system, that's the end of that. His house burns down, his family loses a home. This will not happen in 'the libertarian ideal'. In the libertarian ideal, the homeowner simply calls another fire protection agency and tells them of his plight. This provider wouldnt have refused simply because he would welcome the opportunity to get another customer for his services and wouldnt want the bad publicity of refusing to help a family to get around the market-place. The house would be saved, the provider gets a new customer and adds to his income (and continues to employ firefighters), and after word gets around about how the previous provider refused to aid the family in dire need, they would begin to lose clients to other providers and eventually closes shop. That is the libertarian ideal.

More on the penal code's archaic Article 133

First of all, I apologize if this post is unformatted or looks weird in any way. Im sending it though email and I can't see if it came out right. In fact I can't see if it came out at all. You see Im in a country where blogger is blocked (along with Twitter, Plurk, Facebook, etc. -- a good reason to switch to WordPress which isnt blocked). Chi-cough-na, cough.

Anyway, an interesting piece by well-known lawyer Jose C. Sison came out in the Philippine Star site today in which he defends Article 133 of the Penal Code. He does this by arguing that the law is right in affording special status to religious rites in the eyes of the law so disruption of religious rites, in this case Catholics' view of the mass, is especially reprehensible.

Anyone who disrupts the mass like that Intramuros tourist guide (his name is not worth mentioning) certainly deserves to be imprisoned. His act can never be justified by his deep resentment against the prelates who oppose the RH bill. It is willfully, willingly and feloniously done during a rite most sacred to Catholics and therefore punishable under the RPC. Muslims and Buddhists would also feel offended if such disruption was committed against them. There is no reason why disruption of a Catholic ritual should be treated differently.

First of all, I agree. As a former Catholic, I recognize that the holy sacrifice of the Mass is indeed the centerpiece of Catholic faith and worship -- lex orandi, lex credendi. It is where the bread and wine is changed into the real and actual substance of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and where Catholics remember his sacrifice for all mankind. Disrespecting the mass is more than insulting to the Catholic; direspecting the mass is an insult to Jesus Christ himself. As a former Catholic I felt the insult. The Church's outrage against Carlos Celdran's act (he says it wasnt premeditated, let's give him the benefit of the daw) is in my opinion, more than justified; it was absolutely warranted. Any Catholic who wasnt outraged by that act does not deserve to call himself Catholic.

But that is neither here nor there. According to Atty Sison's piece, there is no reason to remove Art. 133 from the Code because religion is special, and that the law should recognize that it is special. I disagree. I believe the law should be neutral when it comes to religion. I do not have to remind anyone that there are different religious and irreligious beliefs in our country and our law guarantees these beliefs and protects the right of its citizens to hold them. That is why there is Article 153 in the Code which punishes any disruption of peaceful assemblies and meetings. But here Atty. Sison is arguing that a disruption of religious service deserves a greater punishment than a disruption of, say, a homeowner's association meeting. Section 5 of the Constitution is clear: No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. No religious test. In looking at a disruption of a peaceful assembly, the law should not ask what kind of assembly was disrupted, whether it was religious or secular. It should not care.

Let us look at the spirit of these laws. Why were the laws created? It is so that the powerless can be protected from the powerful. The citizens for instance should be protected from the abuses of the State, a peaceful man from a violent man. Section One of the Penal Code, to which Article 133 inexplicably belongs, contains prohibitions against public officers and employees. In the comment section of one of his blogposts, Manuel Buencamino (he doesnt think 133 is archaic either) surmised that Article 133 was enacted to protect smaller denominations from disruption by bigger ones; for example, if Catholics disrupted a religious service of Rizalistas. Let's take a look at Carlos Celdran's case. Atty. Sison thinks he deserves to be imprisoned and certainly the letter of the law says he deserves, according to Atty. Sison, imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years and 4 months. (In my previous post, I said the punishment was 6 months. I defer to the member of the Bar. It is up to 2 years and 4 months, which makes it all the more draconian -- a law enacted by tyrants. We'll get to that in a bit.)

But is this a case of the powerful oppressing the weak? Carlos Celdran was one unarmed man in a Rizal costume (Manuel Buencamino said he was in a Charlie Chaplin outfit). He was yelling against a powerful organization. He did not prevent his fellow Catholics from worshiping. Indeed he didnt have the power to. The Catholics' freedom of worship was not harmed one iota. Officers of the State took him away and the Mass went on. What he was guilty of was offending them. Just that. He did not damage Church property, he did not physically harm anybody. Atty. Sison believes this is sufficient reason to take Carlos Celdran's freedom away for 2 years and 4 months. And if the Church leaders do not withdraw the charges, they agree. In fact, 230 bishops think this deserves to have a man lose his livelihood. As mentioned earlier, Manuel Buencamino thinks that the Article 133 is there to protect small sects from bigger sects who might do them harm. I dont know about that. What is more plausible to me is that this law was used to 'protect' the powerful Spanish Catholic hierarchy from being offended by those pesky Indios.

Atty. Sison then turns to the subject of rights:

They may have the freedom to express their own views but they must also respect the customs, practices and the rights of others to express contrary views. They have no right to denigrate, defile and blaspheme those who do not agree with them.

Actually there is an abuse of freedom in our society today. People now think that they have the absolute right to act and speak freely even to the extent of trampling upon the rights of others or of imposing their individual rights over and above the rights promoting the common good.

One doesnt have the right to be free from being offended. On the contrary. The freedom to express views comes with the license to offend. One may use or not use that license as one sees fit, but the license is there, the license to denigrate, defile, and blaspheme. Imagine how offensive Rizal's writings were to the Spanish authorities or indeed Jesus' words were to the Pharisees and Sadducees. If the freedom of speech did not come with a license to offend, if we only spoke agreeably, if we dont have the license to satirize and insult, if we only had the right to speak in a politically correct manner, then speech wouldnt have sparked revolutions that set us free. The powerful can insult us, denigrate us, and blaspheme our beliefs. We the weak must have the right to do likewise to them. Rightly or wrongly, this is the right that Carlos Celdran claimed: that of the weak speaking to the strong. Of course common decency behooves us to behave with respect towards our fellowman and the views they hold, no matter how disagreeable they or their views seem to us. But common decency cannot be legislated without curtailing freedoms as well. And yes, freedom of speech has its limits. There's this famous saying by that famous Greek philosopher Anonymous that goes, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." Freedom of speech should not cause harm to one's person. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater for example. Everything else is fair use of rights.

Im with Atty Sison's view of religion. Religion in society at its best is important and it is indeed special.  While it is true that -- to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens -- religion poisons some things, at its best it allows the flowering of our society. Our rights and freedoms came from the grand notion that God createdl Man in his own image and are therefore all equal and have inalienable rights, a patently unscientific belief. It is atheism -- the idea that no authority is higher than the authority of Man -- that poisons everything. The only reason to trust secularists today is because they have been imbued with ideals that came from religious faith. Once they unshackle themselves from these 'irrational' beliefs, that is the time we can view them as the enemy of society. Carlos Celdran is not the enemy, and he does not deserve to go to jail, no matter what the letter of the law says.

The aberration that is Article 133

When I heard that Carlos Celdran of the walking tours fame was arrested for disrupting an ecumenical service at the Manila Cathedral by protesting, I thought it would be an interesting case study. I heard about it via a plurk pointing to a tweet from @inquirerdotnet from before any details were available on the news sites. It just said Celdran yelled 'Politics' in front of the altar during an ecumenical service.

Surely, I thought, he wasnt arrested for protesting. Speech is protected in this country. Unless he did it in a disruptive manner in the middle of the mass in which case he'd be running smack dab into the 'disturbing the peace' provisions of the penal code. Chapter 5 of the Revised Penal Code says

Art. 153. Tumults and other disturbance of public orders; Tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to cause disturbance. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause any serious disturbance in a public place, office, or establishment, or shall interrupt or disturb public performances, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in the provisions of Articles 131 and 132.

Arresto mayor as defined in the Code is imprisonment of from one month and one day to six months so a medium period would be somewhere in the middle of that timescale. As details of the protest came online, it became clear that Celdran might have behaved in a disruptive manner, parading in front of the altar with a placard with the word Damaso on it and screaming at the top of his voice while the ecumenical service was going on. In his words:

"I started screaming, ‘Stop getting involved in politics!’ I kept screaming until I could not scream anymore, then they took me away."

That mustve been some pretty loud screaming. But Carlos Celdran is such a harmless bloke that I was expecting he would be kept in prison til he cooled down, reprimanded, then sent home lesson learned. And besides, this is the Church, arguably the most powerful non-government organization in the country with a membership numbering in the millions. What can a lone tour guide do against a force like that? His continued detention depended on the Church filing a complaint. If there is no complaint, then he would be released. One word from Cardinal Rosales wouldve ended it yesterday and the Cardinal and his buddies would have a good laugh about it. But apparently, he was to be made a lesson. He spent the night in jail and is still in jail as of 1:00 pm today, 1 October.

That's the law. But wait! It turns out that he wasnt charged with disturbing the peace or disruption of public order. He was charged with violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code which is -- seriously -- offending the religious feelings.

Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

It's bad enough that 'disturbing the peace' can get you in jail for over about 3 months minimum as per Article 153 of the Code which covers what Celdran did, a draconian punishment just for being an annoying prick, but the Code has to have a special provision against religious feelings -- religious feelings! -- with a jail time of six months.

Now the Penal Code is supposed to be a list of crimes against person, property, public order, and State. Article 133 is under the general heading of Section One. — Arbitrary detention and expulsion, which covers Articles 124 to 133. If you'll notice, Articles 124 to 132 covers prohibitions against state officers or employees. Article 126 for instance says

Art. 126. Delaying release. — The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such person.

Here's Article 132.

Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.

If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

Section One contains prohibitions against public officers and employees except inexplicably Article 133.

Article 133 covers everyone, and this is the provision thrown against Celdran. Notice that Articles 124 to 132 protects citizens from actions of employees of the State while Article 133 protects religious feelings which runs perilously close to the Church and State clause of the Constitution. Article III, the Bill of Rights says

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

So Article 133 of the Code is on its face unconstitutional and in light of Article 153, totally not needed. And one more thing, the principle of free expression, along with the liberties recognized by the Bill of Rights transcends any written law or constitution. We do not have these rights because the constitution says so. We have these rights because we are human. The State is there supposedly to protect the defenseless members of our society. When the law is used to protect a powerful institution such as the Church from being offended by a peaceful albeit disruptive protest, something is fundamentally wrong with the way the law is implemented, but such is the society we live in. Article 133 is an affront to a free society since propriety is supposed to be society's own sense of right and wrong imposed not because of the threat of penalty but because decency demands it if one is to live with other people, some of whom may not share the same beliefs. Carlos Celdran's act, for which he has already apologized, did not do a whit of harm to the Church's private property nor to its members; they just didnt like his message. That Article 133 is still there as part of the law of the land is a sign of the weakness of that society.

On a personal note, I disclose that I am a non-Catholic Christian but I have been on record on the internets in defense of the Catholic Church, especially its right to participate in discussions of public political issues. Separation of Church and State does not take away the church leaders' right to express their political opinions in the public sphere and to try to influence public policy. Celdran is wrong in using separation of Church and State this way. Indeed trying to influence public policy is what we all are trying to do in our own ways and we should not begrudge the Church this right. They do contribute something to the public sphere. Suppressing their views no matter how wrong we think they are narrows our democratic space by that much and we will rue the day when their stand on issues is silenced. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights, and this includes the rights of the Church's leaders as Filipinos.

One more thing before I close. The God I believe in does not need me to defend him. I do not take offense at the incredulity, even the 'blasphemy', of others against my faith and those who share it, and to the God who is at the core of that faith. I will defend my views and my person when attacked or challenged but if anyone expresses disrespect for God himself, I'd rather stay out of the way. God can very well take care of himself. That an institution such as the Catholic Church would seek the protection of the State from somebody like Celdran (or at one time the gay party Ladlad) shows some kind of crisis of confidence they have in the God they serve.

Update 1 Oct, 6:26 pm: Carlos Celdran posts bail.

Barristers injured by pillbox during bar ops

Pinoy English FTW

(with updates -- 28 Sep 2010)

By now you would have heard of the explosion outside the DLSU last 26 September injuring several people during the Bar examinations. If you havent, here's a link. This post is only tangentially about that tragedy.

The title of this blog post is remarkable because anybody who is not from these islands would find it incomprehensible. The words are recognizable as English, sure, but they do not mean what a non-Pinoy would think it means. It is in fact Pinoy English.

A barrister for instance means a lawyer in the UK and several other mostly British Commonwealth countries, whereas here it is someone who is taking the bar exams. This is the word as used in a Malaya report.

Initial police investigation showed that the blast took place between 5 and 5:30 p.m., just after the bell signaling the end of the examinations, and as the barristers were preparing to leave the school premises.

I started seeing the word used in this manner last year in mainstream media. I dont know if it was used in this way prior to that, although Ive seen references to it in blogs and other online material. So as far as new word adaptations go, this one is pretty new. (Update: a link is provided below, dated February 2004, to a Supreme Court resolution wherein the term 'barrister' is used for bar examinees.)

This is what a barrister looks like outside the Philippines

(Photo nicked from the Wikipedia article Barrister)

And this is what barristers looks like here.

(Photo nicked from Philstar.)

As for pillbox, outside of our islands, it can refer to several things: a small box for pills, a small brimless hat usually worn by ladies, or a concrete bunker that usually houses a machine gun or two. See below. (Photos below nicked from their respective Wikipedia articles.)

This is a pillbox.

So is this.

And so is this.

In the Philippines, a pillbox is a small homemade bomb. I first heard of these devices as a child growing up during Marcos's time (70s -- yes I was already around at that time) when student protesters hurled them against riot police. Here's the word as used in a Philippine Information Agency report from an incident in 2008:

The blast, believed to have been from a pillbox, tore at least three middle fingers of the arresting officer, PO3 Alfonso Villamil and wounded him in other parts of the body. An unidentified barangay tanod who helped bring in the suspect, Albert Alvarez, for investigation and custody was also slightly injured as he stood nearby.

And here's one from 1970 from a Philippines Free Press article:

By then, their brothers in militancy were ramming Gate 4 open with a commandeered fire truck whose driver they had first mauled. They set fire to another parked car inside the gate. They threw Molotov cocktails, pillbox bombs, and stoned the windows of the Malacañang clinic.

Notice that the 1970 article called them 'pillbox bombs' which is probably the proper term since these were small explosive devices the size of pillboxes but colloquially they were simply referred to as 'pillbox'. Later, 'pillbox' was showing up alone in written pieces in media without the 'bomb' and the device was called simply pillbox, and although they are still referred to as 'pillbox bombs' in reports today, that is slowly giving way to the shorter term. Here for instance is a Supreme Court decision referring to the device as 'pillbox'.

That on or about the 21st day of December, 1994, in the Municipality of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused...with intent to kill and without justifiable motive and evident premeditation and by means of treachery and use of explosive (pillbox), did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and throw a Pillbox to one Jose Mesqueriola y Labarosa, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious and mortal wounds, which directly caused his death.

I coudlnt find a picture of one but I could describe how we used to make them. But I won't. Suffice it to say theyre very dangerous and we were very, very stupid for making them and actually using them as noisemakers for New Year's. You hurl it in the air as high as you can and run the heck away as fast as you can. It explodes on impact. It usually doesnt need more shrapnel than the stuff that's already in there to make it explode but people actually put more stuff in there to make it more lethal. That's what those crazy/stupid college kids did to their device.

Which brings us to bar ops. Here's a Supreme Court resolution, dated 2004, that uses the term (it uses the term 'barrister' as well):

Bar Ops are the biggest activity of the fraternity every year. They start as soon as new officers of the fraternity are elected in June, and they continue until the bar examinations are over. The bar operations consist of soliciting funds from alumni brods and friends to be spent in reproducing bar review materials for the use of their ‘barristers’ (bar candidates) in the various review centers, providing meals for their ‘brod’-barristers on examination days; and to rent a ‘bar site’ or place near De la Salle University where the examinees and the frat members can convene and take their meals during the break time.

I suspect this is another one of those uniquely Pinoy traditions you won't find anywhere else and would leave even a Pinoy scratching his head in wonderment. I havent found anything on the net as to when the tradition started though. In bar ops, during bar exams conducted over four Sundays, law schools and law fraternities each send a delegation to the exam venue and cheer the examinees on with parades and such. The atmosphere is festive and is indistinguishable from the hoopla that accompanies college sporting events like the UAAP or NCAA. Different schools and fraternities stake out different areas surrounding the exam venue while the bar examinees -- the barristers -- take the exams. No other professional licensure examinations have this (although I suspect engineers and accountants would want one too after seeing how much fun the law fratboys are having). That's what we see, we meaning those of us who generally dont give that much of a hoot. It's all good, clean fun. The ole college spirit. Hip, hip, hooray! There are even moms there.

But there's another side to the fun and fanfare as reported by several sources on the web. Lawyer Connie Veneracion writes this in her blog:

The boisterous celebration is often accompanied by beer (champagne, for the more affluent groups). The males, especially members of fraternities, would occasionally get doused with beer. All in jest. But, sometimes, the jesting went too far. There were occasions in the past when these cheerers and supporters — drunk by the time the last exam is over — would hurl beer bottles right in front of the gate of the exam venue. I know. As a law student waiting for friends who took the bar exams, I have witnessed a few of those.

But there is a darker, more sinister side to the bar ops. Apparently, and this is spoken of only on the QT, part of the 'ops' is the distribution of 'tips' that law school or review school operators give their examinees, and these tips sometimes are the actual exam questions illegally obtained. Bar exams have been controversial in the past because of these tips such that the Supreme Court which supervises the exams have ordered results to be nullified and a retest be taken. To be fair, there are no reports of leakage (another Pinoy Englishism, btw -- other English-speaking countries just use leak) in the 2010 exams. The Supreme Court has announced new security measures to the exams starting 2011.

Connie Veneracion laments the fact that those involved in the violence during the bar exams are future lawyers. She didnt go far enough. The Law profession is the King Kong of all professions in the Philippines because it is usually from their ranks that congressmen, senators, justices of the Supreme Court, and presidents come from, and that, my friends, is a scary thought indeed.

In any case, Filipino English marches on. Mabuhay!

(Updates include references to 'pillbox' and 'bar ops' in Supreme Court documents and other sources.)

This isnt funny

We're in the middle of a deadly dengue season and I've come across several reports pointing to a local herb called tawa-tawa (Euphorbia hirta) as a 'cure' for dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF). Apparently, it's supposed to raise the platelet count in patients afflicted with DHF. This report by Reggie Aspiras for instance quotes former DOH secretary Jaime Galvez Tan saying, “The first evidence that it increases the platelet count came from doctors in Cebu.” (I must note here that the article linked is not a scientific article. It was written by a chef writing a food column. No citation was given for this alleged claim by Dr. Tan.)

Another article, this time by renowned poet Krip Yuson recounts his experience with tawa-tawa. His son was stricken with dengue and he attributes his recovery to several herbal remedies, including tawa-tawa. "There should be no harm in trying tawa-tawa capsules," he writes. This popular blog (Jessica Zafra's) also extols the virtues of tawa-tawa, claiming that it is a hemostatic. Again it must be noted that neither Mr. Yuson's article, nor the blog post by Ms. Zafra, is a scientific article so aside from the odd mention of the internet, they provided no citations for the claims in the articles. As such they offer anecdotal support for the claims of its anti-dengue properties.

This is amazing, I thought. Could we be on the verge of a medical breakthrough? Can a lowly little native weed hold the key to licking this killer disease? I had doubts that it could kill the virus that causes dengue, but maybe it did something. Maybe it did help raise platelet count. I did some googling of my own.

According to this study, a feature of DHF in its acute phase is the inhibition of platelet aggregation. Platelets are cells in our blood responsible for clotting. From the abstract of the article Platelet function during the acute phase of dengue hemorrhagic fever, Srichaikul T, Nimmannitya S, Sripaisarn T, Kamolsilpa M, Pulgate C.:

Platelet aggregation, plasma betathromboglobulin (BTG) and platelet factor 4 (PF4) were studied in 35 children with dengue hemorrhagic fever. The suppression of platelet aggregation was demonstrated during acute phase of DHF in both shock and non-shock patients. Simultaneous with abnormal platelet aggregation, there was increased release of BTG and PF4 from platelets into plasma during the acute phase which lasted only 3-4 days after shock or subsidence of fever.

I'm not a virologist, nor am I an epidemiologist, nor any other -ist that has any relevance to this subject, but if there's anything I know it's that suppression of platelet aggregation = bad. The platelets have to be able to cause blood to clot and they do this by aggregating. That suppression of platelet aggregation is a feature of DHF in its acute phase indicates to me that suppression of platelet aggregation isn't what you want when you have dengue. So, is tawa-tawa a hemostatic as claimed in that blog post by Ms. Zafra? I went to the International Center for Science and High Technology - United Nations Industrial Development Origanization (ICS-UNIDO) website and looked up Euphorbia hirta. It does have a lot of medicinal properties:

It is regarded as medication for gastrointestinal disorders, particularly intestinal parasitotosis, amoebic dysentery, diarrhoea, and ulcer. An aqueous decoction is used for the treatment of acute enteritis and dysentery. The plant is also used in bronchial and respiratory disorders including asthma, bronchitis, and hay fever. Other uses are in diseases of the urinary system for example as diuretic; diseases of the genital apparatus (metrorrhagia, gonorrhoea, urethritis, agalactosis). It also has lactogenic properties. In ocular diseases, the plant is used against conjunctivitis and corneal ulcer. The latex of the plant is used for warts and cuts.

Other uses of the plant are affections of skin and mucous membranes (scabies, tinea, guinea-worm), as sedative, antipyretic and anti-inflammatory indications. For externally painful stings of the large brown scorpion, Bambara in Mali alleviate pain by applying the pulverised leaves. The plant has a reputation as an analgesic in severe headache, rheumatism, pains in pregnancy etc.

Nothing there about it being a hemostatic. Dengue isn't even mentioned. Then it goes on to say this under the Pharmacological Studies section:

Additionally extracts exerted an inhibitory effect on platelet aggregation and depressed the formation of carrageenin induced rat paw oedema.

citing this study. Influence of some traditional medicinal plants of Senegal on prostaglandin biosynthesis, A. Hiermann, and F. Bucar. (Abstract only. The full paper has to be purchased.)

It turns out that components in tawa-tawa actually inhibit platelet aggregation. This could be useful in other diseases, but this isnt what you want when you have DHF. You want your platelets aggregating. It may be fortunate that the decoction of tawa-tawa given to DHF patients doesnt have the concentrated amount of the platelet suppressants that the extract form contains, or else it may have done more harm than good.

Like I said, the evidence for the efficacy of tawa-tawa presented in the articles by Aspiras and Yuson, and the blog post by Zafra are anecdotal. Although I do hope that there is indeed something in tawa-tawa that alleviates the symptoms of DHF, at this time I strongly suspect that the evidence presented are of the post hoc ergo propter hoc variety. Person had DHF, person takes tawa-tawa tea, person feels better. Ergo, tawa-tawa cures DHF.

Last year, when I was in Jakarta, my daughter contracted DHF only we didnt know it was DHF at the time. My mother just told me that my daughter was running a fever and has lost her appetite. She asked my daughter if she wanted to go to the doctor and she said no, she's fine, so we didnt think it was anything serious. My mother was giving her paracetamol and I told her to keep my daughter hydrated. This went on for a few days. She developed stomachaches which my mother attributed to the fact that she wasn't eating that well. My daughter told her she was fine but my mother brought her to the hospital anyway. The doc ran a blood test and the diagnosis came that she had DHF. She had rashes all over her body and the doctor said this was a good sign that the disease was in its last legs. In other words, my daughter was able to recover from the disease on her own.

Now imagine that instead of just keeping her hydrated with water and soup, etc., my mother gave her a decoction of tawa-tawa since she saw this on TV or read it in a blog somewhere, and my daughter recovered (as she was going to do anyway). She would have attributed her recovery to the tawa-tawa. (Instead of the super-fantastic dengue-busting genes she got from me. Heh.) That's what I think is behind all this tawa-tawa hype.

Bottom line is: Be careful. Don't believe everything you read. Investigate. Try to develop an internal bullshit detector. I have to say mine is pretty acute and I wish they taught bullshit detecting in school, but it's one of those things one has to develop on one's own, since school is oftentimes just a giant bullshit factory... but that's another story.

Update, 17 September: Trawling the internet for testimonies, I came upon this one from last year. Dengue Can be Treated by a Herbal Remedy

A nurse on duty in the ICU connives with us on the use of this plant [tawa-tawa]. She even gave us instructions on how to do it, although she reprimanded us not to show our doctors we’re giving it to the patient because a patient on NGT should not be given something orally.

...

Also known as snake weed or cat’s hair, tawa-tawa has shown promising results based on the initial tests conducted by the health department.

It is interesting that tawa-tawa was given to the patient with the tacit approval of a health professional (the nurse), even doing so despite the fact that a "patient on NGT should not be given something orally." The nurse apparently did so presumably because the attending physician wouldnt have approved. There is also an allusion to an uncited study ostensibly conducted by 'the health department'. The blog post goes on to narrate how the mother administered the decoction.

In my case, I dip a cotton ball into the decoction, and slowly pinch the cotton ball and drop the liquid into her mouth. Perhaps she was very thirsty, the first time I drop off the liquid into her mouth, she grabbed my hands to ask for more.

The patient, thank God, recovered after being given a transfusion of platelets. As you can see, despite the sureness of the declaration in the title of the blog post, the effect of tawa-tawa was inconclusive. The patient was receiving other medication at the time and even a blood transfusion. It is probably a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc with the mother attributing her daughter's recovery to the herbal decoction.

This blog post from 2 years ago (Herbal Cure for Dengue?) was written by a doctor and expresses the same sentiment I do in this blog post: Caution. It ends with this (emphasis in the original):

In spite of its hype and anecdotal popularity, I still think drinking Euphorbia hirta extracts and concoctions is not safe.

I echo the doctor's frustration that studies have not been conducted as to the efficacy of this herb as a cure for DHF despite the fact that we have some of the highest number of dengue cases in Asia. So far the only study I have located with regards to Euphorbia hirta and its effects on platelets is the Hiermann and Bucar one linked above in which they used an extract of the plant, which to my layman's understanding indicates they used a more concentrated form of the plant's ingredients than one prepared in a decoction. Perhaps smaller doses have a different, more beneficial effect. We just don't know.