Skeptico

Ad hominem

I’ve been meaning to write this article for a while but I’ve been pretty busy recently banking all those checks from “big pharma” companies and living the high life on the proceeds. Also, this last week has been full of Libertarian Party meetings. We’ve been busy planning to remove all labor, environmental and safety regulations from corporations; it’s very time consuming.

Seriously, I have been accused of those things recently: in The Huffington Post and in the comments. Funny thing, the accusers always think this refutes the arguments I’ve been making, as if an (alleged) affiliation with (say) the Libertarians somehow magically changes Robert F. Kennedy’s article so that it’s now true instead of a pack of lies. Well they’re wrong. This mode of reasoning is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem: attacking the person presenting the argument, instead of pointing out a flaw in their actual argument. It’s a fallacy because even if the criticism of the person is true, his argument may still be valid. You can only tell if the argument is valid by examining the actual argument to see if it is actually valid.

Three cases

I can show what I mean by presenting three possible scenarios:

Case 1

Just supposing I really am a paid shill for the pharma companies. I’m writing my piece because I’m paid to express those views, not because I have arrived at them by honestly examining facts and evidence. That means I’m writing my piece irrespective of the facts, and so my piece may well be factually inaccurate. If that’s true, it should be easy for my opponent to point out these inaccuracies shouldn’t it? So why don’t they? Why do they insist instead on just saying I’m a pharma industry shill? Surely what matters is if the argument I have presented is correct or not?

Case 2

Alternatively, suppose I’m still a pharma industry shill, and I’m still writing my piece because I’m paid to do so, but suppose that my piece just happens to coincide with the facts. My piece is factually correct, purely by accident. So what is the relevance that I am a pharma industry shill?  My piece is correct regardless. Surely what matters is that the argument I have presented is correct?

Case 3

I’m not a paid shill for the pharma companies, and I have written my piece based on what I think is a good honest evaluation of the facts and evidence. Of course, my arguments could still be wrong – I’m only human after all. So how does anyone tell if my argument is correct? Surely they would still have to examine my arguments to see if they are correct or not?

In all three cases above, my status vis-à-vis being paid by the pharma industry or not is irrelevant: what is important is the data – if my piece is correct or not. It’s always the data that’s important, not my political affiliations, not who pays me, not my qualifications (or alleged lack thereof), not any other agenda I might have. Nothing about me is important. Only the data is important.

Attacking the person instead of the argument they present is intellectually lazy. It’s a substitute for thinking. It’s also 100% flawed reasoning: you don’t arrive at the conclusion from the argument presented. The funny thing is, people on both sides of the political spectrum criticize the other side for this method of debate, and yet they don’t realize they do it themselves. For example, those on the left will rail at Karl Rove for smearing his opponents and yet they will be the first to criticize their opponents based purely on a connection to (say) a corporation and profits rather than to any actual wrongdoing.

Critical thinking means you understand logical fallacies – you recognize them in someone else’s argument and you don’t rely on them in forming your own arguments. You’ll notice I didn’t criticize Kennedy because he is a lawyer with no knowledge of the science, or because he is (allegedly) opposed to big corporations. I attacked his data as being factually inaccurate. And if you want to criticize me you’re going to have to do the same.

Skeptico wins another award

… or at least a testimonial. From Orac I learn today that regarding my autism posts, Skeptico is one of

the top three "skeptical bloggers" on the issue

… the other two being Orac and Autism Diva. I’m honored.

Seriously, read Orac today expose the logical fallacies and complete lack of meaningful content in this piece by Karl Bode.  Also, read a piece just about me (be sure to read the comments).

Edited to add:

If you click on the “just about me” link above to see Karl’s post about me, and if you read the comments to that post, you should know that Karl has edited virtually all of his comments where he replies to me, to try to make his posts look slightly less stupid than they were originally. Click on the comments below to see an example of what I am talking about. So far I don’t think he has edited any of my comments, but who knows what he will do in the future. He has now closed his post to comments.

Of course, this is very intellectually dishonest and a definite no-no on internet boards. It is the sign of a frightened immature poster who realizes he has made a fool of himself and has no answer but to change history by altering the actual posts that I did, in fact, reply to.

If you believe in this it’s not real

Betcha didn’t realize I’m all knowing and all seeing? Well, I am, see. So I’m told anyway. Apparently, some friends of mine were having a debate about whether water drains clockwise or anti-clockwise depending on if you are in the northern or southern hemisphere (it doesn’t). One friend insisted it had nothing to do with which hemisphere you’re in, but was totally dependent on the design of the sink and drain. He was asked how he knew, and he said “(Skeptico) told me”. That apparently ended the debate. Wow, I never know I had such power! (All I have to do now is get them to stop believing in astrology. Oh well, one thing at a time.)

Anyway, this same friend was being bugged by some other people who apparently think the government is using secret Russian mind-control technology on us, or something. He gave me a printout of New world Order and ELF Psychotronic Tyranny and asked me what I think. Some samples:

...WE MUST CHANGE OUR NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS if we are to change our international relations. ... THE UNITED STATES IS PREPARING TO MAKE AVAILABLE OUR BASES AND FACILITIES FOR MULTI-NATION TRAINING AND FIELD EXERCISES. One such base, with facilities is Fort Dix, N.J."
President Bill Clinton has continued and expanded George Bush's surrender-America policy. As a result, increasing numbers of foreign troops, including Russian Spetsnaz, along with vast amounts of foreign military equipment are now entering the United States to serve as a U.N. OCCUPATION force.

On May 3, 1994, President Clinton signed an Executive Order Presidential Decision Directive (originally numbered PPD-13, later changed to PPD-25) that places U.S. troops under U.N. command and abolished the law limiting the number of U.S. troops that can be committed to the U.N. without approval of Congress.
PPD-25 also created special funding for U.N. peacekeeping and occupation forces, that permits an UNLIMITED drain upon the U.S. Treasury. American Tax payers will be forced to pay any amount demanded by the U.N. occupation forces.

…

Acting under U.N. occupation orders, U.S. military and national guard forces are now being trained to attack civilians in this country. In Alaska, contingents of Russian military OCCUPATION FORCES are reported to have already landed. State and Federal forces, have begun house-to-house surveys, looking for gun collectors and checking attitudes for possible patriotic resistance.

Marines were asked to give their attitudes on the treason statement: "I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and EVERY Nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their service." The last item on the survey asked the Marines' attitude about the statement: "I WOULD FIRE UPON U.S. CITIZENS, WHO REFUSED OR RESIST CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS BANNED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT."
As more Russian and United Nations occupation troops enter the United States, the White House is expecting strong resistance from loyal Americans. To QUIETLY suppress these patriotic fighters, President Clinton is getting help from the old Soviet KGB.
Moscow is now supplying Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno with a whole new class of weapons, that will be specifically TARGETED AGAINST AMERICAN CIVILIANS.

…and on and on for another 20 pages.

In summary, I think they’re saying the New World Order (some kind of UN world government headed up by the Russians and the US) troops have invaded the US, and US troops are being trained to fight against US citizens but the government is using remote mind control technology to prevent the US population from finding out about this. Psychic powers are being employed too, as is some kind of giant laser on the space shuttle for “mind zapping”. People are being tricked into thinking they were abducted by aliens, so they won’t realize they have really been hit by the government’s mind-zapping laser beams. (Hey, alien abductions aren’t real – told you!) And all this was predicted in Revelations. Oh and yes, all this happened during Clinton’s presidency, 11 years ago.

I think that’s it.

It’s hard to know exactly where to start with such crazy conspiracy nut stuff, but just a few observations:

1. There are a lot of claims about what the government is doing, but little (read zero) evidence to back it up. Where are the references? (Ah yes, the mind control ensures there is no evidence – cunning! But then how do we know about it at all?)
2. It’s dated 1994 (the printout is – and as far as I can see the printout is identical to the link). That's a year before Windows 95!  So why is there no evidence of this UN world army eleven years later (when we need it!)?
3. What is it with this superior Soviet technology? Have you ever driven a Russian car, watched a Russian TV or used a Russian computer?  Me neither. 
4. If they have this mind control stuff (this was eleven years ago, remember) why aren't they using it in Fallujah now?
5. Why so much written in ALL CAPITALS as though WRITING IN ALL CAPITALS MAKES IT TRUE?
6. If the government really is controlling our minds the way this article says, how come we are able to read about it so easily? The government can control everything with this sinister new technology but can’t shut down this one puny website that gives away all the secrets? If mind control is real, surely we wouldn’t know about it?

What the hell, I think I’ll just refer to John Baez’ Crackpot Index. The following are especially relevant:

2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4) 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters

Number seven’s a killer – that alone puts the score at over 8,000 by my rough count. Baez doesn’t say what score you have to achieve to qualify as a crackpot, but I think I can safely say the guy who wrote this is...

Hey, perhaps these people need to make themselves one of these thought screen helmets from Stop Alien Abductions (“it’s a tested device that works”). It has full assembly instructions (“Apply tape to any areas  that need reinforcement. Remember, you will sleep with the hat on”), and instructions for use (“One abductee reported that when she wasn't wearing the helmet, the aliens gave her a telepathic command when they were about to take her to not put on (sic) the helmet. The only way to stop such alien telepathic commands is to wear the helmet as much as possible”), and testimonials (“Since trying Michael Menkin's Helmet, I have not been bothered by alien mind control. Now my thoughts are my own. I have achieved meaningful work and am contributing to society. My life is better than ever before. Thank you Michael for the work you are doing to save all humanity”).

Who could argue with that?

Carnival of the Godless #18

Carnival of the Godless is posted at Saint Nate’s Blog:

…a great round-up of non-religious, atheistic, logical writing this bi-weekly period from some of the best writers to skip church on Sunday morning

Church? What’s that?

Undercover inside Scientology

Today the UK’s Daily Mirror has an article describing how their journalist went undercover in scientology. It’s a cautionary window on what you are likely to face in your first week:

I'm given a personality test with 200 questions. Some seem geared towards finding a weak spot in my character:

…

Could you agree to "strict discipline"?

Would the idea of making a complete new start cause you much concern?

Do you sometimes wonder if anyone really cares about you?

Would it take a definite effort on your part to consider the subject of suicide?

Do children irritate you?

Do you often feel depressed?

Do you often ponder over your own inferiority?

Do you have spells of being sad or depressed for no apparent reason?

…

It's 9am, and Laura looks at me with pity. She tells me I'm depressed, anxious and nervous. She has analysed the results from my personality test.

But there is a way for me to confront my problems: Scientology.

…

He slowly repeats: "Feel your chair. Thank you. Look at the front wall. Thank you. Feel your chair. Thank you. Look at the front wall. Thank you."

For a bizarre hour these are virtually the only words I hear. After half an hour, the man tells us to look at the walls, floor and ceiling and imagine them saying to us: "You have arrived."

We sit in silence for five minutes. Then it begins again - 30 more minutes of nothing except the man repeating: "Feel your chair. Thank you. Look at the front wall. Thank you."

…

I close my eyes as he asks me to regress to a negative incident in my life that I feel comfortable confronting. I'm encouraged to visualise everything around me and put myself back in space and time.

Scientologists believe this will "clear the engram" and I will have no more of the negative memories.

Afterwards I feel shaken, especially when I realise the session lasted one hour and 30 minutes - I'd guessed it was 30 minutes maximum.

It was an experience I won't volunteer for again. I didn't feel in danger at any point but it was deeply unsettling. By 6pm on my final day I am desperate to leave.

If this is true it seems to me like they are playing a dangerous game - it’s psychotherapy practiced by someone not necessarily qualified in the subject. I should think there are severe dangers in this, especially if you are dealing with people who have suffered genuine trauma in their lives and who have real psychological problems. Unfortunately those people are probably the ones least able to deal with Scientology’s manipulation, and most likely to fall under its spell.

Kennedy admits he’s not qualified to talk about vaccines or autism

Last night on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”, Robert F. Kennedy Junior admitted that he’s not qualified to talk about vaccines or autism:

“It’s not really my area”

… a crestfallen Kennedy admitted to host Jon Stewart. And despite repeated questioning by Stewart, Kennedy would not be drawn on why ABC’s autism special did not support Kennedy’s accusation of a link between autism and mercury in vaccines:

“I’ve no idea what happened”

… he said defensively, the desperation showing in his voice as he sidestepped why ABC did not buy into the scaremongering tactics of a lawyer, but had instead chosen to listen to the qualified scientists on the issue. However, instead of taking immediate steps to quell the panic instigated by his earlier dishonest article in Salon, Kennedy used the rest of the interview to cover his now admitted lack of expertise with some even more hysterical claims, including that 1 in 6 American children had become brain damaged due to vaccines.

Kennedy and his cohorts, many of them sincere, even idealistic, who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal, claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from autism. They are badly misguided. Now they have at last admitted they are not qualified, they should stop this dishonest campaign.

Post Script

If Kennedy or any of his supporters were to read the above article and compare the quotes with a full transcript of the interview, they might suggest that I had quote-mined the interview and reproduced those quotes out of context to prove my pre-conceived opinion. They would be right. Now they know how it feels. (And you can see how easy it is.)

In reality Kennedy repeated his usual crap, with a couple of new “facts” thrown in for good measure. Some of the low points:

It was “unnecessary to add (thimerosal) to the vaccines”

Not strictly true. Kennedy selectively chose to ignore the fact that thimerosal was a preservative, and that it actually had a purpose.

“Today, one in every six American children born (between 1989 and 2003) has some degree of neurological disorders”

Of course, no source was given for this statistic; I have no idea if it is true, although I’m skeptical. Kennedy didn’t actually say that 1 in 6 children had neurological disorders because of vaccines, but it was certainly implied given what they were discussing - very seriously dishonest.

There is “very strong science, really overwhelming science linking these autism rates to thimerosal in vaccines”.

What science could this be? Well, it couldn’t be this study that showed no link. Or this one. Or this comprehensive review of the literature. Could he be talking about the kind of flawed research the Geiers produce? Surely not.

“If you actually read the science which most journalists don’t do, the science is overwhelming that there is a link between the autism and the thimerosal.”

(My emphasis.)

(Damn, that’s another irony meter broken.)

“These people have been caught red handed conspiring to hide this information from the American people”.

Actually I’m getting really sick of this crap from Kennedy. He is presumably talking about the Simpsonwood conference which was an honest attempt by scientists to evaluate the science on the subject, not a cover-up as Kennedy claims. Or perhaps he’s talking about the IOM meeting which was another honest attempt to design the parameters of a study to get to the truth, not a cover up as Kennedy also alleged. Either way, Kennedy can’t claim any more that he doesn’t know that the Simpsonwood conference or he IOM conference weren’t conspiracies. He’s just lying.

All in all, it’s depressing that Kennedy can get airtime to present this stuff without the counter-position being made known too.

Skeptics’ Circle

The thirteenth Skeptics’ Circle is open at Orac Knows. Your Thursday reading – the best of the last two weeks’ skeptical blogging.

Google Moon

In honor of the 36^th anniversary of the first Moon landing, Google have introduced Google Moon Maps. These show the locations of the six Moon landings, but you must be sure to zoom in all the way for the full effect.

Btw, Google are hiring.

From Reason Online Hit & Run.

Prayer still useless

Why do they bother? Yet another group has performed a study into intercessory prayer and yet again has concluded that prayer doesn’t do anything:

Praying for patients undergoing heart operations does not improve their outcomes, a US study suggests.

A study found those who were prayed for were as likely to have a setback in hospital, be re-admitted, or die within six months as those not prayed for.

Duh! Numerous other studies have replicated this same (lack of) result. Praying doesn’t change anything, or only does when subjects thought they were in the prayer group (ie it is a placebo).

I’m not saying that there aren’t studies that show prayer has an effect. There have been several such studies, but eventually they are shown to be flawed, and/or when the controls are tightened the effect disappears, and/or they have been shown to be fraudulent. I give three examples below.

Byrd

One of the most frequently quoted “successful” studies was by Randolph Byrd of the San Francisco General Medical Center:

To evaluate the effects of IP (intercessory prayer) in a coronary care unit (CCU) population, a prospective randomized double-blind protocol was followed. Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU were randomized, after signing informed consent, to an intercessory prayer group (192 patients) or to a control group (201 patients).

[Snip]

The control patients required ventilatory assistance, antibiotics, and diuretics more frequently than patients in the IP group. These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU.

Byrd claimed that the prayer group did better than the control in six categories.

But there were severe methodological problems with this study. First, no significant differences were found among the other twenty categories being evaluated, including mortality, despite explicit prayers for prevention of death. Byrd had cherry-picked the six categories that happened to support his hypothesis and ignored the others.

Second, in looking at outcomes in those six categories that did support his conclusion, Byrd ignored the interrelationships between the categories. For example, the development of congestive heart failure automatically leads to the need for diuretics; the development of pneumonia automatically requires the use of antibiotics. Since these were not independent events he hadn’t really even reported success in six categories; three at most.

And third, there was no significant difference in length of recovery period, despite explicit prayers for a rapid recovery. This is what counts as success, apparently.

Harris / MAHI

A later study by the Mid America Heart Institute attempted to replicate Byrd, and claimed

Remote, intercessory prayer was associated with lower CCU course scores. This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.

However, it is clear that this study failed to replicate Byrd’s so-called positive data in the six categories in which Byrd had claimed success. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the prayer and control groups in length of CCU stay, total days hospitalized or deaths, thus, replicating Byrd's negative data. So this study can hardly be considered a success either.

Elizabeth Targ

The granddaddy of fraudulent prayer studies has to be Elizabeth Targ’s study in the Western Journal of Medicine that was funded by the National Institutes of Health's Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to the tune of $1.5 million. This study originally showed no effect, so the experimenters un-blinded the study, data mined it for something, anything, that would show prayer was a benefit, found something, changed the study to make it appear they had been looking for those things all along, re-blinded it, then published. As Wired reported:

Targ asked him to crunch the numbers on the secondary scores - one a measure of HIV physical symptoms, the other a measure of quality of life. These came out inconclusive; the treatment group didn't score better than the control. Not what they wanted to find. In dismay, Targ called her father. He calmed her down, told her to keep looking. She had Moore run the mood state scores. These came out worse - the treatment group was in more psychological stress than the control group. Same for CD4+ counts. Targ flew down to Santa Fe to attend a conference at a Buddhist retreat run by her godmother. When she called back to Moore's office, Sicher answered. Moore was crunching the last data they had, hospital stays and doctor visits. "Looks like we have statistical significance!" Moore announced. Sicher told Targ, who turned and yelled out to her friends and the conference.

Bingo.

Later that week, Moore met with an AIDS physician at California Pacific Medical Center. This doctor thought distant healing was bogus but agreed to give advice. He remarked that the length of hospital stays wasn't very meaningful. Patients with health insurance tend to stay in hospitals longer than uninsured ones. He pointed Moore to an important AIDS paper that had been recently published. It defined the 23 illnesses associated with AIDS. He told Moore they ought to have been measuring the occurrence of these illnesses all along. Moore took this list to Targ and Sicher. There was only one problem. They hadn't collected this data.

They gathered the medical charts and gave them to their assistant to black out the names of the patients. This done, Targ and Sicher began poring over the charts again, noting the data they hadn't previously collected. Since Sicher had interviewed many of these patients (up to three times), Moore worried Sicher could recognize them just by the dates they came to the hospital and what they were treated for. Sicher admitted he could (there were only 40). He had also seen which group each patient was assigned to, treatment or control, but he swore he didn't remember and maintained he was therefore impartial. (Sicher remembers this differently. He insists he couldn't recognize the patients from their charts and never knew which group each was in.) Targ told her boyfriend she was worried about Sicher's impartiality, but she took him at his word, even though Sicher was an ardent believer in distant healing, by his own frequent admission. He had put up the money himself for the pilot study ($7,500), had paid for the blood tests. He had a vested interest in the outcome.

This isn't what science means by double-blind. The data may all be legitimate, but it's not good form. Statisticians call this the sharpshooter's fallacy - spraying bullets randomly, then drawing a target circle around a cluster. When Targ and Sicher wrote the paper that made her famous, they let the reader assume that all along their study had been designed to measure the 23 AIDS-related illnesses - even though they're careful never to say so. They never mentioned that this was the last in a long list of endpoints they looked at, or that it was data collected after an unblinding.

(My bold.)

And that really is the best there is. Isn’t it about time we recognized that getting down on your knees and muttering platitudes to the invisible daddy in the sky doesn’t change anything, and stopped wasting time and money on these ridiculous studies? If there is a god, he doesn’t intervene in medical procedures based on the number of people who tell him how wonderful and powerful he is and who go on to ask for medical favors.

Trouble brewing for teapot sect

Here’s a good one. The Sky Kingdom is an inter-faith sect located in Malaysia. It claims to promote harmony between all of Malaysia's religious groups, but is better known for its giant structures – a vase, concrete boat, umbrella and its centerpiece - a pink teapot:

The two-storey-high teapot was apparently inspired by the dreams of one of the cult's followers, and reflects a similar vessel in the sky which God uses to shower his blessings on mankind. 

Followers who come to the village for the first time have to drink "holy water" pouring from a giant vase that is perpetually filled by the teapot.

Not sure why the umbrella. I would have thought giant milk and sugar bowls. Or maybe a giant cup, saucer and spoon. Anyway, religious authorities in Malaysia – an Islamic state - have outlawed the sect as a deviant cult. Well naturally.  You can see the problem - if this isn't stopped, before you know it there could be cucumber sandwiches. Or perhaps the authorities are just coffee drinkers. Either way the sect has seen troubles recently, including instructions to demolish the teapot , an arson attack, and a police raid:

Malaysian police have arrested 21 suspected followers of a religious sect called the Sky Kingdom.

They were arrested for possessing documents contrary to Islam, according to an official

They failed to detain the prime target – cult leader Ayah Pin – despite searching his three houses in the commune. (Apparently the cult is profitable even if it is failing to promote very much religious harmony.) In explanation, State Islam Hadhari Development Committee deputy chairman said:

We will investigate whether there was a leak

Investigate whether there was a leak?  Hahahaaa. Teapot - Leak. You can't make this stuff up.

Citizen Cain corrects Kirby

There’s a new blog in town: Citizen Cain looks at David Kirby’s claim in the Huffington Post:

For months now, a mantra of the thimerosal defenders has been as follows: “Mercury was removed from vaccines years ago, and we have not seen a drop in autism rates.”

It looks like they might have to find a new slogan.

Freshly reported numbers out of California show that new cases entering that state’s disability system (children who are three-to-four years old and newly diagnosed with autism) have indeed dropped since 2002, marking the first decline in new autism cases since California began tracking the mysterious disorder.

It’s not easy to see where Kirby gets his figures (he says “fresh numbers out of California”), but Cain uses the same California DDS that Kirby presumably used (except that Cain actually provides a link), to produce the following table:

It looks to me as though autism is rising slightly, not falling as Kirby claims. Citizen Cain comments:

As you can see, caseload in the 3-5 year old group increased during every quarter, at a fairly constant rate, even as exposure to mercury in vaccines was decreasing. Completely the opposite of the picture portrayed by Kirby! Moreover, caseload over this period increased by 38 percent among 3-5 year olds, but by only 34 percent among 6-9 year olds, although even by mid-2005 nearly all of the children in this category were born prior to 1999. If the thimerosal-autism theory were correct, caseloads should have been increasing faster in the 6-9 year old category, in which there has been essentially no change in thimerosal exposure, than among the 3-5 year old category, in which thimerosal exposure has plummeted.

So, if we’re going to trust the California data, it’s pretty clearly telling us that removing thimerosal from infant vaccines isn’t an effective way to reduce autism.

What Kirby is on about is anyone’s guess.

Cain ends with the hope that Kirby will now correct the record. Ha, I see that like me, he likes to end with a joke.

Good

Following up on this story, I learn today that Sir Roy Meadow has been struck off the British General Medical Council after having been found guilty of “serious professional misconduct”. Justice of a kind for the women who were wrongly convicted of murder by Meadow’s evidence.

Who’s afraid of Harry Potter?

Pope Rat is, apparently.  Or at least he was two years ago, when he wrote to one Gabrielle Kuby, author of Harry Potter - Good or Evil (sic):

...thanking her for sending him a copy of "your informative book". He said: "It is good that you are throwing light on Harry Potter, because these are subtle seductions that work imperceptibly, and because of that deeply, and erode Christianity in the soul before it can even grow properly."

Apparently Rat approved of Kuby’s argument that the Potter stories “blur the boundaries between good and evil and impair young readers' ability to distinguish between the two”

Bwahahaha!

First, a catholic priest is hardly the best person to complain to about "subtle seductions" of children  - they've been known to dabble themselves remember?  Secondly, as for blurring boundaries and impairing young readers' ability to distinguish between them, this is the perfect excuse to cite an article by The Chaser – something that I can only wish I had written:

Harry Potter fans warn against dangerous effects of Bible

OXFORD, Tuesday: A number of concerned British Harry Potter fans have spoken out against the Bible, claiming that the holy text of the Christian Church can cause serious damage to children. “Reading the Bible teaches children to believe in the supernatural,” said one English Literature academic from Oxford University, Lewis Williams. “The tales of Jesus turning water into wine are fairly harmless, but there is a serious risk of children drowning if they try to walk on water,” he said. “And the chance of serious bodily harm isn’t exactly minimised by that whole ‘resurrection-from-the-dead’ story either.”

Christians have responded that reading the Bible assists with literacy skills, but Williams rejects this idea too. “The Bible is only ever read in very small chunks, a few paragraphs at a time. It’s never read as a long sustained narrative like the Harry Potter series. Reading too much of the Bible promotes a very short attention span," he says.

Critics such as Williams warn that without appropriate parental guidance, reading the Bible may make children unable to enjoy quality children’s literature. “Enjoying books such as Harry Potter or the Narnia series requires the ability to suspend disbelief,” he said. “When children are taught that the Bible is absolutely literally true, and that a story like Noah’s Ark actually happened, the imagination is completely stifled – it’s very detrimental.”

Williams has also pointed out that some of the scarier elements in fantasy novels will really frighten children if they think they are true. “Some children may think that murderous Dark Wizards such as Voldemort (the villain of the Potter series) are actually real if they’ve been corrupted by Christians who believe that devils and magic actually exists,” he said.

Yeah. “Blur the boundaries between good and evil and impair young readers' ability to distinguish between the two” my ass.

SkepDic weighs in

Bob Carroll of the Skeptics’ Dictionary has weighed in with some interesting angles on Robert F. Kennedy’s scaremongering piece in Salon.

Carroll starts off examining the argument for protecting the vaccine industry against lawsuits, and highlights a problem with the use of lawsuits that he first wrote about (quoting Marcia Angel),with regard to silicone implants:

What causes this is the use of expert witnesses. The expert gives an opinion, and that becomes the evidence. Since they are hired by the adversaries, they get the most extreme people they can find. In science it's the opposite. It doesn't matter who you are; what matters are what your data say

What he’s saying is that the actual data will not matter in a lawsuit, once the lawyers get hold of it. That’s because courts of law are not about determining the truth, they are about advocates for opposing views presenting their case as strongly as possible. Carroll concludes the vaccine industry does need some protection against lawsuits.

Carroll also discusses the Simpsonwood conference, and touches on Kennedy’s out-of-context quote mining that Orac, Majikthise and I commented on before, and discusses the whole “conflict of interest” (non) issue.

Having looked at the detail, he then examines the broad question:

Is there any truth in Kennedy's article? There may well be but I am not going to waste my time tracking down every claim he makes since I already know that he has distorted some very important data and twisted facts to serve his purpose. There is no way to close this issue of mercury and autism. Whatever data is available can always be mined for some gem that supports the conspiratorial theory and there is always hope that some future study will provide some support for the causal belief. No study will ever be able to show with absolute certainty once and for all that thimerosal or any other substance does not cause autism in some people some of the time.

In the meantime, we must ask ourselves what is the likelihood that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the American Academy of Pediatrics have joined a drug cartel to dupe the public by agreeing that there is no evidence linking thimerosal and autism? Are we to believe, for example, that the WHO made it all up when they published the results of a study that examined the health records of 109,863 children born in Britain from 1988 to 1997 and found that children who had received the most thimerosal in vaccines had the lowest incidence of developmental problems like autism?* Or are we to believe the parents of autistic children who are desperately seeking a villain?

I wish I’d written that. Carroll then quotes at length a section he wrote on this subject over three years ago, and it is striking that he could just have well as written it today. A good read.

Vaccines – it’s the aliens stupid

A reader wrote to alert me to The Vaccine Aliens by Raymond W. Gallup. This is a book that:

…carries a message elemental, truthful and powerful. A rapid and ominous deterioration is taking place in the health of our children, of which the increasing incidence of childhood autism is just one of the markers.

Aaaagh! That’s right - it’s a science fiction story about a father whose son developed autism after getting the MMR vaccine. It tells how he and his friends stumble on shape-shifting aliens at a pharmaceutical company that want to destroy the human race with vaccines. It sounds like bad science fiction that I wouldn’t normally comment on (really bad sci-if is great – I love “Plan 9 From Outer Space”), but looking at the author’s links it seems he wants us to believe this is a well researched book based on truth. Shape shifting aliens who want to destroy the human race using vaccines that cause autism? Yeah, I can’t see why anyone wouldn’t think this isn’t truthful. And apparently the author claims this is a “unique and original story”.

Unique and original? Hardly. David Icke has already written about shape-shifting aliens, as well as vaccines and autism. This Gallup guy may be crazy but he has a whole long way to go before he even gets close to David Icke.

Anyway, I think I’ll skip the book and wait for the movie. It’ll star Tom Cruise (“vaccines are pseudo-science – here, take these vitamins”), with Robert F. Kennedy in a cameo as the tireless investigator exposing the truth.  I can barely wait.

Throw away that E

Vitamin E provides no protection against heart attacks, strokes or cancer, despite millions of people believing it does, a JAMA study shows:

Design, Setting, and Participants In the Women’s Health Study conducted between 1992 and 2004, 39,876 apparently healthy US women aged at least 45 years were randomly assigned to receive vitamin E or placebo and aspirin or placebo, using a 2 x 2 factorial design, and were followed up for an average of 10.1 years.

Intervention Administration of 600 IU of natural-source vitamin E on alternate days.

(Snip)

Conclusions The data from this large trial indicated that 600 IU of natural-source vitamin E taken every other day provided no overall benefit for major cardiovascular events or cancer, did not affect total mortality, and decreased cardiovascular mortality in healthy women. These data do not support recommending vitamin E supplementation for cardiovascular disease or cancer prevention among healthy women.

Vitamin E did nothing to reduce cardiovascular disease. There were 482 heart attacks or strokes in the group of women who received vitamin E compared with 517 in the placebo group – no significant difference.

The BBC, comments on the study:

The Harvard Medical School team said their trial was "the longest of any completed to date" to look at such trends and should, therefore, "be sufficient to detect long-term effects".

They go on to illustrate a confounding factor that may have previously led people to believe vitamin E actually did some good:

The researchers suggested that the fact that people who take vitamin supplements and eat food rich in vitamins tend to be generally more healthy anyway might explain why past work found a benefit with vitamin E.

This of course illustrates why such large double blind studies are needed to determine if a therapy has any benefit. Vitamin E has now been shown by this and earlier studies, to be of no benefit. In addition, high doses of vitamin E can actually be harmful. People should save their money.

A nominee comments

I get crazies posting comments at times, but the most wack to date has been one John Charles Webb, Jr. who posted comments here and here. You’ll note he made some grandiose claims but was unable to back any of them up (big surprise), except to point me to his website – a veritable maze of nonsense that he proudly claims “has been continually nominated for a Templeton Prize in Religion”. (Note “nominated”, not “won”. And as anyone can nominate anyone else for the prize… er, you get the idea.) Here’s a taste:

Noting that the Star of Bethlehem and the capstone of The Great Pyramid are both ancient astrological configurations, this site attempts to document discoveries that may provide solutions for mysteries that have puzzled humanity for eons.Astroarchaeologist John Charles Webb, Jr., has done extensive mathematical and astronomical research in order to identify the Star of Bethlehem and discover the birth date of Christ.

As far as I can tell, he applies some kind of numerology to prove when Jesus was born, and where the capstone of the great pyramid is located, and other such valuable information.

Don’t think about any of this too hard, but look at how he calculates when Jesus was born:

Mystical Pi and the precise Birth Chart of the biblical Jesus Christ 
To find the exact birth time of the biblical Jesus Christ, "pi" (3.141592654) is transposed to time. This same method is the one which I used to locate the Star of Bethlehem using "Egyptian Pi" (22/7).

3.141592654
transposes to
3 years - 14 months - 15 days - 92 hours - 65 minutes - 40 seconds
or
4 years - 2 months - 18 days - 21 hours - 5 minutes - 40 seconds
or
February 18th 5 BC at 9:05:40 PM

If I’m reading him correctly, he converts the value of Pi to a value of “time” (for no rational reason I can ascertain) and claims this value is the amount of time prior to 1 Jan 0001 Jesus was born (again, for no rational reason I can think of). He determines it would be 4 years - 2 months - 18 days - 21 hours - 5 minutes - 40 seconds prior to 01-01-0001. Hold on to that thought for a minute.

He calculates this date as February 18th 5 BC at 9:05:40 PM. But surely the 2 months - 18 days etc should be counted back from the end of the year (Dec 31,) to give a date in October - Oct 11, I think.  (I could be wrong here but I think that’s how you do it.) He’s taken 5 full years off and then added the 2 months - 18 days to arrive at Feb 18. Actually even that’s wrong – that way would be March 18 not February 18. What the hell, it makes no sense anyway.

And all this because I asked how was astrology was derived, to which he replied:

It was derived by the Chaldeans (Pre-Egyptians), practiced by The Magi (Sect of powerful High Priests) and the ancient Egyptians (Sun Worshippers). The most convincing evidence is encoded in The New Testament, Gospel of Matthew in the account of the birth of Christ which is synonymous with the "birth" of the Sun into a new Great Astrological Year (Age of Pisces).

Additional proof can be gleaned from the observed "fact" that the way that western astrology is presently practised (divination) is subject to much scorn and criticism.

Astrology is subject to much scorn and criticism – at last, one thing we both agree on!

Rushin to sue

I wasn’t going to comment on this but reader Matthew emailed me to say

Skeptico, please tell me you're not going to let this one go... Marina Bai, astrologist, is suing NASA because they crashed one of their probes into a comet, thus screwing up her horoscope! It would be a crime to let this loon go unfisked, don't you think?

Well yes it would, although I note Randi pretty much fisked her today (I hope that isn’t rude in some European language).

Personally, I hope she does sue. Of course, she would have to prove that her fortune changed due to some change in this comet. So she would have to prove what her fortune was before, what it is now and how they differ, ie she would have to prove astrology works. She could have trouble doing that since, as we know, astrology doesn’t work. In fact, we know that astrology is just made-up nonsense. Still, I await her attempt to prove otherwise in a court of law.

Reincarnation all over again

Last Thursday, ABC repeated its Primetime Thursday Special on Reincarnation, entitled “Back From the Dead”. This told the story of a little boy who appeared to be the reincarnation of an American World War II pilot shot down and killed by the Japanese. It seemed a pretty compelling story. From the ABC Primetime site:

From an early age, James would play with nothing else but planes, his parents say. But when he was 2, they said the planes their son loved began to give him regular nightmares.

"I'd wake him up and he'd be screaming," Andrea told "Primetime Live" co-anchor Chris Cuomo. She said when she asked her son what he was dreaming about, he would say, "Airplane crash on fire, little man can't get out."

Reality Check (sic)

Andrea says her mom was the first to suggest James was remembering a past life.

At first, Andrea says she was doubtful. James was only watching kids' shows, his parents say, and they weren't watching World War II documentaries or conversing about military history.

But as time went by, Andrea began to wonder what to believe. In one video of James at age 3, he goes over a plane as if he's doing a preflight check.

Another time, Andrea said, she bought him a toy plane, and pointed out what appeared to be a bomb on its underside. She says James corrected her, and told her it was a drop tank. "I'd never heard of a drop tank," she said. "I didn't know what a drop tank was."

(Snip)

Andrea says James told his father he flew a Corsair…

Looks pretty conclusive from the way it was presented on ABC, yes? Actually no. The TV company, looking for ratings rather than the truth, didn’t tell the full story. In particular, they missed this rather important piece of the timeline, as reported by the Pittsburgh Daily Courier:

At 18 months old, his father, Bruce Leininger, took James to the Kavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas, Texas, where the toddler remained transfixed by World War II aircraft.

A few months later, the nightmares began.

(My bold. Note: this information came from the child’s mother.)

According to the ABC special, the child “was only watching kids' shows… and they weren't watching World War II documentaries or conversing about military history”. Really? Yet somehow they forgot to mention the WORLD WAR II AIR MUSEUM he had visited. Sheesh! Don’t you think that revealing this information might have made a slight difference to the story?

It gets worse:

Andrea's mother suggested she look into the work of counselor and therapist Carol Bowman, who believes that the dead sometimes can be reborn.

With guidance from Bowman, they began to encourage James to share his memories — and immediately, Andrea says, the nightmares started to become less frequent. James was also becoming more articulate about his apparent past, she said.

(My bold.)

I’d like to suggest a slightly different version of this story that is entirely consistent with the facts, but doesn’t require us to believe the extraordinary claim of reincarnation.

It starts when this child’s parents take him to a WWII air museum. Now, the article says this was the “Kavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas”, but I presume it meant to say the Cavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas. And at this place they have on display a WWII Corsair (the plane James will later say he flew). According to the museum’s Corsair web page:

The famous gull-wing design of the F4U Corsair makes the plane one of the most distinctive fighters of World War II

This young boy, not unusually, is excited by the planes, and remembers the name of the distinctive Corsair he saw with the unusual gull-wing, plus many other details, including things his mother didn’t remember, such as these drop fuel tanks that are also displayed at the museum.

Naturally, this small boy was fascinated by warplanes and he remembered obscure details about them that his mother didn’t. Of course, he enjoyed showing off this knowledge to her, later.

However, although he was excited by the planes, the images of WWII battles also frightened him, and they soon began to give him nightmares about being trapped in a plane on fire.

This is when the real problem starts. The child’s grandmother, for no obvious rational reason I can think of, suggests he is remembering a past life. She brings in Carol Bowman (an author of several books on reincarnation), to “affirm” James' nightmares. (Bowman is said to have been influenced by Ian Stevenson – another reincarnation proponent who is known to ask leading questions of young children.) Bowman “encourages” James in his fantasies, also with leading questions. Unsurprisingly, the child cooperates in this fantasy building. After all, they’re telling him he was a real pilot.

The father then starts to research the story, obtaining and reading books on WWII fighter planes. While reading one of these books with his father, the child points to a picture of the distinctive Corsair he remembers from the museum and says, "that was my plane." At some point the child starts drawing pictures of planes, signing them "James 3" (his name is James).

During this time the parents buy him plane toys and read him plane books. From the TV program we know they bought him a toy plane big enough for him to sit in, and every shot showed him in pilot’s goggles or by a plane. Carol Bowman asked him leading questions and encouraged his fantasy at every turn.  Being a young child, he loved making up fantasies of being a pilot, to go with the toys he had been given. But they were just stories.

Admittedly there appear to be a couple of inexplicable hits. First, the child said he flew off a boat.  When asked the name of the boat he says "Natoma", and when asked the name of someone on the boat, he says "Jack Larson".  While flipping through another book on WWII, James points at Iwo Jima and says that's where he got shot down. The father discovers there was a boat called the Natoma Bay, and finds there was only one Corsair pilot from this ship who was shot down at Iwo Jima, and his name was James M. Huston Jr. (So now they have an explanation of the "James 3" he keeps writing on his pictures, since "3rd" would come after "Jr.".)  Also, John Larson turns out to be a real person who knew James M. Huston Jr.

But do these few apparent hits really need explaining? First, James is not an unusual name. Little James wrote his name on his pictures as most children would, but the “3” could mean anything (and we have no way of knowing if it was written before or after his father found out about James M. Huston Jr.).
Edited to add:

As pointed out by Tim in the comments below, James had just had his third birthday, so it is hardly surprising that he started to sign his pictures “James 3”; at least, we now have a prosaic explanation for “James 3”. And as another person commented, James the third should be written “James III” not “James 3”.  In summary: "James 3" means nothing.

“Natoma” is the name of a ship he could no doubt have seen in one of his father’s books. But “Natoma” is not quite “Natoma Bay” - and did he say “Natoma” or just something similar? We’ll never know. Only “John Larson” can’t be explained easily. But even with this we really don’t know:

• If James really said these words
• If he was prompted
• If he said it after his father had read the name to him, and the father’s timeline is confused
• If he said something close that the father mis-remembered later when he read the name John Larson
• How many other things the kid said over the course of four plus years that did not match up but that the parents have forgotten

Considering how his mother has apparently “forgotten” about the museum visit that started the whole thing off, I am disinclined to take either of James’ parents’ word for it that the child “remembered” these items exactly as claimed. This is hardly extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

Paul Kurtz chairman of the Center for Inquiry and CSICOP, was briefly featured on the program saying he thinks the parents are self-deceived: “They're fascinated by the mysterious and they built up a fairy tale". Yes, that sounds quite possible. Following this, a TV company interested more in ratings than the truth makes a sensationalist program about it, conveniently forgetting to mention the museum trip that actually started the whole thing off. And so another legend is born, to be added to the literature that supposedly shows reincarnation really happens, to be repeated ad nauseam by believers. Yawn.

Edited to add:

According to this source, James Huston was shot down in a FM2 Wildcat, not a Corsair as little James “remembers”:

From July to September of 2000, James began to tell his parents that the plane in his nightmares was shot down by the Japanese after it had taken off from a ship on the water. When James was asked if he knew who the pilot was, he simply replied “James.”

Andrea asked James what type of plane he was flying in his dreams, and he said it was a “Corsair.”

(Snip)

After vigorously checking into the squadron’s aircraft action records, [James’ father] found out that Huston was shot down in a FM2 Wildcat fighter plane – not a Corsair.

(My emphasis.)

Which is the more prosaic explanation:

1. James Huston was shot down in a Wildcat, and would only have had traumatic memories of being shot down / unable to get out of his Wildcat, yet inexplicably his reincarnated soul remembers being shot down in the Corsair, or
2. Little James only remembered the distinctive Corsair from the museum, and so only made up stories about the Corsair?

I suggest that people insisting in option 1 above are unnecessarily choosing the less parsimonious explanation.

The 12th Skeptics’ Circle is up

And up early! And a little unusual this time:

The Skeptic's Circle Saloon was unlike any bar I'd ever been in. For one thing it was cool. Some gadget that old Nate - St. Nate to his friends - had cooked up to circulate air across one of them big blocks of ice and pump it through the room. St. Nate had a deal worked out with the iceman in town. Free rye as long as he kept the cooler box filled with ice. There were tables, but they were low and the chairs were low-slung and padded. Comfortable-like.

Line em up Brent! In a dirty glass!

Salon on Scientology

Salon, perhaps hoping to redeem itself after publishing Robert F. Kennedy Junior’s dishonest mercury/autism piece, has published a series of four articles exposing Scientology. You’ll need a subscription (although I believe you can get a temporary day pass), but it is a worthwhile read.

The first piece is on Tom Cruise himself – his history with Scientology and why he is speaking out so much now:

Cruise is acting as though he "feels he's more in control over his environment and can convince more people to look into the organization," Kent said. "In the high OT levels one supposedly gains the skills to master one's universe. One is removing countless entities that have been holding people back. Cruise feels that he has freed himself from thousands of errant thetans, and he seems to be in a kind of euphoria he hasn't experienced before."

The “thetans” referred to above are the souls of dead aliens that supposedly inhabit us all, and that Scientology can help remove. This section contains some interesting insights on the cult and Cruise’s level within it (supposedly “Operating Thetan (or OT) VII”). Apparently Hubbard decreed that Scientologists are not allowed to discuss what they're learning with lower members, or even with each other, so Katie Holmes will not learn any of this from Tom.

My favorite is the second piece, a review of the Dianetics book, Hubbard’s foundation of Scientology. This review contains some very good writing (unlike “Dianetics”, apparently), and takes Hubbard’s book apart in a very amusing way. Some excerpts:

The first thing you notice about "Dianetics" is that it is spectacularly dull. L. Ron Hubbard promises, in this seemingly endless treatise, that his "modern science of mental health" will cure everything from schizophrenia to arthritis, claims for which he presents no credible evidence whatsoever -- unless you consider merely insisting that you've got evidence to be the same thing as offering it. But I am here to testify that "Dianetics" is a phenomenal remedy for at least one widespread affliction: insomnia.

(Snip)

"Dianetics" begins with a stern admonition: "Important Note: In reading this book, be very certain that you never go past a word you do not fully understand. The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood." This seems a bit punctilious, as everyone knows that one of the main ways people learn the meanings of new words is by hearing or reading them in context. Since only a few pages later, we're promised that only "basic language" will be used in "Dianetics," how tough is this going to be?

Alas, it is not only individual words that can cause confusion. Perfectly clear words can be dragooned into sentences so grammatically torturous and incoherent that any meaning once inhabiting those words runs screaming from the wreckage. Context only helps you figure out a word's definition when the context itself makes sense, and in "Dianetics," it often doesn't. Still, there's a certain twisted panache to preemptively scolding your readers for not trying hard enough to grasp your point before you bedevil them with logic-defying exercises in the hanging modifier and the passive voice. You don't get it? That's because you didn't look up enough words! What did I tell you, idiot?

The reviewer concludes that Hubbard was a very disturbed man.

The third piece is entitled, the press vs. Scientology. It discusses earlier attempts by Scientology to muzzle the press through aggressive lawsuits, and contrasts the way it tries to present a positive image to the press these days.

The final piece is about Scientology's war on psychiatry, which exposes how Scientology aims to expand through Narconon - its pseudo-scientific drug rehabilitation program. Getting schools to agree to these programs is key to this plan, and Narconon representatives have given lectures on drug prevention to millions of students. Unfortunately Narconon actually doesn’t work because it is based on completely false premises on how drugs act on the body:

According to the Scientology handbook, "Answers to Drugs," the core treatment for those who abuse drugs like marijuana, Ecstasy or cocaine is sweating out drug residuals and other toxins by taking saunas and jogging. Remedies also include the B-complex vitamin niacin, oils and other minerals, a detoxification service which "is available under expert supervision in Scientology organizations and missions around the world."

In the past year, thanks in part to a series of articles by Nanette Asimov in the San Francisco Chronicle, city officials and school districts in California have taken a closer look at the Narconon curriculum. In a letter to the San Francisco Unified School District, Steve Heilig, director of health and education for the San Francisco Medical Society, wrote: "One of our reviewers opined that 'this [curriculum] reads like a high school science paper pieced together from the Internet, and not very well at that.'"

A study by the California Healthy Kids Research Center for the California Department of Education established that Narconon imparts inaccurate information. Narconon's discredited teachings include the pronouncements that drugs burn up the body's vitamins and minerals, that these vitamin deficiencies cause pain (which prompts more drug use), that rapid vitamin and nutrient losses cause the "munchies" among pot smokers, and that drugs build up in fat tissue and spur flashbacks and a hunger for more drugs.

"This theoretical information does not reflect current evidence that is widely accepted and recognized as medically and scientifically accurate," the study found.

School administrators need to be aware of the dangerous and pseudo-scientific nature of Narconon, and its real purpose which is to attract more members to the cult. Already the California State Superintendent has recommended a ban on Narconon, and San Francisco and Los Angeles school districts have outlawed it. One hopes other districts will realize what Narconon is and ban it too.

Psychics fail to find girl

A waitress recognized her instead:

The father of an 8-year-old girl, missing in the aftermath of a triple homicide at her mother's house six weeks ago, was reunited with his daughter Saturday, hours after she was found alive in a Denny's restaurant with a convicted sex offender.

(Snip)

Wolfinger said Coeur d'Alene police received a call from the Denny's restaurant about 2 a.m.

Several people in the restaurant said they immediately recognized the girl, whose picture has been widely circulated in the media.

No psychic was able to cut short this girl’s misery by alerting authorities to her whereabouts. They must be all looking for that teen in Aruba. (Oh wait, they haven’t found her either.)

Titanium necklace improves your baseball

Reader Carmen sent me this link to a New York Times story on Titanium necklaces being worn by baseball players. At $23 a pop, these are made of nylon, coated in a titanium solution that the manufacturer claims helps improve circulation and reduce muscle stress.

So how do they work? This from Scott McDonald, who is selling them:

Everybody has electricity running through their bodies… This product stabilizes that flow of electricity if you're stressed or tired. Pitchers are seeing that they aren't as sore. Injured players are seeing that they recover faster from workouts. People are always skeptical, but when they try it, they become believers.

Bwahahaha, this is the same logic used by people who say that our bodies are 90% water, and the moon causes tides, so astrology must work. Yes, but there’s just no freaking connection. So what if we do have electricity running through our bodies? How does that translate to a piece of metal round my neck “stabilizing electricity” (if “stabilizing electricity” even meant anything, which it doesn’t)? And why titanium? Wouldn’t copper conduct better?

It’s claimed these are being worn by 200 major leaguers and 80 percent of Japanese players. They sound like a pretty gullible lot, apparently rubbing snake oil on their arms and smearing mascara under their eyes too. Why do they do that, by the way? Anybody know? Someone told me it was to stop from being dazzled by reflected sunlight, but that doesn’t make sense either.

The NYT didn’t even suggest these things might not work, and I have to assume it’s because the article was tongue in cheek. Even so, I do believe Phiten® Titanium products mean us to take them seriously:

Phiten® Titanium products promote pain relief and performance enhancement. Titanium emits energy that is effective in controlling the flow of bioelectric current. When this current is stabilized, the muscles relax and blood circulation increases, allowing for easier movement and pain relief. All Phiten® products help relieve pain in muscles and joints by improving the alignment of ions, especially at the body's crucial motor points. Our product is also effective in the temporary relief of pain from bursitis, sciatica, tendonitis, certain types of arthritis and numberous other conditions.

Aaah, it improves the alignment of ions – of course, if ions are involved it must be real. Hey, I do believe this product would qualify for Randi’s $Million. Perhaps readers would like to Email Phiten to ask them if they want to apply? I’ll publish any replies here.

A little lower please, and tighter.