Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a challenging neurological condition characterized by difficulty with social interaction and communication. As the name implies, it occurs across a wide spectrum from barely detectable to debilitating. ASD is usually diagnosed by 3 years old, but studies have found that signs are often present as early as six months old.

It is understandable that parents of children with ASD are eager for effective treatments and feel obligated to do their best for their children by leaving no stone unturned. This is not, however, always the best approach in medicine. Some stones can cause harm and are best left unturned.  

There is a cottage industry of so-called "biomedical" treatments for ASD - they treat ASD as a biological disease that can be cured or at least significantly ameliorated. This conflicts with the current scientific consensus regarding ASD, that it is a neurodevelopmental disorder (a result of brain wiring), and not an active disease. Legitimate interventions focus on improving function. Critics of biomedical treatments (myself included) argue that such treatments are unscientific, exploit parental desperation, and even victimize children with ASD.

A recent systematic review looks at one popular biomedical treatment for ASD, chelation therapy. The idea here is that autism is caused by, or significantly worsened by, the presence of toxic heavy metals, such as mercury, in the body. This is often tied to the claim that vaccines are the source of the heavy metal poisoning and therefore are linked to autism (a claim that has been soundly refuted by the evidence).  

Chelation therapy is a legitimate treatment for real heavy metal poisoning. Chelating agents can be given orally or intravenously, they bind to heavy metals and help the body excrete them. In this regard they work well - after receiving chelating agents the body will excrete heavy metals.  

Chelation therapy, however, has been a popular target for the fringe. For decades a persistent but tiny minority of physicians have believed that chelation therapy is an effective treatment for vascular disease, despite the fact that the evidence has refuted this claim on both basic science and clinical grounds.

One has to wonder if the fact that chelation therapy is an expensive procedure and has to be given multiple times is a factor in its popularity on the fringe.  

In any case - at best chelation therapy can be considered experimental for autism. This raises issues regarding the ethics of giving experimental treatments, ethics which have been thoroughly explored.  

First, experimental treatments should not be offered instead of proven therapies. In other words, they are not a justification for withholding standard of care treatment. In cases where such treatments are not available or insufficient, however, resorting to experimental treatments is reasonable.  

Experimental treatments, however, should be reasonably justified by existing evidence. There should be good reason to believe that such treatments are likely to be safe and effective, often stated as - they are more likely to produce benefit than harm.  

When researchers are applying for grants and permission to perform human medical experimentation, they have to provide data to support this conclusion. If they cannot do so, then the experiment is considered unethical and likely will not get approved. The threshold does vary depending on the situation. For terminal illnesses without effective treatment we are willing to dip deeper into speculative treatments (so-called "compassionate" use).  

It is also generally accepted that experimental treatments should be given, whenever possible, in the context of a clinical study, so that we can learn whether or not the treatment is effective. This also assures that proper informed consent will be given, and further means that patients will be given proper follow up and will not be charged for experimental treatments.  

In every regard chelation therapy for ASD fails. The treatment is based on the hypothesis that heavy metal poisoning causes or contributes significantly to ASD. The evidence does not support this conclusion; however, and in fact it is reasonable to say that this hypothesis has already been rejected by existing evidence. Further it is often given outside of the context of a proper clinical trial.  

The new systematic review looks at five clinical studies of the effectiveness of chelation therapy for ASD. They found that four of the five studies had mixed results, while the fifth had positive results. All the studies, however, suffered from fatal methodological flaws (they were weak, poorly designed studies), and therefore collectively they do not provide evidence to support the use of chelation therapy for ASD.  

Despite this, about 7% of parents of children with ASD have tried chelation therapy. The review also warns that chelation therapy is not without direct risk. The lead author is quoted as saying:

"The chemical substances used in chelation treatment have a myriad of potentially serious side effects such as fever, vomiting, hypertension, hypotension, cardiac arrhythmias and hypocalcaemia, which can cause cardiac arrest," said Tonya N. Davis, Ph.D., assistant professor of educational psychology in Baylor's School of Education and co-author of the study.  

Conclusion  

Offering chelation therapy for ASD is a basic violation of medical ethics. If the treatment is considered experimental (which is generous) then it should only be given as part of a well-designed clinical trial. Existing trials, however, are anything but well designed.  

But calling chelation therapy for ASD experimental gives it more credit than it deserves. It is not even speculative. There is evidence to suggest that the basic premise of chelation for ASD is wrong. Giving chelation for ASD is therefore not really an example of putting the cart before the horse, but putting the cart before the unicorn.  

It is therefore not only unacceptable to give chelation for ASD, it is also unethical to even perform a clinical trial of chelation for ASD - the basic science justification is simply not there.

Steven Novella, M.D. is the JREF's Senior Fellow and Director of the JREF’s Science-Based Medicine project.

Here is a recap of the stories that appeared last week at Science-Based Medicine, a multi-author skeptical blog that separates the science from the woo-woo in medicine.

BBC Panorama investigates Stanislaw Burzynski (David Gorski)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/bbc-panorama-investigates-stanislaw-burzynski/ The BBC has finally aired a long-awaited investigation of the Burzynski Clinic entitled “Cancer: Hope for Sale?” The documentary does a decent job of taking on Burzynski, but it could have been much better. They could have challenged him more aggressively in the interview and could have included other important information about his misdeeds. A link to the documentary is provided so you can view it and judge for yourselves.

Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine (Harriet Hall)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has issued a 200 page report reviewing all the evidence for treating osteoarthritis of the knee with various medications, procedures, and modalities. They concluded that there is strong evidence against any efficacy for acupuncture and glucosamine. Also against arthroscopic lavage/debridement and hyaluronic acid injections. On the other hand, there is strong evidence that exercise is effective.

Don’t Text and Drive (Steven Novella)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dont-text-and-drive/ Cell phones, even hands-free devices, are a risk to drivers because of distraction and slower reactions to emergencies. The implications of recent research are clear: to minimize accident risk, avoid mobile devices and other distractions while driving.

CAM Docket: Kardashian Diet Products Klass Action (Jann Bellamy)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cam-docket-kardashian-diet-products-klass-action/ The Kardashians promote “QuickTrim” diet products. Class action lawsuits in two states allege that the Kardashians and the company made false and misleading statements in violation of several state and federal consumer protection laws. Lawsuits are not the best way to deal with unscrupulous diet supplement companies, but they’re the best we can expect under existing laws.

Science-Based Medicine Site Upgrades (Joe Fulgham)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/science-based-medicine-site-upgrades/ Announcement of a complete makeover and reorganization of the website.

Two Viewpoints (Mark Crislip)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/two-viewpoints/ Real medicine is based on reality. CAM practices are based on bias and unreality. Ethical evidence-based persuasion is impossible when there is no evidence but only “experience.” The systematic review system is not a reliable way to understand the therapeutic efficacy of treatments based on fiction.

In 1997 the FDA, responding to concerns about the safety of an over-the-counter (OTC) stimulant, proposed a ban on products containing a high dose of the stimulant drug and warning labels on low doses, informing consumers of a risk of heart attack, stroke, and even death with overuse or in susceptible people. The industry responded by opposing these measures. They formed an "Education Counsel" as a PR group and consulted a private firm to conduct their own research into its safety. Unsurprisingly, they found that the stimulant was safe.

A company manufacturing the drug received 14,000 complaints of adverse side effects, including deaths. They failed to report these to the FDA (resulting in its cofounder spending 6 months in Federal prison). The senator from the company's home state, whose son worked for a lobbying group on behalf of the drug, opposed the FDA regulations, arguing that the reports of adverse effects was not adequate to take such measures. The company spent 4 million dollars opposing the proposed FDA regulations, and in 2000 the FDA removed their proposal, leaving consumers vulnerable to a potentially dangerous product.

At that same time, in 2000, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine documented "Adverse Cardiovascular and Central Nervous System Events" associated with the drug. Still, the mood in Congress did not change until Steve Bechler, a pitcher for the Baltimore Orioles, died from heatstroke during practice, which on autopsy was found to be "significantly related" to use of the drug. This celebrity death suddenly inspired Congress to push the FDA toward regulation, which the above senator now characterized as "long overdue."

In 2004 the FDA finally banned the stimulant from OTC products. Industry responded by legally challenging the ban, with the FDA ban finally being upheld in 2006.

This is a pretty shocking story of industry malfeasance, of putting profits ahead of the public health, and of deep-pocket industry lobbying opposing and successfully delaying effective regulation (and probably preventing it, were it not for a high-profile death).

This is the story of Ephedra, a dietary supplement that was allowed to be sold without evidence of safety or efficacy under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). The industry here is the supplement industry, the specific company is Metabolife, and the senator is Orrin Hatch.

Ephedra is a drug, but the scientific delusion embodied in DSHEA is the naturalistic fallacy that because ephedra is naturally occurring in some plants (specifically Ephedra sinica, known in Chinese as ma huang) that it is somehow magically not a drug.

The supplement industry has successfully created a "mom and pop" image for themselves, but in reality they are indistinguishable from the pharmaceutical industry (and in many cases are the pharmaceutical industry), except for the fact that they are not effectively regulated, thanks to DSHEA.

Ephedra was a popular supplement ingredient because it is a stimulant. Stimulants have been a favorite additive for patent medicines and now supplements for centuries - they give the user a little boost of energy, which provides an effective placebo effect. For this reason cocaine was a popular supplement back in the patent medicine era. Weight loss products especially benefit from including a stimulant. For this reason many weight loss supplements still contain stimulants, such as caffeine, or caffeine metabolites (that are not easily recognized by the consumer by their chemical name).

We are now seeing the story of Ephedra repeated again with 1,3-dimethylamylamine, or DMAA. This is another stimulant, and is also linked to adverse events. While the FDA has not yet banned DMAA, because it is a lengthy process requiring the FDA to conduct a great deal of research, the FDA can order dangerous ingredients removed from products while investigation is underway. The FDA has issued a warning letter, stating:

"DMAA, also known as 1,3-dimethylamylamine, methylhexanamine or geranium extract, is an ingredient found illegally in some dietary supplements and often touted as a natural stimulant. DMAA, especially in combination with other ingredients such as caffeine, can be a health risk to consumers. Ingestion of DMAA can elevate blood pressure and lead to cardiovascular problems ranging from shortness of breath and tightening in the chest to heart attack."

One of the companies that market DMAA, USPLabs, responded by sending the FDA published studies they say shows DMAA is safe. The FDA reviewed the evidence and concluded that it does not.

There is another interesting wrinkle to the DMAA story. Industry claims that DMAA is a supplement and not a drug because it can be found naturally occurring in a plant, specifically geranium. This, in my opinion, is an absurd argument, although it is the law under DSHEA. Whether or not this chemical happened to have evolved in one of the many plants on Earth does not affect whether or not the chemical acts like a drug in the human body.

However, recent research had found that DMAA is not present in geranium or pelargonium. This evidence may strip DMAA of its supplement status and force its reclassification as a drug, unless the industry can provide evidence that it is naturally occurring somewhere.

In all of this nonsensical regulation, lost are the more salient facts - what are the effects of DMAA in the human body, what are the benefits if any, and what are the health risks.

Whether or not it exists in a plant is irrelevant, scientifically and logically, but apparently not legally.

Steven Novella, M.D. is the JREF's Senior Fellow and Director of the JREF’s Science-Based Medicine project.

Here is a rundown of the week in creationist news, strange goings on and oddball ideas from the past week courtesy of Doubtful News. 

Let's begin with a spate of stories from those who take the Bible selectively literally. 

A credulous media story in Iowa promotes the mythical flood. Was it a slow news day? It wasn't even false balance.    

This view is dying out as evidenced by the lack of funding for an Ark park. 

But there are some still actively promoting the old time religion view with new sexy marketing.   

Sticking with religious claims for a bit: Did you know that yoga is Satanic? I didn't but some people can see the devil in the details.   

In a horrible story, a father pleads guilty to beating his 2-yr old to death because he thought she was possessed. Or he was possessed.

It hardly matters, does it?

Scientologists are on the march to "help" victims of tornadoes.   

The historic Serpent Mound in Ohio is plagued by New Age believers.   

This woman believes she is a plant. 

In the latest from Zimbabwe, you KNOW people are blaming goblins again.

Don't trust people who blame your bad luck on "spirits". It's a scam. Across the world, scammers are strategically targeting older Asian women and taking advantage of superstitious beliefs.   

In the U.S., you may have to disclose to buyers if your house is "haunted". What does that even mean? 

An advertisement offers a workshop for psychic kids. Only $99. We're awful skeptical. 

And finally, we will end on a humorous note. Alex Jones, conspiracist extraordinaire, gets booted from the Bilderberg venue and is called the "worst person to interview" (among other adjectives) by British TV.  

Join us every day at Doubtful News to see what's new in news today.   

Also, extra links of interest are posted every night at midnight. 

The BEST way to follow us is on Twitter. All stories and some extras are posted there. Go to @Doubtfulnews on Twitter 

You can also find us on Facebook.

Sharon Hill runs Doubtful News, a unique feed of news stories about the paranormal, pseudoscience, the weird and the unexplained with questioning commentary.

Here is a rundown of the week in creationist news, strange goings on and oddball ideas from the past week courtesy of Doubtful News. 

Let's begin with a spate of stories from those who take the Bible selectively literally. 

A credulous media story in Iowa promotes the mythical flood. Was it a slow news day? It wasn't even false balance.    

This view is dying out as evidenced by the lack of funding for an Ark park. 

But there are some still actively promoting the old time religion view with new sexy marketing.   

Sticking with religious claims for a bit: Did you know that yoga is Satanic? I didn't but some people can see the devil in the details.   

In a horrible story, a father pleads guilty to beating his 2-yr old to death because he thought she was possessed. Or he was possessed.

It hardly matters, does it?

Scientologists are on the march to "help" victims of tornadoes.   

The historic Serpent Mound in Ohio is plagued by New Age believers.   

This woman believes she is a plant. 

In the latest from Zimbabwe, you KNOW people are blaming goblins again.

Don't trust people who blame your bad luck on "spirits". It's a scam. Across the world, scammers are strategically targeting older Asian women and taking advantage of superstitious beliefs.   

In the U.S., you may have to disclose to buyers if your house is "haunted". What does that even mean? 

An advertisement offers a workshop for psychic kids. Only $99. We're awful skeptical. 

And finally, we will end on a humorous note. Alex Jones, conspiracist extraordinaire, gets booted from the Bilderberg venue and is called the "worst person to interview" (among other adjectives) by British TV.  

Join us every day at Doubtful News to see what's new in news today.   

Also, extra links of interest are posted every night at midnight. 

The BEST way to follow us is on Twitter. All stories and some extras are posted there. Go to @Doubtfulnews on Twitter 

You can also find us on Facebook.

Sharon Hill runs Doubtful News, a unique feed of news stories about the paranormal, pseudoscience, the weird and the unexplained with questioning commentary.

Here is a recap of the stories that appeared last week at Science-Based Medicine, a multi-author skeptical blog that separates the science from the woo-woo in medicine.

Stanislaw Burzynski: A deceptive propaganda movie versus and upcoming news report (David Gorski) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-propaganda-versus-news/ Eric Merola’s new film about Burzynski and his cancer “cures” is a bad movie, bad medicine, and bad PR. The patient reports are misleading, the evidence is lacking, the propaganda is unrelenting, and the attacks on skeptics are nonsensical.

New Developments in Acupuncture: Turtles and Motion-Style Treatments (Harriet Hall)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/new-developments-in-acupuncture-turtles-and-motion-style-treatments/ A report of treating turtles with acupuncture and a new study of motion-style acupuncture for patients with low back pain are equally unconvincing. Motion-style acupuncture involves assisted walking with the needles in place. Assisted walking with physical support and encouragement may indeed be effective; the acupuncture was probably irrelevant.

Gyrostim and the Infrastructure of Quackery (Steven Novella)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/gyrostim-and-the-infrastructure-of-quackery/ the Gyrostim is a device that spins patients to stimulate the vestibular system. It may have a role in vestibular therapy, but it has not yet been adequately tested. Pseudoscientists have jumped the gun to treat patients with other conditions like concussion, cerebral palsy, and autism. Quacks and the lay press have derailed the normal scientific process.

Kombucha: A symbiotic mix of yeast, bacteria and the naturalistic fallacy (Scott Gavura)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/kombucha-a-symbiotic-mix-of-yeast-bacteria-and-the-naturalistic-fallacy/ Kombucha is a folk remedy produced in home kitchens by fermenting sweetened black tea with a starter mat containing bacteria and yeast. It is claimed to have many medicinal and health effects; but it has never been tested in a clinical trial. From what is known about its content, there’s no reason to expect it would be effective; and there are potential harms.

DMAA: Efficacious but is it Safe? (Andrey Pavlov and Igor I. Bussel). http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/dmaa-efficacious-but-is-it-safe/The DMAA story demonstrates the deficiencies of current consumer protection legislation. Originally a prescription drug, DMAA was withdrawn because of side effects. Finding small amounts of the compound in geraniums allowed marketing as a diet supplement under the DSHEA. Manufacturers are selling a synthetic drug with toxic effects under the fiction that it is a natural product.

With a swarm of determined zerglings, the Brood War is currently underway on the East coast. Brood II, a cohort of slumbering cicadas, recently made their way out of the ground in the billions (or maybe trillions) to outnumber the humans in their path 600 to 1. Even more amazing than their numbers is how long the cicadas have waited to emerge. Every 13 or 17 years—depending on the brood, of whare 15—they flood the trees, shrubbery, and streets with deafening sex sonatas. The cicadas have waited nearly two decades for a few weeks of procreation.

What is less amazing is ending this conversation here, attributing the rest to the supernatural.

In an article published in late May, Brian Thomas, a science writer at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), outlines the many amazing adaptations of this big-eyed bug. Notably, Thomas points out the evolutionary mystery going strong for the last 350 years—why cicadas emerge at prime-numbered times as opposed to other times. Scientists are working hard on the question. Some researchers think the long cycles reduce competition among broods, others think it helps to avoid predators. Still more think the cicadas’ cycles help control bird populations—their primary predators.

But for Thomas, the mystery is solved. As astronomers would notice a prime numbered signal directed at us as a sign of extraterrestrial intelligence, Thomas knows that the cicadas’ prime-numbered life cycle signifies a divine intelligence. He writes:

Magicicada broods spend either 17 or 13 years living underground, and both are prime numbers…Having to attribute these insects' "amazing accomplishments" to mere natural processes must frustrate otherwise extremely smart secular scientists. Satisfaction, not frustration, awaits those who ascribe genius insect math to a real live Mathematician. "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16.)

The cicada’s amazingly long life cycle—one of the longest of any insect—is a rainbow that scientist want to unweave, not to reduce it, but to find even more beauty. Put through the prism of science, a number of theories about the mysterious bug, like different hues of light, have shimmered against lab benches all over the world. And all of them are in the realm of the real, nothing supernatural required.

Cicadas aren’t the only mathematical marvels we know of. Flowers, cacti, and pinecones all exhibit amazing complexity along with mathematical beauty. Buds of the sunflower, for example, radiate out from the center according to the famous Fibonacci sequence. It allows the flower to pack as many buds as possible into a small space, thus maximizing its reproductive chances.

And the “genius” of the cicadas’ internal thermometers that Thomas of the ICR attributes to God—of the Bible I presume, not any other deity in the pantheon of possible beliefs—isn’t so divinely inspired either. Crocodile embryos straddle a thin line of two degrees determining the sex of the tiny reptile.

“Genius” suggests a thinking animal. It happens to be a common way of talking about the other organisms that we study, even though most of them are not sentient in the way humans are. Anthropomorphizing like we all do, one of the scientists that Thomas quotes in his article described the cicadas as “geniuses,” and Thomas latches onto it. But we know that cicadas, and other mathematical wonders in the animal kingdom, aren’t geniuses in the way we use the word to describe Einstein or Leibnitz. When scientists talk this way, they are extolling the cleverness of nature: how the selective pressures of the world can mold genetic clay into art worthy of replication.

To quote evolutionary biologist Leslie Orgel, “Evolution is cleverer than you are.” If a process or adaptation seems too smart for nature, that’s a failure of your imagination, not the hand of God. I can make that claim because we have a working model of life’s morphing and molding. There’s a mountain of evidence to show how life climbs Mt. Improbable by slow scaling instead of giant, otherworldly leaps.

In contrast, Thomas has a Bible verse and a prayer. Intelligent design seeks to re-weave the rainbow that science unraveled. Any ongoing mysteries in science should be re-bundled in the fibers of mysticism, to be gawked at with passive imagination. Instead of digging deeper into the conundrum of the cicada’s life cycle, creation “research” already has the answer. Secular scientists are on a fool’s errand, apparently.

A rainbow is amazingly complex. Rays of light illuminate consecutive curtains of water droplets, each directing a different part of the ROYGBIV spectrum towards your eyes. It’s geometry, physics, and optics that un-weave the rainbow, but it’s closed-mindedness and dogma that puts it back together.

I’m eager to read about how the entomologists of the future figure out the reasons for the cicada’s long life. After all, it’s hard to study something that only surfaces maybe twice in a career. Whatever the answer is, it will probably be cleverer than I can imagine. But after all the empiricism is over, the answer will no doubt be exactly as clever as intelligent design will retroactively claim it to be.

---

Image Credit:

Emerging cicada from the Wikimedia Commons

Kyle Hill is a science writer who specializes in finding the secret science in your favorite fandom at Scientific American’s Overthinking It blog. Hill also manages Nature Education's Student Voices blog is a research fellow with the James Randi Educational Foundation, and you can follow him on Twitter under @Sci_Phile.

Here is a rundown of the week in oddball news, questionable claims and medical mess-ups from the past week courtesy of Doubtful News.

This week was abuzz with odd sea tales. First, there was vehement negative reaction by science writers and reviewers to the Animal Planet's second installment of a mermaid fake documentary.   

This is just weird. Dolphins are called on to detect cancer and to help in natural childbirth -both are really awful ideas. 

A mystery hairless animal appears in Indiana. 

A new ancient bird fossil is evaluated cautiously but curiously as it comes from China where many spectacular fossils are actually faked.   

Also in prehistoric animals news, the claim that searchers have found mammoth "blood" should be reserved until they determine that is actually IS that.

Pakistan had its share of health woes in the news this week. Another vaccination worker was shot.

And quack medicine substituting for real treatment is a big problem.   

Speaking of dubious medical claims, acupuncture is dead. Or is it?   

Dietary supplements and herbals are causing additional calls to poison control centers.

In Nigeria, an herbal abortive drug resulted in death for several women.   

Previous seller of dubious dietary supplement and other questionable products, Kevin Trudeau may be hiding his assets from the federal government.    

Creationist Kent Hovind, in jail already, is still fighting with the law since he only obeys God's law, not the Tax laws.

A way to get around taxes as well as other pesky regulations that are good for society, is to start a church. The anti-vaccination people in Australia are trying that tactic.   

You could also call yourself the next Messiah.   

In order to keep your project funded, you can keep putting out teasers for the rather thin evidence you find for Amelia Earhart's plane.   

Believe it or not, sometimes people do radically change their minds in the face of evidence.   

The continued use of polygraph by the U.S. government and certain employers is a disgrace and should be stopped considered it lacks a basis is science and is unreliable. Yet, it is still used.   

And there was some rather silly, kooky stuff last week: An animal communicator was said to have helped find a wayward horse. But the evidence was unimpressive.   

If the kids claim they see a hairy little monster in class and then panic, you might have to chalk that up to mass psychogenic illness, not an ACTUAL hairy monster.   

Finally, in the continuing of rocks seen on Mars that resemble strange things, we have a lizard/rat and an even BETTER rat. Are Mars rats like mall rats?

Join us every day at Doubtful News to see what's new in news today.

Also, extra links of interest are posted every night at midnight. 

The BEST way to follow us is on Twitter. All stories and some extras are posted there. Go to @Doubtfulnews on Twitter.

You can also find us on Facebook.

Sharon Hill runs Doubtful News, a unique feed of news stories about the paranormal, pseudoscience, the weird and the unexplained with questioning commentary.

Here is a recap of the stories that appeared last week at Science-Based Medicine, a multi-author skeptical blog that separates the science from the woo-woo in medicine.

A brief note on killing cancer cells in a dish (David Gorski)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/a-brief-note-on-killing-cancer-cells-in-a-dish/ It’s easy to kill cancer cells in the lab. It’s not so easy to kill them in the human body without harming normal cells.

“Alternative Medicine: Sense and Nonsense” Upcoming Lecture by Dr. Paul Offit (Jann Bellamy)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/alternative-medicine-sense-and-nonsense-upcoming-lecture-by-dr-paul-offit/ A brief announcement of Dr. Offit’s scheduled talk on June 8 at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

Coconut Oil (Harriet Hall)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/coconut-oil/ Coconut oil was once demonized for its high content of saturated fats, and now it’s being promoted as a miracle food. Neither extreme is right. It’s probably safe to use in reasonable amounts in the diet, but there is no credible evidence for the many health benefits claimed for using it as a supplement.

Patient Participation in Decision-Making (Steven Novella)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/patient-participation-in-decision-making/ The old model of paternalism has been discarded, but the issue of patient participation in decision-making is a complex one that requires thoughtful engagement. Existing evidence is inconclusive because it’s hard to capture all the nuances in a clinical trial.

Naturopathic organ repositioning coming soon to Pennsylvania? (Jann Bellamy)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/naturopathic-organ-repositioning-coming-soon-to-pennsylvania/ A bill in Pennsylvania would license naturopathic doctors and among other things would allow them to “reposition body tissues and organs.” That is impossible. Naturopathic doctors reject evidence-based medicine. This bill would allow them to provide primary care with the same scope as an MD. There are many reasons why that would be a bad idea.

People Encouraging Turtle Agony* (Mark Crislip)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/people-encouraging-turtle-agony/ A news report featured veterinarians torturing rescued sea turtles by sticking needles in them (AKA providing acupuncture). Dr. Crislip calls this another kind of “PETA” and explains why providing such fantasy-based treatments to animals is not only useless but cruel.

 Recently I watched the documentary film, “Kumaré,” which debuted at the 2012 South by Southwest film festival, where it won the Feature Film Audience Award. The film was made by Vikram Gandhi, an American of Hindu extraction, who was born in New Jersey.

The film documents how Gandhi visited India to research gurus, and came to believe that most if not all of those he encountered firsthand were phonies and fakes of varying degrees. This in turn gives him an idea: Gandhi returns to America, grows out his hair and beard, adopts an Indian accent, and becomes a fake guru.

Inventing his own yoga moves and nonsense names, and a content-free pseudo-philosophy (“Find the guru within you,”), Gandhi transforms himself into a barefoot, staff-carrying yogi dubbed Sri Kumaré. Traveling to Arizona, he begins to gather a small cult of followers, practicing yoga and becoming a human reflection-pond with a permanent smile.

Kumaré’s followers are a varied lot. Their intense attachment to their false guru appears motivated by a variety of common human needs, including uncertainty about their lives, a need to tell their story to someone, and sheer loneliness. Some are self-absorbed and narcissistic, some are emotionally damaged or in emotional pain, and some are clearly intelligent, despite their willingness to believe that the guru is anything beyond an empty vessel mirroring their needs back to them.

That Gandhi has the stomach to watch these individuals progressively deepen their involvement and commitment to him is enough to make one pause at the questionable morality of his gambit, but after all, he has a movie to make, and he’s a man with a plan: Act 3 is supposed to be “the big reveal,” when he throws off his robes and tells the truth.

But the trouble is that when the time comes for Gandhi to tell the truth, he chickens out. And here is where the film takes a tricky turn that some, indeed, many, have and will fall for. But not all.

Because at initial attempt, our poor hero just can’t bring himself to own up to the truth. Instead we are treated to multiple shots of the obviously torn and troubled pseudo-spiritual leader, struggling with the challenge before him. But what is his concern, exactly? Is he worried about his followers? Seems the time for that should have come long before, when they first began to pour out their intimate and troubled stories to him (and the camera), and he had the opportunity to demonstrate some human decency and respect for the lives of others.

Many viewers and critics alike have fallen for the filmmaker’s blatant if effective manipulation of the audience. Oh, the poor man, he’s morally conflicted.

Really?

I don’t think he’s morally conflicted at all. I think the biggest narcissist on screen is the filmmaker himself, who falls in love with being a god-man (as yogis are often called in India), and can’t bring himself to give it up. Above all, he is terrified of the rejection and anger and perhaps worse that he anticipates he will receive when he tells his followers the truth. It is his fear of their judgment, the risk to his self-image, the threat to his inflated and addictive self-love that terrifies him. If it was concern for his followers, he would not hesitate to tell the truth – he would rush to tell it.

But here is where Mr. Gandhi – more clever than smart – is in for a surprise. He’s never read “When Prophecy Fails,” the classic social psychology text about cognitive dissonance, or the marvelous modern manual of the topic, “Mistakes Were Made, but Not By Me,” by the social psychologist (and noted skeptic), Carol Tavris. And so as a viewer I was quite sure that most of Kumaré’s followers would in fact rationalize away the revelation that their spiritual leader was a cynical bullshitting filmmaker, using them for self-aggrandizement and to kick-start his budding film career – and I also fully expected that at least a few or more would in fact stand to embrace him.

And while it may be remarkable to much of the audience, none are more stunned than Mr. Gandhi himself when he finally reveals himself as the con man and moral reprobate he is – because after all, the show must go on! – and yet indeed, he is applauded and embraced by many of his victimized flock.

Many skeptics, in considering this story and film, will of course by now have thought of someone who already conducted this experiment, but was never conflicted about the intention in the lesson. No, I don’t mean Sacha Baron Cohen, whom many reviewers have referenced in considering “Kumaré.” Rather I mean none other than James Randi and Jose Alvarez, in their infamous “Carlos” hoax. In 1988, the two went to Australia and engineered a hoax in which Alvarez masqueraded as a spirit “channeler,” drawing large audiences to live performances, and creating a great deal of attention on television and in the mainstream media. The intention was always to reveal the facts behind the fraud, as a lesson in, among other things, how irresponsible and easily duped the professional media was. But “Carlos” never sought out individual followers to confess their personal stories and become personally attached to his leadership. Carlos’s audiences came, listened, and many were convinced, and the lesson was a profound one. (You can learn more about the Carlos hoax at the Skeptic’s Dictionary site, here. )

At the conclusion of “Kumaré,” we learn, unsurprisingly, that while many of the followers forgive Gandhi his moral and personal trespass with their lives, some do not. But this is merely given a passing mention in on-screen text epilogue before the credit crawl.

But if Vikram Gandhi actually had an ounce of real moral courage, he would have interviewed those people, and showed their anger and resentment and broken self-esteem on film, and let the world judge him truly. But even then, given his narcissistic appetite and cynical aptitude, combined with a clear eye for the bottom line, I predict a long and successful career in Hollywood.

http://vimeo.com/57549855

Jamy Ian Swiss is Senior Fellow at the JREF. He blogs regularly at randi.org.

Here is a rundown of the week in psychic scams, several sad cases of believing in nonsense and some truly odd tidbits from the past week courtesy of Doubtful News.

Psychics were caught this week for fraud in Washington  and California using well-worn schemes to get people to give them money to remove bad spirits and curses.

The case of the faith-healing parents that lost a second child is back in the news as the death of their infant son is ruled a homicide.  The congregation they belong to has a history of childhood deaths due to lack of normal medical treatment.  

 A shady midwife in Nigeria prescribes herbs to women whom she convinces are actually pregnant. The babies come from the baby factory. It's more like human trafficking and abuse.  

Kids who seemed to have convinced themselves that the school wifi makes them sick do an award winning experiment. But I think they may have missed an important scientific lesson.  

What about these studies? The Immortality project provides money for some possibly questionable research into living forever in one form or another.  

There were some really odd news stories this week from some people that seem to be a bit too paranoid and credulous. First, a man gets arrested for calling 911 too much to report mind control satellites.    

A woman takes a picture of a UFO over a haunted barn.

Obama is blamed for causing the Oklahoma tornadoes.    

And, conspiracists go meta as conspiracy theorist attempt to debunk a hoax.    

If that's not weird enough for you, a man tells cops he had "proof" of Bigfoot. Turns out to be bear tracks.    

And, just to keep you on your toes while celebrity watching, comedian-actor Andy Kaufman is rumored to be alive.

I'm very dubious about this report that the E-cat device for cheap energy has really passed a reputable test.  

Bergoglio was in an imbroglio this week as some speculated the new Pope performed his first exorcism. In public.

Doesn't it sound like a bad thing to put mercury in pills? It might cure your insomnia PERMANENTLY.  

What's a lonely guy or gal ghost hunter to do for companionship? You want someone who understands and shares your interest, right? Sign up with a paranormal matchmaking site.  

Finally, this is just dumb. I feel bad for the turtles.  

Join us every day at Doubtful News to see what's new in news today.   

Also, extra links of interest are posted every night at midnight. 

The BEST way to follow us is on Twitter. All stories and some extras are posted there. Go to @Doubtfulnews on Twitter   

You can also find us on Facebook.

Sharon Hill runs Doubtful News, a unique feed of news stories about the paranormal, pseudoscience, the weird and the unexplained with questioning commentary.

Here is a recap of the stories that appeared last week at Science-Based Medicine, a multi-author skeptical blog that separates the science from the woo-woo in medicine.

Angelina Jolie, radical strategies for cancer prevention, and genetic denialism (David Gorski)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/angelina-jolie-radical-strategies-for-cancer-prevention-and-genetics-denialism/ Angelina Jolie’s decision to have a bilateral mastectomy is being criticized, including accusations of “mutilation” and conspiracy theories. She made a rational, science-based decision. Dr. Gorski explains the science and the surrounding issues, including the fact that the BRCA1 gene is patented and one company has a monopoly.

Progressive Mythology (Harriet Hall)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/progressive-mythology/ A review of the book Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left. There are anti-science attitudes on both sides of the aisle. The authors call for clear, unbiased thinking about public policies based on good scientific evidence rather than ideology-influenced distortions of science.

DSM-5 and the Fight for the Heart of Psychiatry (Steven Novella)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/dsm-5-and-the-fight-for-the-heart-of-psychiatry/ The new edition of the psychiatric diagnosis manual was recently released, changing some diagnostic categories and generating much controversy. It depends on lists of signs and symptoms rather than on defined pathophysiology, but it serves as a useful placeholder while science seeks more evidence-based, and more biologically informed categories and diagnoses.

A closer look at vitamin injections (Scott Gavura)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/a-closer-look-at-vitamin-injections/ IV infusions of vitamins are being offered, mainly by naturopaths, for prevention and treatment of various serious diseases. The practice is not grounded in science, and may carry some risks.

 The following case is a published account of a typical person with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

The OCD started when he was about 7 or 8 years of age and has gradually got worse. When he was doing homework in secondary school he was checking again and again that everything was done. This made him lose a lot of time. As a child he used to have phobias of lifts and elevators and thunder and lightning. He got teased in throughout school, because of his anxiousness and behaviours. After finishing school he started working in a job, where he had to make sure that everything was clean and clear, that things were locked up when he was leaving. This made his job very difficult for him and as the OCD got worse he was not able to do his job anymore because he was much too slow. Also he used to have to stay longer hours to check that he had done his job right. He has to think about things in a certain sequence before getting up in the morning. This sequence might delay him for almost half an hour before he is able to get up. The sequence comes again about 3 or 4 times daily. He has to check various things over and over again. When he makes his bed he has to check that it is made in the right way. He has to check the taps are not dripping, making sure that things are empty, making sure that he has put away everything he should, making sure that he has turned things off, closing windows, checking pockets, counting money again and again, he keeps checking that the light is off. When he has a shower it takes him a very long time because he has to get his clean clothes and check them at least 5 times before he can take them into the shower. He has to shower himself in a certain sequence and when he is out of the shower he has to dry himself also in a certain sequence. If he gets interrupted he has to start all over again. This is very annoying for him but also very disabling. Sometimes when he has to check things he talks to himself or whispers to get it all sorted in his head. The thoughts make it difficult for him to concentrate. It also has an impact on his self-esteem; feeling useless, frustrated, irritated, stressed and nervous.

There are those who deny the behaviors above should be considered a disorder or treated as a mental illness. The recent release of the DSM-5 has brought the mental illness deniers out of the woodwork to endlessly repeat their refuted and distorted claims yet again.

Mental illness deniers demonstrate nicely the pattern of argument that is typical of denialism – their arguments are essentially the same as those of evolution deniers, global warming deniers, holocaust deniers, HIV deniers, or germ theory/vaccine deniers. If you want a recent example, just look at the comments to a recent post of mine.

There are a few denialist features worth pointing out. The first is the use of semantics to dance around obvious conclusions. Deniers charge that mental illness is completely arbitrary (in fact they often argue it is political), without any objective biological basis. This is demonstrably false. Many of the major recognized mental illnesses, like OCD, have demonstrable differences in brain function, clear negative outcomes, and often even genetic predispositions. This data, however, is population-based and is not very useful when applied to an individual.

There are various reasons for this. Mental disorders are clinical syndromes and are likely to be biologically heterogenous, meaning that there are likely several disorders lumped together into one clinical syndrome with overlapping symptoms. OCD, for example, has various types: contamination/cleaning, harm/checking, symmetry/ordering, and unacceptable thoughts/mental rituals. Hoarding used to be considered part of OCD, but in the DSM-5 it is considered its own disorder. Are these all the same brain malfunction manifesting in different ways, or different malfunctions manifesting in similar ways? Perhaps it’s a bit of both.

When scientists study the genetics of OCD they sometimes find that certain genetic variants correlate with OCD, but this is not consistent enough to form the basis of a diagnosis for treatment.

So – the deniers take a false-dichotomy/moving the goalpost approach. They say there is no biological basis for mental disorder. When evidence is presented for a biological (brain-based) basis, they move the goalpost and say that the evidence cannot be used for diagnosis, which is true but irrelevant. When we do get to the point where there is a consistent-enough biological cause of a mental disorder found, the deniers then say – well, that just means it’s a neurological disease, not a mental illness.

They semantically define out of existence the very thing they are denying – mental illness is not a brain disorder because all demonstrable brain disorders are neurological diseases and not mental illness, even when they manifest with disorders of mood, thought, or behavior.

What about the case presented above? Is that not a demonstrable mental disorder? No problem for deniers – that is just a “problem in living.” Sure, people have problems, you just can’t call them disorders because that’s “pathologizing.”

The final semantic game is to play off the inconsistent use of the term “disease.” There is no “mental disease” because disease requires biological pathology and the mind cannot have the kind of pathology that you can see under a microscope or in a lab test. This becomes a massive straw man. For most mental illness, like OCD, no one claims there is necessarily classic pathology. The “psychopathology” (the term sometimes used) is at the level of brain wiring. We are just now turning new technology (like fMRI scans) to map the brain’s wiring, and to see how this wiring is different in various mental disorders.

People with OCD tend to have hyperactive responses in the disgust circuit in the brain. Is this a disorder? Is hyperactivity in a brain circuit pathology?

You can play with semantic endlessly – the scientific facts are that mood, thought, and behavior is brain function, brain function can be different at the level of wiring and neuronal activity in a way that results in mood, thought, and behavior that is demonstrably harmful and often perceived by the person as harmful, unpleasant, and unwanted. This can be so far out of the range of what is typical and functional for people that it becomes absurd not to recognize the result as a disorder.

Another favorite logical fallacy of the denier is the false continuum. This is the flip side to the false dichotomy. In a false dichotomy logical fallacy a continuum or multiple possibilities are treated as if they break down into a binary choice – black or white with no shades of gray, or no reds or blues.

The false continuum logical fallacy is the argument that because there is a continuum, there is therefore no meaningful difference between the extremes. You cannot draw a sharp dividing line between tall and short, therefore it is meaningless to speak of people being tall or short. Kareem Abdul Jabbar is not tall, and Tyrion Lannister is not short.

There is no sharp dividing line between science and pseudoscience, a religion and a cult, normal and abnormal. That does not mean that these concepts are useless.

Human behavior simultaneously exists along multiple interacting spectrums. Further, inherent behavioral tendencies exist within a cultural and environmental context. So, yeah, there are no sharp lines of demarcation with mental illness. We are all a little obsessive-compulsive, a little paranoid, we all get depressed at times, and feel anxious. None of this means, however, that crushing persistent depression without apparent environmental cause is not a genuine disorder. The fact that I have a little symmetry/ordering bias doesn’t mean that people who become buried alive under their piles of horded trash don’t have a demonstrable disorder.

Conclusion

Denying mental illness is ultimately denying the brain. The brain is an organ, just like any other. It is very complex, and its function depends upon subtle features that we are just now able to image with any utility. Our knowledge of how brain function relates to thought, mood, and behavior is growing, and with it our knowledge of the reductionist basis of mental disorders.

Progress is slow and difficult because of the horrific complexity of the subject, but progress is also steady.

Mental illness deniers, however, deny this progress. They pretend as if we know nothing about the biological basis of mental disorders, until that knowledge gets to a practical and undeniable level and then they declare the disorder a neurological disease. In reality different mental illnesses are at various places along the continuum of knowledge into their biological basis.

When called on their logical fallacies and distortions they tend to retreat to the ultimate fortress of denial – “I’m just asking question,” “Is anyone who expresses any doubt about X a denier, then,” “I’m the real skeptic because I question the powers that be.”

Asking questions, doubting, and being skeptical are all virtues. But method and process matters, not labels.

Steven Novella, M.D. is the JREF's Senior Fellow and Director of the JREF’s Science-Based Medicine project.

 Back in September of 2007, I was invited to speak at the prestigious TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, California. To do so, I had to literally get up out of a hospital bed in Florida – very much against the advice of my doctors – and fly off to address what is arguably the toughest, most influential, and savvy audience to be found anywhere. During that heady experience I met actress Goldie Hawn, neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran, entrepreneur Richard Branson, and prominent skeptical author Stephen Pinker, all for the first time, along with literally dozens of other celebrities.

I committed homeopathic suicide during that lecture, a stunt I’ve done all over the world to make an important point about homeopathy, that it has no ingredients that will help or affect any ailment, symptom, or disease, and that it’s inane to take it seriously.

Seriously…

During my talk, which can be seen and heard here I opened and downed an entire bottle – 32 tablets – of homeopathic Calms Forte* sleeping pills, the main ingredient of which was “coffea cruda,” which is not made from instant coffee, nor brewed coffee, nor caffeine, but unroasted coffee beans, friends, but diluted – literally – billions of times, so that there isn’t even a single molecule of any active substance in a truck full of the tablets! I was confident that I’d not toss and turn that evening…

*which has since changed its formula to use “passion flower” rather than coffea cruda as the “active ingredient,” perhaps to invoke a more exciting reaction…?

Well, a Jack Myers was in that audience, and he was apparently not favorably impressed by my attitude or my opinions. Mr. Myers labels himself an “economist,” a media ecologist, author, documentary film producer, and publisher of economic reports on media, marketing and entertainment. Jack’s also a recipient of the George Foster Peabody Award, so I was surprised, following his attendance at TED, to read on his internet site a strong denunciation of me and my statements. In fact, he commented, ominously:

I found Mr. Randi's presentation, itself, to be very misleading and disingenuous.

Fightin’ words, I’d say, but that tirade – strangely – was deleted from his site shortly after it was published. With the aid of friends, I managed to find an account he’d sent to an Internet columnist who wanted to know more about what she’d seen. I’ll share that with you, and break in to comment. Rather often. It began:

First [Randi] told us not to believe anything he said.

Well, not quite. As I always do, I suggested to the TED audience that they shouldn’t merely accept blindly what I’d said, but should look into the situations for themselves. Jack misheard me, I guess. He continued:

Then he told us homeopathic products are worthless, which he "proved" by swallowing a bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills. There was no seal on the bottle but he presented it as if he was opening it for the first time, even removing the instructions. I don't believe they were, in fact, the original pills. I know many people who take those exact pills and they do work. I hope he doesn't prove his "theory" with people who might "try it at home" and potentially die.

Not to worry, Jack. As I said, I’ve done this “suicide” act all over the world for some twenty years now, and the only problem I’ve had has been people laughing to hear just how naïve and dense others can be when smooth-talked to by the operators who obviously also got to you…

Secondly, Randi denigrated those who use herbs and homeopathic products as part of a medical practice. My daughter is a practitioner of Oriental Medicine and studied four full years in an accredited master's program to gain her degree. She uses many herbs and remedies that have been handed down and have been effective for centuries that would be classified as homeopathic. I wonder who pays Randi – the medical institutions? The AMA? I would like full disclosure on his funding.

Rejoice, sir! That data is all available to anyone who asks for it, because the JREF is registered as a 501(c)3 charity, and by law must provide that information to anyone who asks for it. So, just ask, Jack! And no, we’ve never received a cent from Big Pharma, as you suggest, nor from those perfidious doctors who actually put real medicine into their patients’ bodies.

Next, Randi believes there is no afterlife. Again, he seeks to make anyone who does believe into a fool. He's entitled to his opinions, but why should it be at the expense of those who disagree with him? I like many others believe there is another level of existence – an afterlife.

No, Jack, though you may choose for yourself any title or definition you want, of course. If you wish to think of yourself as a total jackass, be my guest…!

I have seen someone who has the abilities Randi pooh poohed and am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that a true communication occurred. It changed my life and my beliefs and, by the way, cost me nothing. I don't feel he has a right to dismiss my beliefs as foolish and idiotic. I agree there are charlatans in every field – but that doesn't mean he has a right to dismiss someone's beliefs just because he doesn't agree with them.

Well, perhaps it did cost you, Jack. It appears that you witnessed a demonstration that quite impressed you and changed your basic opinions on how the world works. But just think, man! Now you’re potentially rich, a million bucks wealthier than you were before you revealed this to me, because my organization, the James Randi Educational Foundation [JREF], is prepared to pay your “someone” a million bucks upon the demonstration of that ability that I scoffed at! Wow! Now, this guru/saint/medium/gypsy/whatever may be shy – so many are, I’ve found – and may be so strongly spiritual that he/she shuns taking such easy money, but isn’t it worth a try…? C’mon, Jack, give the wheel a spin!

No?

I wonder why… Jack struck me as a far more dependable and worthy opponent in this brouhaha, but just see up ahead how perfidious he actually proved to be. Read on, as he throws down his gauntlet…

Here's my challenge. I will meet Randi on any stage and bring a bottle of the same store purchased homeopathic sleeping pills he took, I will open the sealed bottle and he can take the full bottle there on the spot as he did at TED. If he can stay awake for 12 hours without getting sick, I will pay him $1,000. Secondly, Randi has set up an offer of $1 million to anyone who can prove through accepted observational methodology that an afterlife exists. I could make an equally compelling offer of $1 million to anyone who can prove through accepted observational methodology an afterlife does not exist.

Whoa, Jack… That million-dollar offer is offered by the JREF for a much wider variety of phenomena, any sort of paranormal, supernatural, or magical power that can be demonstrated under proper observing conditions. It’s that simple. Do it, and collect US$1,000,000. However, it’s payable for proving something exists, not for doubting that it exists. Even you, Jack, should know that a negative cannot be proven, such as that no unicorns exist in Egypt, or that you can’t fly by flapping your arms…

In any case, I notified Mr. Myers weeeks in advance that I would be speaking for the New York Skeptics on the evening of Friday, October 10^th, 2008, and offered to ingest the “fatal” dose of sleeping pills at 7 that morning and remain in the presence of Myers from that moment until my lecture. I expected that this would be satisfactory for Myers…

Upon receiving this challenge from Myers, I immediately – within minutes – sent off this response to him:

Mr. Myers:  I have just now received a copy of your April 1/02 2:36 PM communication…

There is much in that text that needs to be addressed in detail – and will be – but at this moment, I will confine myself to your “challenge,” in which you accuse me of being a liar and of faking my ingestion of Calms Forte*** sleeping pills at TED. Sir, I enthusiastically accept your challenge.  On an agreed-upon date and time, at a location of your choosing, I will swallow the contents of an entire bottle of Calms Forte sleeping pills supplied by you, followed by an adequate amount of water – which you will also supply – and I will submit to being constantly observed from that moment until twelve hours later.

Mr. Myers, I not only will not suffer any ill effects, I will not even feel drowsy. Following that, you will pay me the $1,000 you’ve agreed upon.

I am also prepared to sign any document you may wish to prepare, that releases you from any responsibility for my well being as a result of this voluntary action.

I trust that you will not have any problem if the media are in attendance, and if a complete video record is kept of the event…?

As I told my TED audience, I have done this stunt many times in several countries around the world. For you to decide that I had to be lying in that statement is attributable only to the conviction you must have that homeopathy works – which it does not. As I’ve done before, I’m betting my life on that.  I am accustomed – you may have missed this point in my TED talk – to putting my money where my mouth is. I hope that you will not withdraw your offer…

My chance finally came. On January 4^th, 2008 – a full five months in advance – I found that I’d be in Mr. Myers’ area, and I promptly sent him a note to that effect. I also simultaneously posted – publicly on our web site SWIFT – this notice:

I’ve been looking for a chance to pop that overdose of homeopathic sleeping pills, the demo for which Jack Myers offered the JREF $1,000 in 2007; the opportunity to do that will arise on May 12^th of 2008, when I’ll be speaking for the New York Skeptics. Mr. Myers will of course be invited to be present to see that all is done in accordance with his challenge.

Alas…

Myers then quickly informed me that he was unable to attend on that occasion, I set another possible date – October 10^th or 12^th – and was prepared to watch him start floundering about trying to figure out how he could get out of this new lion’s mouth before the jaws closed. He promptly reacted to what I figured he’d embrace as a great opportunity to make me swallow my own words – and pills – but this is the response that I received, published here and on my web page – as he specifically requested I do – “in full”:

I respect your willingness to undertake the challenge and I respect the sincerity with which you hold and present your beliefs. I am not in New York City on the 10th or 11th of October, but even if I were I would not accept your challenge. I will however, make a donation to a charity of your choice. I would prefer not to honor or further publicize many of your beliefs, not because I disrespect you, but because I disagree with you. I do not necessarily disagree with your facts, but I cannot in good conscience help advance a crusade in which I do not believe.

If you publish this, please do so in full.

In short: Jack Myers made very public, disparaging and insulting remarks about my integrity on his widely-read Internet site, offering me no opportunity to refute his lies, then he made me a challenge. I immediately responded affirmatively, he reneged, and then he failed to pay the $1,000 forfeit to the JREF that he’d promised. I must say that Jack Myers has met my every expectation.

As Mr. Myers would have learned from even a cursory examination of what I have actually said or written, I do not claim – nor have I ever claimed – that an afterlife does not exist. The million-dollar offer is made to those like him, who assert that an afterlife does exist, and upon presentation of evidence that there is an afterlife, anyone can collect the million-dollar prize. Yes, I know that I offend Myers – and others – by the use of the word “evidence,” but I’m driven to that usage. He knows full well that his “offer” cannot be answered, simply because it requires proving a negative, a logical impossibility… Jack Myers is a devout believer/vendor/promoter of woo-woo, and my 2007 talk at TED put his belief structure in peril. His accusations of dishonesty on my part are still out there, published, part of the electronic record. Even now, should he ever opt to go through with his challenge to me as he clearly promised, I stand ready to meet it. I have not backed out, but now his perfidy is well established. There is no time limit to my offer to take the pills as we agreed. And Jack, and I will not retreat…

Just listen to that loud silence…

James Randi is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation.

 First things first. Take this quiz. It should take you about five minutes. I’ll wait.

Now that we have the quiz out of the way I have to make some assumptions about you before beginning. I’ll assume that you scored pretty high on the quiz. You probably have some kind of science enthusiasm; you might even blog or podcast or comment on science websites frequently. You are most likely college educated, a man between the ages of 18 and 24, and have been to this website before.

If I’m right about who you are, what you’re about to read will make sense (hopefully). And if you did well on the quiz, you outscored a large majority of the United States population in scientific understanding. If this surprises you, if you thought the questions were easy, this is your first lesson in science communication: know your audience.

Being a skeptic, however we want to define it, means being a science cheerleader in some respect. Skepticism is just a tool, but we can’t help but nerd-out over the reality it shows us. We want to share it with others, the magic of reality, so we take it upon ourselves to internalize and communicate what we find. Knowing your audience means more that that. It means choosing terms carefully, making things as simple as possible but not simpler, and writing and speaking coherently. When we venture outside of this little circle, budding science communicators all, we have to remember that many people have no idea where we are coming from. Systematic review? Standard deviation? Logical fallacy? What are you talking about?

The circle of skepticism envelops a wide swath of pop-culture, but I constantly find skeptics using terms and concepts only familiar to the inner circle. Throwing your weight around in a comment section, pointing out logical fallacies and statistical inconsistencies, is only useful if the audience speaks the same language. Think back to the quiz you took. If you got all the questions right, you scored better than 93% of the American population. Looking at the results, only 31% of people knew that the largest constituent of the atmosphere is nitrogen. The latest data from the National Science Foundation shows the same distribution. Understanding the skeptical position on laser hair regrowth, for example, would be difficult without knowing that lasers have nothing to do with sound waves.

Keep these distributions in your head. Think about what the distribution on a question about reductio ad absurdum might be. Like anything else, the jargon of skepticism can prevent understanding.

While I think some skeptical efforts get it wrong, skepticism is truly powerful when we get it right. Take the fantastic climate change website SkepticalScience.com. It is keenly aware, almost more than any other site I’ve been to, that it is dealing with a complex scientific topic and needs to cater to different audiences. Each page has a version for the newcomers, the advanced, and the proficient in climate change. No matter what your experience level, you are going to find something your speed there.

With that in mind, skeptical communication isn’t about flexing your logical muscles and shooting down fallacies, it’s about knowing your audience well enough to make a difference. Many skeptical websites are coated in a babble that is meant for the choir, not the crowd. It may sound like I am advocating an approach to skepticism that is general, like something you would find in Popular Science or Wired, and I am. Great science communication is a Trojan horse for great skepticism, as communicators like Carl Sagan have shown generation after generation.

So go out and promote skepticism, be the kind of communicator that got you excited about science and rationality. But know who you’re talking to. What’s common knowledge to you might as well be ancient Greek to another. As eminent psychologist Steven Pinker says, assume people are as smart as you, but they don’t know what you know. It’s your job to rectify in the most efficient way.

If you want a slightly harder quiz, see how many elements you can name in 10 minutes! (I think I scored a little over 40, beat that!)

Kyle Hill is a science writer who specializes in finding the secret science in your favorite fandom, and runs the Overthinking It blog at Scientific American. Hill has also contributed to Wired, Nature Education, Popular Science, and io9. He manages Nature Education's Student Voices blog, is a research fellow with the James Randi Educational foundation, and you can follow him on Twitter under the name @Sci_Phile.

Here is a rundown of the week in winners, losers and stinky fakery from the past week courtesy of Doubtful News.

There were some very oddball stories out this week. Let's take a look.

Here's a "not dead yet" story.   He's a winner!

Brooms are forbidden in airspace above 150 meters.

This bizarre (and prejudiced) health treatment is the strangest that I've heard in a long time - how to get rid of warts.   

Fake medicinal claims are killing off the population of rhinos. What can be done, if anything?   

Watch out for fake news stories. They can sting.   

Sometimes, we just have to giggle. Not sure who is perpetually worse at photo manipulation for PR, North Korea or Scientology? This week's winner is Scientology.

What's going on with Meryl Dorey of the notorious and beleaguered (formerly known as) Australian Vaccination Network? She's not happy, as usual.    

And, let's check in on the Harold Camping Christian radio network. Is it End Times yet? Maybe soon.  

The end of good times have come for this cancer scammer who was sentenced to 14 years in prison. She's a loser in the legal battle. If only this kind of story came along more often. 

A very tragic ending for a young girl who died in what appears to be a hospital error but fear over organ theft has left her family angry and without answers.

A woman duped by a Marks psychic (not sure if he is of the notorious Marks' family scam ring) speaks out so that others don't make the same mistake.   

As the Marks family did, psychics are rebranding themselves as life counselors and business advisors.   

Finally, we have three stories about failure in education. First, Animal Planet, known for the terrible show "Finding Bigfoot", is back with a sequel to their dreadful fake-but-looks-real documentary about mermaids. 

The world's worst science quiz was an embarrassment for a Christian school but there will always be those who vehemently and monetarily support the promotion of nonsense and anti-science.   

The kids lose. 

I found Bigfoot in the classroom. He may be stinking up the place.  

Join us every day at Doubtful News to see what's new in news today. 

 Also, extra links of interest are posted every night at midnight. 

The BEST way to follow us is on Twitter. All stories and some extras are posted there. Go to @Doubtfulnews on Twitter.

You can also find us on Facebook.   

Sharon Hill runs Doubtful News, a unique feed of news stories about the paranormal, pseudoscience, the weird and the unexplained with questioning commentary.

Here is a recap of the stories that appeared last week at Science-Based Medicine, a multi-author skeptical blog that separates the science from the woo-woo in medicine.

The deceptive rebranding of aspects of science-based medicine as ”alternative” by naturopaths continues apace (David Gorski)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-deceptive-rebranding-of-aspects-of-science-based-medicine-as-alternative-by-naturopaths-continues-apace/ Naturopaths deceptively redefine parts of conventional medicine as “alternative” and falsely claim them as their special province. A new study claims to show naturopathic care is superior to routine care, but it didn’t really test naturopathy: it only showed the effects of intensive counseling about lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise. Naturopaths are a poor choice to provide such counseling, since their training is steeped in pseudoscience.

Antibiotics for Low Back Pain (Harriet Hall)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/antibiotics-for-low-back-pain/ A new study showed that antibiotics improved chronic back pain in a select group of patients who had MRI findings of bone edema adjacent to a herniated disc. It was good science, well designed, with a plausible rationale; but it would be premature to accept it before the study can be replicated and confirmed, and it mustn’t be extrapolated to back pain patients outside the limited subset that was tested.

Will Your Smartphone Become a Tricorder? (Steven Novella)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/will-your-smartphone-become-a-tricorder/ Smartphones aren’t like Star Wars tricorders yet, but they already provide unprecedented access to medical information and can operate portable diagnostic devices like EKGs, ultrasounds, and glucose monitors. Technology is no panacea, but the future holds intriguing possibilities for further advances that may enhance patient care.

FDA v. Jack3d: Round 2 (Jann Bellamy)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/fda-v-jack3d-round-2/ Jack3d is a dietary supplement containing DMAA, a substance that has been banned by other countries and by athletic associations. The FDA agrees that DMAA is not safe, but it is handicapped by the Diet Supplement Health and Education Act and has been unable to take decisive action. The manufacturers circumvent FDA warnings by reformulating their products and continuing to sell them without giving customers critical information about safety and effectiveness.

Whack em hard/Whack em once and Stroke (Mark Crislip)  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/whack-em-hardwhack-em-once-and-stroke/ Strokes from chiropractic neck manipulation are rare enough that proving a causal relationship is difficult. With no evidence of benefit and a plausible rationale for harm, caution is indicated. Chiropractors try to deny that serious “adverse events” occur, but they report “symptomatic reactions” in 31% of patients, including symptoms that are suggestive of stroke.

Why do people believe the things that they do? While only science can generate testable hypotheses, advocates of various paranormal claims tend to rely more on anecdotes, appeals to authority and “intuition” and the general public tends to be ambivalent about the distinction between science and the supernatural. Ongoing controversies over intelligent design in schools, climate change and vaccination have demonstrated that the public perception about science is often shallow due to misunderstandings about how science works.

A recent article published in the Journal of Educational Psychology presents the results of a research study directly comparing the processes that influence how people form opinions on scientific and paranormal concepts. Written by Andrew Shtulman of Occidental College in Los Angeles, the article is part of his research program studying conceptual development relating to science education and how people weigh the actual evidence involved before forming opinions on complex subjects.

In this study, 140 college undergraduates were recruited, half from Harvard University and the other half from Occidental College. No significant differences were found between the students from either school in terms of how they responded in the study.   Each student completed a questionnaire examining how strongly he or she acknowledged the existence of six scientific concepts (black holes, electrons, evolution, genes, fluoride treatment, x-rays). They were also asked about their belief in twelve paranormal subjects (angels, fate, ghosts, God, Heaven, Hell, karma, precognition, reincarnation, Satan, souls, and telepathy).

For each item, the student was asked: (a) whether they believed the entity exists (which Shtulman classified as existence judgments); (b) how confident they were of that belief (confidence ratings); (c) how many other Americans hold the same belief (consensus estimates); (d) why they believe the entity exists (belief justifications); and (e) what evidence, if any, might persuade them to change their belief (belief refutations).   A subset of the original sample (65 participants) later filled out a multiple-choice questionnaire measuring their awareness about the nature of science. Belief justifications and refutations were independently coded by two raters with a high interrater correlation.

On average, students tended to endorse all of the scientific concepts (about 98%) and six out of twelve of the paranormal ones (51%). The nine students who denied the existence of any of the paranormal concepts were excluded from analyses comparing scientific and paranormal beliefs. The paranormal beliefs with the highest endorsement were: souls (81%), God (70%), and karma (68%) with heaven, fate and angels being slightly lower. Confidence ratings were measured on a scale for 1 (not confident) to 7 (100% confident). Not only were mean ratings for scientific concepts significantly higher than paranormal concepts, but ratings closely corresponded to existence judgments. There was little overlap between confidence ratings for scientific and paranormal concepts except for some exceptions. The average confidence rating for the existence of souls was slightly higher than the rating for the existence of black holes, for example.

As for consensus estimates with participants estimating how many Americans would share their judgments about the existence of scientific and paranormal concepts, that was also scored on a seven-point scale. Not surprisingly, most scientific concepts were highly endorsed (except for evolution which only rated 47%) and the overall results closely tallied with existence judgements and confidence ratings.

In examining belief justifications (i.e. why do you believe in the existence of [concept]?), the answers were broken down in terms of objective (referring to external factors) vs. subjective reasons for belief (intuition, for example). Objective justifications were further broken down depending on whether they focused on evidential arguments (based on verifiable sources) as opposed to deferential ones (appeals to authority or other trusted sources).

For scientific concepts and paranormal concepts alike, deferential justification played a dominant role. In other words, most students are confident that electrons and black holes exist because of the credibility of scientists rather than independently weighing the scientific evidence. For scientific concepts, evidential justifications were also common. As for paranormal concepts, students reported being more likely to rely on subjective justifications such as intuition. There was also strong consistency across concepts with students reporting relying on evidence to form opinions on one concept being more likely to do the same with other scientific concepts.

Finally, there was the examination of belief refutations (i.e., what would it take to change your belief in [concept]?). Refutations were broken down into: denials (nothing could change my opinion), evidential (based on empirical evidence) and deferential (relying on credible sources). Much as with belief justifications, student confidence in both scientific and paranormal concepts focused on confidence in authority rather than weighing the actual evidence involved.

One of the most noteworthy findings was that 30% of the students participating in his study denied that anything could change their mind about their paranormal beliefs (as opposed to 21% saying the same about scientific beliefs). In other words, study participants considered their paranormal beliefs to be far more impervious to contradicting evidence than similar beliefs in scientific concepts.

What do these results mean overall? For the general public, accepting concepts such as electrons and x-rays is often taken on faith since firsthand observation is not an option for most people. Though overall public confidence tends to be greater for scientific concepts than the paranormal, how people form opinions on whether such things exist is often similar due to limited understanding about how empirical science actually works.

For the students participating in Andrew Shtulman’s study, deference to authority seemed to be the most important factor shaping their opinions about scientific and paranormal concepts. Despite the available empirical research demonstrating the existence of scientific concepts, many people choose to rely on authority instead rather than weighing the evidence directly.

According to Shtulman, forming opinions based solely on what trusted authorities say on science is often counterproductive since it violates one of the major principles of the scientific process. Even supposedly well-educated people with years of science education seem to prefer basing their opinions on intuition and appeals to authority rather than actual evidence.

In many ways, belief in science shares many similarities with belief in the paranormal, at least in terms of how the general public forms opinions about what does or does not exist. Shtulman also suggests that part of the problem is that science education focuses on science content rather than teaching the actual process of science. He also suggests that teaching students to evaluate both scientific and paranormal concepts for themselves might make them better science consumers as well as being less likely to accept paranormal claims at face value.

While Shtulman pointed out that the study’s methodology might have skewed the results somewhat, he also stressed that students seemed genuinely unaware of how little they actually knew about science, something many participants admitted during debriefing. Though some students were well educated about science and gave good evidence-based arguments to support their opinions, they were definitely in the minority (about 20% of the sample).

Still, this research study identifies three disturbing misconceptions about science that appears widespread in college students and, in all likelihood in the general population: 1. That appealing to authority is an effective way to form opinions on scientific matters, not to mention paranormal ones; 2. That the validity of a scientific concept can be measured by its popularity (it must be true because everybody else believes it too); and 3. That some scientific concepts have been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt and can never be disproven. Even more disturbingly, the college students in the study seem to have a “relativist” view about science and the paranormal and often treat anecdotal evidence or appeals to authority with the same confidence that they would give to actual science.

While Andrew Shtulman’s research parallels similar studies that have gone before, he also suggests that examining how people evaluate evidence in forming opinions about scientific and paranormal concepts has been relatively ignored up to now. As he points out in his paper, “The ability to cite evidence in support of one’s beliefs is, after all, a primary form of scientific literacy and one that needs to be in place if citizens are to make informed decision about public policies of a scientific nature, like whether genetically modified foods should be banned from grocery stores, whether fluoride should be added to tap water, or whether stem cells should be made available for research on cell differentiation.”  

That this basic science literacy is often lacking in even supposedly well-educated students with years of classes in science behind them is critically important, both in learning how to think about science and how to properly examine paranormal claims.

Romeo Vitelli, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice in Toronto, Canada. He is an active blogger and a regular contributor to the Huffington Post and Psychology Today. Check out his blog, Providentia.

Here is a rundown of the whirlwind week in weird, the paranormal and questionable claims from the past week courtesy of Doubtful News.

It was a HUGE week for skepticism. Great press was had all around from the big story of the week: Amanda Berry found and the humiliating epic fail, once again, of Sylvia Browne. Every skeptic and not so skeptic on the planet had something to say about this example of how psychics are unhelpful and downright hurtful.

While we had this bit of good press, there was bad news - the planned departure of Eugenie Scott from the National Center for Science Education. Genie is the thinking parent's angel on earth and we're all so grateful for all she has done.

Someone messed up badly with this story. A piece of 100 million year old continent does not in any way amount to "Atlantis". But, they used that term anyway to the confusion of many.

Singer, Miley Cyrus tells us some paranormal-themed stories from her family's London home. But it's nothing very impressive.

San Francisco can't find a way to justify warnings about cell phone radiation. So, they give up.

In real-life labeling of products, we find this doozy. Gluten-free shampoo.

A Dad intends to take his son for tongue acupuncture for speech impairment. I have no words.

The World Health Organization sees anti-vax advocates as a giant hurdle in eradicating measles in Europe.

This headline about "witches being poisoned" was very misleading. We don't know yet what happened but two elderly women are dead in Zimbabwe after a magical "cleansing ceremony". 

Finally, my favorite weird story of the week, a paranormal group in Brazil offer to pay you to be bait for a water monster. You do not wish to know, guys, how the monster attacks.

Join us every day at Doubtful News to see what's new in news today.

Also, extra links of interest are posted every night at midnight.

The BEST way to follow us is on Twitter. All stories and some extras are posted there. Go to @Doubtfulnews on Twitter

You can also find us on Facebook.

Sharon Hill runs Doubtful News, a unique feed of news stories about the paranormal, pseudoscience, the weird and the unexplained with questioning commentary.

In today’s China, it appears that ancient superstitions are rising to the top of the politicians’ agenda for serious attention. The official view, their explanation for the series of misfortunes they believed to be threatening their careers last year, centered around a pair of Imperial guardian lions, traditionally known in Chinese as “shi,” and often called "Foo Dogs" in the West. They’re a pair of fierce-looking stone lions that guard so many homes and businesses, including the state-owned China Tobacco building just across the street from the government Land Bureau offices.

Well, a Land Bureau official has revealed that the secret weapon the Bureau used was “feng shui,” the ancient practice of how to arrange objects and to design architecture to supposedly improve health, prosperity and luck. For proof, he pointed at a stone wall in their parking lot that was built to block the feline statues’ harmful “qi,” or energy.

It’s a fact that Marxist ideology is fading in China, but as I’ve so often noted, ancient mystical beliefs once banned or shunned tend to gain ground and even replace one sort of nonsense with another; this happened in Russia within recent years when abandoned churches began to fill again as the grip of Communism relaxed.

Chinese fortunetellers are now eagerly offering costly sessions in astrology and numerology, and business people are consulting feng shui masters for financial guidance.

As The New York Times has just noted:

This mystical revival is attracting devoted followers in that most forbidden of realms: the marbled, atheistic halls of Chinese officialdom. Besieged by a meddlesome public at the gates and political      rivals amid their ranks, the country’s ambitious civil servants are increasingly — if discreetly — seeking supernatural shortcuts to wealth and power, much to the dismay of party ideologues and campaigners against corruption.

Some Chinese officials who embrace these notions have rather gone overboard with enthusiasm. From rural township party chiefs to the nation’s now-disgraced former rail minister, Chinese government officials are increasingly making budgetary decisions to fulfill their own personal prophecies and ambitions, according to experts, state news media reports and seasoned soothsayers. Liu Zhijun, that former railway minister, asked a feng shui master to choose auspicious dates for beginning major construction projects. While building what China intends to be the world’s largest high-speed rail system, Mr. Liu was fired in 2011, and charged last month with corruption and abuse of power. It was said that he accepted US$157 million in bribes and maintained a harem of eighteen mistresses, yet his especially heinous crime was: “belief in feudal superstitions.”

But at this point, we need to call upon Max Sennett [1880-1960] of Keystone Kops fame, for guidance. In 2009, in a gesture that feng shui masters said would cancel their bad luck, county officials spent some US$732,000 to move a 369-ton boulder – a rock! – six miles to the county seat. As an important part of the following consecration ceremony, the county magistrate solemnly walked 325 feet toward this “spirit rock,” bowing low every three steps, in accord with the proper instructions…

And remember, the population of China is said to be almost one-fifth of the world’s human beings… How can such a huge, ancient, accomplished, country embrace such superstitions and errors of thought?

But there is hope. Again, from The New York Times:

Last month, Wang Zuoan, the head of the State Administration of Religious Affairs, condemned superstition in a newspaper published by the Central Party School, the premier ideological training ground for government officials.

“For a ruling party which follows Marxism, we need to help people establish a correct world view and to scientifically deal with birth, aging, sickness and death, as well as fortune and misfortune,” he said.

Well, I would strongly disagree that Marxism is any better than a religion, but my confidence is high that China will come about and meet the high expectations I hold for it…

James Randi is Founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation.