Skeptico

Genetically modified cassava

You know how anti-GM organizations like Greenpeace like to say that GM foods don’t help feed the hungry, don’t increase yields, aren’t necessary and so on? It gets a little tiresome. They remind me of how Laura Bush defended the decision to limit embryonic stem cell research because cures from such research were not just “around the corner”. As I think Jon Stewart said at the time – “so that means we shouldn’t start looking?”

Fortunately GM research is producing higher yields. As I learned from Hit & Run, the Ohio State University has modified cassava plants to produce roots over 2½ times the normal size:

The findings could help ease hunger in many countries where people rely heavily on the cassava plant (Manihot esculenta) as a primary food source, said Richard Sayre, the study's lead author and a professor of plant cellular and molecular biology at Ohio State University.

The researchers used a gene from the bacterium E. coli to genetically modify cassava plants. The plants, which were grown in a greenhouse, produced roots that were an average of 2.6 times larger than those produced by regular cassava plants.

“Not only did these plants produce larger roots, but the whole plant was bigger and had more leaves,” Sayre said. Both the roots and leaves of the cassava plant are edible.

Cassava is the primary food source for more than 250 million Africans – about 40 percent of the continent's population. And the plant's starchy tuberous root is a substantial portion of the diet of nearly 600 million people worldwide.

(My bold.)

And a separate study published in the July issue of Plant Biotechnology Journal as reported in SciDev.Net has produced a cassava immune to a devastating virus:

Researchers have used genes from a virus that periodically devastates cassava crops in Africa to create cassava plants that can resist the virus. The finding could save African farmers large economic losses.

African cassava mosaic virus is transmitted to cassava by whiteflies when they feed on the plant. In parts of East and Central Africa, epidemics of the disease can lead to total losses of harvests.

So far, the only way to fight the virus is by using massive doses of insecticide to kill whiteflies. But this can be prohibitively expensive for subsistence farmers and can threaten their health and that of surrounding plants and animals.

(My bold.)

Apparently the virus’ RNA can be inactivated (thus preventing replication of the cell) when an engineered matching RNA strand is made to bind to it.

In tests, when the plants were exposed to small amounts of the virus, the researchers could see no signs of disease, suggesting their theory was verified.

Of course, field experiments will be needed to confirm the effectiveness of this technique, but it seems like a good start.

So, let’s review. Using genetic engineering it appears we may be able to increase the yields of a staple food, in an area where people are hungry, by 2½ times, and we may be able to reduce the need for expensive and unhealthy insecticides. (Admittedly not both in the same actual plant, as yet.) Perhaps we will now stop hearing about how GM does not produce higher yields, and how GM means poor farmers suffer. No? I don’t think so either.

Secretary to the dead

That’s what Allison DuBois claims she is – “I'm a secretary to the dead. I take notes and I pass them on. I'm a bridge”. These mixed metaphors brought to you courtesy of last Monday’s Paula Zahn Now.

Unlike some of her colleagues on CNN, Zahn at least tries to give the skeptical side some airplay, although in an extremely courteous way and with a major concession to the credulous that I’ll cover at the end. But first, let’s have a look at DuBois’ customary claims. From the transcript:

ZAHN: …One of the first cases that DuBois says she worked on, which also became the pilot episode for "Medium," was the abduction of a six-year-old girl in Texas.

DUBOIS: Where she was abducted from, I was taken right to that house.

ZAHN: DuBois says she was contacted by the Tarrant County sheriff's office in conjunction with the Texas rangers. Law enforcement had convicted a man for kidnapping the girl, but had not been able to find the child's remains.

DUBOIS: And they drove me by the car that he had switched into after he had abducted the child… I put there was horseback riding near back stables. And then I put the horses get spooked in the areas of this child's remains. I also kept seeing small planes, so there had to be a landing strip nearby.

ZAHN: DuBois says she also told investigators that the remains of the child would be found within five years of the girl's disappearance. The child's remains were found four years and nine months after her abduction. Authorities say on the side of a horseback riding trail, in an area next to a military air base. DuBois points to these elements, among others as proof she was able to give useful information to the rangers.

Even if all this were true, it seems to me this is pretty underwhelming. If DuBois really was psychic and could see these things, why didn’t she direct law enforcement to the location of the body? By her own account the body was not found based on DuBois’ information, it was found some years later, so what use was DuBois really? And that’s even if her story were true. But as The Two Percent Company found, DuBois’ claim was not true. They asked the Texas Rangers about this claim, and they replied “the Rangers have not used psychics, including Ms. DuBois”.

To Zahn’s credit she does bring this up with DuBois:

But despite DuBois's claims, the Texas rangers deny ever having worked with her.

(on camera): We couldn't find one single person within the Texas rangers who would even admit to having talked with you. They said never happened.

DUBOIS: I know. The last thing they wanted was for it to be made national or world news where they have to answer for it.

ZAHN (voice-over): But a member of the Tarrant County sheriff's office did confirm part of DuBois's story. Sergeant Bobby Adabere (ph) told us that he not only met with DuBois about the case, but that he was put in contact with her through the Texas rangers.

DUBOIS: I wasn't lying I guess is what it tells you.

ZAHN (on camera): But Sergeant Adabere (ph) also downplayed your efforts. He ended up saying that any information you gave him was pretty darn generic and wasn't that helpful.

Also to her credit there was a brief snippet with Joe Nickell, explaining how “psychics” fit their generic guesses to the facts. But why did she have to spoil a reasonable attempt to report on this with integrity, by ending with:

ZAHN: We've got one more thing to add here. We did speak with another well-placed law enforcement official in Phoenix who said DuBois's information has helped on at least a half dozen cases. Her employer, though, wouldn't allow us to identify her, but this is exactly what she told us. "DuBois has been specific enough in details that it seems impossible that she would know this information any other way."

So just because this unnamed person, who can’t be questioned, says she can’t see how DuBois would have known what she remembers DuBois as knowing – just because this one person couldn't figure it out - DuBois must be psychic. The problems with this statement must be obvious. We don’t know:

• If this anonymous person is telling the truth.
• What it is she claims DuBois knew. They could have been generic guesses and there could have been many wrong guesses the woman has forgotten about.
• If she remembers correctly what really happened. Just ask Elizabeth Loftus – memories are unreliable.
• What other explanations there could be for DuBois knowing things that this person is just too credulous or unimaginative to think of. Just look at John Edward’s lame guesses that seem to fool callers on Larry King.
• What other ways DuBois would have of knowing things.

In other words, Zahn went for ratings at the end.  Lame.

How come Randi’s million hasn’t been won?

That’s what I was wondering this morning while reading this article about psychic powers:

More than half of Britons believe in psychic powers such as mind-reading and premonitions, a survey suggests.

Of 1,006 adults polled for Readers Digest Magazine, 43% reported reading others' thoughts or having theirs read.

More than half had had a dream or premonition of an event before it happened and 26% said they had sensed when a loved-one was ill or in trouble.

A fifth said they had seen a ghost and 29% believed near-death experiences were evidence there was an afterlife.

Of those questioned, 43% claimed to have tapped into other people's thoughts or to have had their own minds read by someone else.

Mind power

More than two-thirds said they could sense when someone was looking at them and 62% could tell who was ringing before they picked up the phone.

More than 10% thought they could influence machinery or electronic equipment using their minds.

One in 10 said something bad had happened to another person after they had wished for it to happen.

(My bold.)

With all those people who can tap into the minds of others, sense when someone was looking at them, or influence machinery with just their minds, it’s Amazing! (haha) that Randi still has his million. Think about it: surely at least one of these psychic prodigies would by now have applied for and easily won all that money?

35th Skeptics’ Circle by a guest blogger

This Skeptics’ Circle is a little different this time from the ones you’ve seen before. Readers of this blog on Monday will know that a creationist called Kennesaw Williams has started a new blog with the handle “Skeptico” and the url of http://skeptico.blogspot.com/ He’s even leaving creationist comments on other blogs as Skeptico. Since I posted that link on Monday his blog has received several comments from fellow skeptics (none favorable to him – thanks for the support by the way), and he doesn’t seem to have posted anything on his blog since.

Well, Orac suggested that since this guy so clearly wants to be Skeptico, I should give him the opportunity to be post on the real Skeptico site – so I asked him to guest blog the Skeptics’ Circle this time. The result is below.

Now, I did explain to Mr. Kennesaw that to avoid confusion, he couldn’t call himself “Skeptico” on this blog. He reluctantly agreed, although he didn’t like my original suggestion of Jackass (too rude). He agreed to the more polite Donkey, which is close enough. Remember, Donkey is a creationist, and so his views may seem a little strange to anyone who is used to the regular Skeptics’ Circle. But give him a chance - the actual featured skeptics’ posts are better than ever, I promise you.

Anyway, enough from me. Without further ado I give you Kennesaw Williams, aka Donkey, with the 35^th Skeptics’ Circle.

Well thanks Skeptico. I’ll try to live up to the trust you have placed in me.  It was a lot of work reading over 40 posts from skeptical bloggers, but well worth the effort. I’ll just start at the top and work through to the end.

For the first post, I thought I would feature Stew of A Night on the Tiles, who has invented a new form of “woo” (I believe that’s the word) in Palmistry, Numerology, Astrology: Bullshit. It’s the ancient art of Bracchiumism or wrist-reading. You multiply the number of wrist lines by 15 (since the number 15 is sacred), and add that to the number of lines created by the curve of the thumb, to divine the person’s fortune. At first I was outraged by this as Bracchiumism is clearly the work of the Devil, but then Skeptico pointed out that the article is a spoof. I now realize it’s pretty funny – you got me Stew!

Perhaps Stew should consider registering Bracchiumism.com (it’s available) or even wrist-reading.com (ditto). As Skeptico (the real one) wrote in Astrology.Con (not a typo), the owner of Astrology.Com sold her business for $40 million! Astrology may be useless but it’s clearly not entirely worthless.  Skeptico wonders if his www.skeptico.net could be worth millions – I doubt it since my new donkey site is clearly far superior. Dream on Skeptico.

Did I say astrology was useless? Einzige at Die Eigenheit compares Astrology with the investment advice given by a real estate investment “guru” in John Burley's Advice vs. Astrology and finds it’s hard to tell the difference: ie they’re both useless. What a shocker! I knew astrology was nonsense – if astrology was real God would have written about it in The Bible, wouldn’t he? But you’re telling me I can’t trust online investment advice now?

Mark at Good Math, Bad Math (well which is it Mark – good math or bad math? It can’t be both can it?), debunks some Gematria (the ancient Hebrew system of numerology), in Magic 23. (You thought Bracchiumism made no sense – this is worse because it is not a joke! – truly the work of the Devil.) Then in RePEARing Bad Math he explains in words even a simple creationist can understand, what is wrong mathematically-speaking, with the data produced by the Global Consciousness Project coming out of PEAR. Mark, I could have told you that without all the pointed-headed “math” stuff – God doesn’t bother himself with random number generators, now does he?

At least Unsolicited Opinions knows if he’s writing about good math or bad math. Bad math, he says. In Illegal Immigration, the Economy, and Statistics he addresses the claim that economists are "useless" on immigration – specifically, can they correctly calculate the effect of illegal immigration on jobs? A bit over my head, to be honest, but I’m sure a math genius like William Dembski would understand it. Perhaps I’ll email him the link.

The Science Creative Quarterly (silly title because it’s a daily), has an article skeptical of the possibility of space travel: Hollywood Vs. Science: How Far Are We From Interstellar Travel? Hollywood’s version of space travel isn’t real? Say it ain’t so Scotty!

Ben Goldacre at Bad Science has found newspaper stories claiming electromagnetic fields cause illnesses. In Factors that risk being left out of the equation, Ben highlights two things the newspapers left out of their stories, namely the evidence (and by that he means there isn’t any), plus a very crucial nuance that he explains. Then in I have nothing to declare but my cheekiness he explains why living close to a cell phone mast would actually make you safer from EMF. Now that is cheeky! God doesn’t like a smartass, Ben.

In a related story, The Second Sight explains that the current Mobile Phone Towers Cause Cancer scare in Australia couldn’t possibly be down to coincidence, since in the woo world coincidences don’t exist. Quite right – everything happens because God wills it – what’s the matter with you people?

Remember the guy who thinks a comet is going to hit the Earth on May 25^th? That’s today! Put on your tin hats, or alternatively read Phil Plait The Bad Astronomer in Comet what may (groan – make that the Bad Punner – although not as bad as Skeptico!), who explains that it won’t and why there would not be a tsunami even if it did. Then in NASA denies comet will destroy the Earth!, he reports that, well, NASA denies a comet will destroy the Earth. Hey, isn’t that proof of a conspiracy? Of course, I know why you heathens want to debunk end of times predictions – you know that you won’t be one of the selected ones to be taken to Heaven when Jesus returns. Well, if today is the end of times as predicted by Revelations, I’ll be in heaven with Jesus and you won’t, so send your complaints to Mr. Phil-smarty-pants-bad astronomer, not me. (Skeptico just informed me that should be Dr. Phil-smarty-pants-bad astronomer, but I don’t care – he’s still going to hell.)

You’ll also need to talk to The Saga of Runolfr, (“Runolfr”? – what the hell kind of name is that? Were you short of vowels that day or something?), because in The End of the World As We Know It he says pretty much the same as Phil. So you really didn’t add much did you Runolfr?  Wouldn’t your time have been better spent reading your Bible instead?

Talking about conspiracies, Daylight Atheism writes Loose Marbles I: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - the first of a three-part series debunking "Loose Change", a conspiracy documentary claiming the September 11 terror attacks were planned and carried out by the U.S. government. (Loose change / Loose marbles – now that’s a good pun.) As he says, the film “was characterized by corruptions of logic, appeals to missing or dubious evidence, wild speculation blended with selectively presented fact, and other hallmarks of the irrationality that pervades most conspiratorial thinking”. Standard woo, in other words. Well of course George W. Bush couldn’t have been involved in 9/11 – he’s a Christian.

Halfway There describes the rather strange bowel movement advice he caught watching an infomercial late at night, in the aptly named Garbage in, garbage out! Apparently if your bowel movements are fewer in number than the number of meals you eat, the difference just stacks up inside you every day of your life. Unlikely in my view – we’ve all been perfectly designed by God in His image, and God wouldn’t have made a mistake like that, now would he? Read your Bible next time instead of watching the late night TV.

Respectful Insolence reports that proponents of taking daily vitamins criticized their opponents for ignoring less scientifically rigorous studies, in Too much sciency-ness for the vitamin industry? Of course we all know that alternative medical practitioners want us to consider less scientifically rigorous studies, but this is the first time I’ve ever heard one of them say it out loud. Orac goes on to warn against comparing holocaust denial with evolution denial in Intelligent design activists make hay out of the Larry Darby case. Well for once I agree with one of these pointed-headed science types – Intelligent Design is perfectly good and valid science, while holocaust denial is just wrong. Also, Hitler was an atheist and a Darwinist, so the comparison with Intelligent Design makes no sense at all.

But then Sergey at Holocaust Controversies has to spoil it by taking the opposing view in Evolution denial, Holocaust denial. Same stuff, if you ask me. Sergey argues that, er, evolution denial and holocaust denial are the same stuff if you ask him. Actually no one asked you, did they Sergey? But at least he does goes on to debunk the bogus “challenge” of The National Association of Forensic Criminologists, Archeologists, Skeptics and Historians ™ (aptly shortened to NAF CASH - seriously), in Ah, these CODOH "gentlemen"... And NAFCASH. Despite what the self-proclaimed “Skeptics” of NAFCASH claim, Treblinka really was a death camp.

Jim at If it is it doesn't matter casts a skeptical eye on studies that claim to show sexual preference is genetic, in Born gay or misbegotten studies: 1 Ill-fitting Genes. Jim says that the same methodology could just as easily be used to show that there are genetic causes for the differences between Yankee fans and Mets fans. Jim doesn’t tell us if he is a Mets or a Yankee fan, but he does tell us he’s bisexual, so he’ll be going to hell unless he repents. Take Jesus as your personal savior Jim while there’s still time. (Preferably before that comet hits today.)

We Christians, bolstered by the fuss over the Mohammed cartoons, just love telling the rest of you heathens that you must respect our sacred beliefs (Edit by Skeptico – he means “delusions”). The latest hero in the war for values is a Roman Catholic cardinal whose human rights have clearly been violated by The Da Vinci Code! Ophelia at Butterflies and Wheels has the temerity to disagree with him in Threat Threat Threat Bless You. Skeptico tells me Ophelia’s piece pokes some serious fun at the Cardinal’s “ludicrous” attitude. OK, whatever – she’s going to hell with Phil, Sergey and the rest of them so why do I care?

It seems woos get away easily with passing off their delusions on the public. Be Lambic or Green writes in Justice was not done how “psychic surgeon” Alex Orbito had his fraud and possession charges dropped because “there was not a reasonable prospect of conviction”. Psychic surgery is the work of the Devil, for sure. Sadly, knowing that woos sit on juries too, I could easily believe he would get away with it, but his day for judgment will come in the next life, don’t worry. (It could even be today – that comet, remember?)

Polite Dissent looks at the extraordinary claims of Masuru Emoto in Seven Soldiers: Frankenstein #3 and Pseudoscience. Emoto’s claims that water can recognize words taped to water jars have never been tested in blind conditions and have never been replicated. And yet Emoto’s work was featured in that wonderful masterpiece of scientific reporting, “What the Bleep Do We Know!? Surely that film wasn’t nonsense too? (Oh wait, Skeptico says yes it was.)

A key skill of skepticism and critical thinking is to know logical fallacies – don’t employ them yourself, and recognize them in your opponent’s arguments. Bronze Dog at Rockstars' Ramblings is a regular commenter on Skeptico’s blog, tirelessly pointing out the numerous fallacies employed by certain commenters. Here he punctures three more fallacies. First, the accusation that he only argues because he’s bitter and/or jealous: Doggerel #2: "You're Just Jealous!", followed by Doggerel #3: "You're Just a [Insert Evil Organization] Shill!". As Bronze Dog points out, the motives of the arguer have no bearing on whether the argument presented is correct or not. (Technically these are both ad hominem.) Also he writes Doggerel #4: "Closed-minded" and points out it’s not closed minded to reject claims that are not supported by evidence. This Bronze Dog sounds like a real know-all, if you ask me.

Talking of fallacies, Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant points out the numerous Straw Man, Appeal To Consequences and other flawed arguments used in Rabbi Avi Shafran’s rant against atheists, in Reply to a Rabbi's Ignorance. Of course, atheists are evil, but then the Jews killed our Lord Jesus (according to Mel Gibson, and he wouldn’t lie), so I’m 50/50 on this one.

Moderately Insane provides tips in debating woos in How to Argue with Snipers. By snipers I think he means the sort of people who argue with great scientists such as Michael Behe. Thanks for the tips – I might email Michael with the link.

At last I can report on some people who have a good grip on reality and scientific facts. Clark at Unintelligent Design (an oxymoron if there ever was one), in At Least it Wasn't During Rounds..... tells a heart lifting story of two nurses discussing the facts of Noah’s Ark. Of course, Clark spoils it by questioning the whole Ark story. Ridiculous – if there was no Ark, how did the animals survive? Got you there. Anyway, since the actual Ark was discovered in Turkey recently, the flood story has been proven beyond any doubt. I guess Clark will be joining Sergey, Phil and Ophelia.

The mercury-causes-autism crowd rarely lets fact get in the way of their opinions. Not Mercury writes in Low Dose Nonsense about a conference exploring numerous evidence-challenged autism “theories”. (Well, if they’re just “theories” not facts, why should we take any notice of them? I could have saved you a lot of time there.) One by one the papers to be presented at this conference are professionally debunked. Strangely, the autistic child of (one of the presenters) Grandmother/Sex therapist/autism expert/author, Jaquelyn McCandless, is a “non responder” – ie none of the DAN therapies work on her child. Note: the child is to blame, not the DAN therapies. Oh no.

Interverbal writes Doing the Job for Ourselves: Logical Fallacies in Autism – fallacies employed by the mercury-causes-autism crowd numbers 59 to 68! What is it with you skeptics and logical fallacies? 68?

Then Tara Smith at Aetiology (“Aetiology”? Come on – you’re just making up words now), remarks how the news didn’t really publicize recent research that suggests mercury fillings are not dangerous, despite the original scares being well publicized. (So scientists were wrong about mercury fillings were they? When will these “scientists” ever make up their minds?) In Mercury and mythology she speculates that there might be the same lack of coverage in the future when it is shown that mercury is not causing autism. That’s if Jesus doesn’t come back first.

Hot Cup of Joe is skeptical of the claims that life-saving fire-retardant materials are being banned unnecessarily due to over-zealous environmentalists. In Health Facts and Fears: pseudoscience from a pseudo-skeptic? he explains that there actually may be dangers with the materials being discussed, and that there are alternatives anyway. Hey, I don’t care how much flame retardant clothing you wear, nothing is going to protect you from the eternal flames of hell!

ChemJerk (what a rude name!) tells us in More on critical thinking that you can get students interested in critical thinking. He set his students the task of reading and writing a review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World, and received positive feedback from some students. Hey, wait until you hear back from all your students ChemJerk – the righteous ones will not be amused about being made to read about demons.

Finally, we get to the best bit – Evolution v. Intelligent Design. Since I got interested in this subject about a month ago, I’ve become quite expert on the subject. For example, I just read Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and dude it’s awesome!  Michael Behe is a real scientist and he totally debunks Darwinism in this book. You see, Behe found out that some things are so irreducibly complex they just couldn’t have evolved like Darwin said, and so he’s proved all those other scientists wrong. Anyway, of all the posts in this Circle I couldn’t wait to read the ones on this subject to debunk them. Here goes.

We start with Thoughts From Kansas. In Gandhi, Galileo, and the millions of people you never heard of he punctures those who quote Gandhi’s “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” line. He points out that many great ideas started out being mocked, but so did many awful ideas. The ones that ultimately won were those that could marshal the necessary evidence and empirical support. I think he means ideas like Intelligent Design. Good point!

Jake at Jaköbische Rants provides insight into what she thinks is the confused thinking of a creationist in I Think I Blew A Fuse. She seems surprised to learn that looking at evidence and then formulating a hypothesis that fits the evidence, is cheating. Well of course it is – real scientists like Michael Behe start with the “facts” (ie The Bible), and then go and find supporting evidence. Duh!

The Uncredible Hallq writes in Why Intelligent Design gets scientists mad that the problem with Intelligent Design is it wants to flush good, quite difficult research down the toilet in favor of hand waving. If you read the post you’ll see I left a comment on his blog, totally destroying everything he wrote. Go read it – it’s great.

The Austringer gives us Another View of Phillip Johnson – a fisking of the ID proponent’s recent interview. Johnson may believe six inconsistent things before breakfast, but we don’t have to follow his example. Of course we don’t – just believe your Bible which is totally consistent.

And Humbug! Online explains some of the logical fallacies employed by the Intelligent Designists in Intelligently Designed Cat Escapes Bag. First, I wanted to congratulate the author for realizing that cats are intelligently designed. After all, whoever saw a dog give birth to a cat? (I love that one.) But I read the post quite carefully and yet I saw no mention of a cat or a bag, so I’m confused.

Rounding up the evolution offerings, Critiques Of Libertarianism presents an Intelligent Design Overview For US Science Teachers – a useful summary.  I left a comment on that blog totally destroying his argument too. These Darwinists are getting really worried now, if you ask me.

Finally, a latecomer to the Skeptics’ Circle (very late – this is from October 05), Polite Company (take note ChemJerk – that is a much nicer blog name), is skeptical of the need for three, four or five bladed razors in Science: Science-y Hygine Breakthroughs! Skeptico wanted me to tell you that reminded him of this Onion article, but I found it to be full of profanities so I wouldn’t click that link if I were you. I guess Skeptico is going to hell too.

Anyway, I’m done and this Skeptics’ Circle is now officially closed. It’s been an experience reading your rather disturbing and warped posts, but I am going to pray for you all. Now handing the blog back to Skeptico.

Er, yes thanks Kennesaw, nice review. Different. Quite a marathon too - 34 contributors and 39 posts!

The next Circle will be held in two weeks time, on June 8^th, at The Examining Room of Dr. Charles. Make an appointment to see Dr. Charles in two weeks. Don’t be late.

Doctors for evidence based medicine

A group of leading British doctors have urged the British National Health Service to stop using complementary therapies and to pay only for evidence based medicine. To which I can only add – duh!

The highly qualified health expert Prince Charles, weighs in with the contrary view:

The proper mix of proven complementary, traditional and modern remedies, which emphasises the active participation of the patient, can help to create a powerful healing force in the world."

He added: "Many of today's complementary therapies are rooted in ancient traditions that intuitively understood the need to maintain balance and harmony with our minds, bodies and the natural world.

"Much of this knowledge, often based on oral traditions, is sadly being lost, yet orthodox medicine has so much to learn from it."

Of course, this is nothing but a lame appeal to other ways of knowing. Science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims such as “does this therapy work?”, and figuring out how the universe works. If Prince Charles claims there is a better method, it is up to him to explain that method and justify his claim that it is better – something he has never done.

The doctors criticize a report commissioned by Prince Charles, and specifically mention homeopathy, calling it an "implausible treatment for which over a dozen systematic reviews have failed to produce convincing evidence of effectiveness". Over a dozen? Surely at least 110 studies?  Never mind - the doctors hit exactly the right note with this:

While "medical practice must remain open to new discoveries", it would "be highly irresponsible to embrace any medicine as though it were a matter of principle".

Exactly. Of course the alternistas reply with the usual fallacies:

Dr Peter Fisher, of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, described the letter as an attempt to introduce a form of "medical apartheid" into the NHS.

Oh boy - this is the appeal to emotion fallacy – he's comparing himself to the victims of apartheid. Give me a break.

Terry Cullen, chairman of the British Complementary Medicine Association, said: "It's very frustrating that senior responsible people dismiss complementary medicine for the sole reason that it doesn't have the definitive scientific proof that other drugs have.

First off, for some alternative therapies there is actually pretty definitive scientific proof they don’t work. I’m thinking especially of homeopathy, but acupuncture also springs to mind.

Second, if you don’t reject something based on (a lack of) scientific evidence then on what basis would you reject anything? Without science you are in freefall – you have to accept literally anything. (Bloodletting anyone?)

"There is so much anecdotal evidence that thousands of people gain benefit from using complementary medicines. We shouldn't dismiss that."

Don’t they know anecdotes are not evidence?

The real doctors continue:

"The NHS should not be spending money where the evidence base is much weaker than it is for conventional treatments," he told BBC Breakfast.

He said a business plan for the refurbishment of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital - which cost £20m to set up - did not put any emphasis on evidence.

£20 million and no emphasis on evidence. Right there is the problem. Good work from these doctors. Meanwhile Prince Charles should stick to farming using astrology where he can do less damage.

Get a load of this lame-ass

I just learned that an anti-evolutionist twit has just started a blog with Blogger, with the url of (wait for it) http://skeptico.blogspot.com/ Go on – click the link and see.  He’s even leaving creationist comments on other blogs as Skeptico.

What a lame-ass – can’t even use his own blog name. What does he hope to achieve? To confuse people into thinking I favor intelligent design? To generate extra traffic to his lame site? Clearly, he doesn’t think that rational argument and evidence will be enough to convince people that ID is valid.

If you ever needed evidence the intelligent design argument was in trouble – you have it here. (Not that we really needed any more evidence.)

(Checkout The Real Skeptico.)

Hat tip to Bronze Dog for originally spotting the imitator.

Debate – astrology is science, or not?

Some real science heavyweights are about to debate what is science and what is not:

What is science and what are its boundaries? What is it at the origin of scientific knowledge? What sparks scientific research? What is reason? What is the relationship between reason and faith? What are the agendas that move the two sides in the evolution vs. creation conflict? How much of it is science and how much is politics? What is at stake?

These are some of the questions that Crossroads New York Cultural Center will ask to a panel of distinguished experts…

All well and good, you might think. But get a load of the three “distinguished experts” they have assembled:

Dr. Michael BEHE, professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University and a key witness at the Dover Intelligent Design trial, will debate with Dr. Michael HANBY, Associate director of the Institute of Faith and Learning at Baylor University and with Monsignor Lorenzo ALBACETE, theologian, author and columnist.

(My bold.)

So let’s get this straight. Michael Behe, major Intelligent Design proponent and key witness to have ID taught as science, will debate with a director of an institute of credulity and superstition, er I mean faith, and a theologian, over what is science. I wonder what lively debate and disagreements will ensure between these three geniuses. Hardly seems likely there will be much controversy. Although perhaps they will settle once and for all the burning question of whether astrology is science or not. We know Behe thinks it is. I wonder what the other two will say. Can’t wait.

Hat tip to Red State Rabble.

Prehistoric new agers

Couldn’t resist reproducing this:

Hat tip to ReasonOnline. 

Skeptics’ Circle

Next Thursday, Skeptico is hosting the 35^th Skeptics’ Circle. I am looking for your best skeptical blog posts from the previous two weeks. Here are the guidelines for what we are looking for:

Urban legends. Heard a story about a friend-of-a-friend repeated from other friends and want to find out whether or not it’s true? See a hoax you want to warn people about? Have a strange looking picture forwarded to your e-mail? Don’t leave it all to Snopes, do a little digging and see for yourself whether or not it’s true.

The paranormal. Want to prove how silly astrologists, psychics, ghosts, UFOs, or Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) are? You better belive we’ve got a place for you. All I ask is we keep it more scientific-based than snarky, although there’s nothing wrong with some sarcasm to keep it funny.

Quackery. Of all the subjects included in the Circle, this may be the most likely to save someone's life. There is a lot of potentially harmful questionable medical advice out there being pushed faster than researchers can debunk it.

Pseudoscience. You don’t need to be a professor to know something flat-out doesn’t make sense. If you hear a theory that makes everything you learned from your high school laboratory experiments sound wrong, odds are it’s wrong. Intelligent design fits into this category, because it’s less of a political issue than it is an attempt to superimpose beliefs over factsand the political connotations are side-issues at best.

Historical revision. If someone’s promoting a crooked timeline to try to deny or ignore a major event in history or forcing an incorrect view of the past, prove them wrong. Ideological reinterpretations have done too much harm to the world already.

Critical thinking. Posts dealing with the meta-analytical process behind sorting out the reason from the misinformation fit in this catch-all category.

Please email me the direct link to your post(s) by next Wednesday May 24^th, 9.00pm Eastern Standard Time (US) at the latest – but preferably as soon as you have it (so I don’t have to read 20 posts all in one evening). I’ve already received some really good quality posts - send me some more and let's make it a really great Circle.

Astrology.Con

(Not a typo.)

I’m in the wrong business. Catching up with some old emails I came upon this article sent by reader Matthew. A couple of “internet entrepreneurs” (the article’s description, not mine), are suing the buyers of their business for “improper use of [one of the couple’s] name, likeness, persona and credentials” – ie implying she still worked for the company when she had left. Not the sort of thing to interest Skeptico, you might think, except the business they had sold was Astrology.com and they sold it for (wait for it), $40 million! Jeez – there’s money to be made in woo. No wonder they’re not interested in Randi’s poultry paltry one million.

The funniest part of the article was this comment from the plaintiff, astrologer Kelli Fox:

The way my persona is currently misused by iVillage and Astrology.com is obviously misleading innocent consumers…

Well yeah I see her point – that’d be stealing her job. But from what I can tell, iVillage still features, (strangely looking much younger in the picture), Kelli Fox as your iVillage Astrologer.

Funny – you’d have thought she would have seen this coming.

Carnival of the Godless

I haven’t plugged this carnival for a while, but I can recommend this week’s 40^th Carnival of the Godless.

My favorite – Brent at unscrewing the Inscrutable’s Angry Atheists – a reply to a Rabbi who wonders why atheists are angry. Of course, most atheists are not angry, we’re just sick of listening to you banging on about your silly fairy tale as though it were true. Or as Brent concludes:

The problem is that you theists keep hammering us with your incessant god-talk, trying to get us to listen to your wild flights of imagination, and trying to get your fantasies enacted into law and such. It makes it very difficult to get anything done while you natter on about invisible, impossible, irrational, irrelevant crap - while we are trying to get some work done. We end up like parents quieting an excited child who wants to talk about his imaginary friend. We're not angry at our child, but they just won't quiet down.

Daddy's working right now, sweetheart. You go play in your room and let the grown ups get something done.

Skeptics’ Circle

The 34^th Skeptics' Circle has just been posted at The Second Sight. As well as some great skeptical writing, the circle this time features some great pictures of crystals. Ooh – feel the vibrations!

Anyway, I even found time to write one post for the circle myself this period. Not hard to guess which one. Go read the other Circle posts for your skeptical blogging today. Also, EoR reminds me that the next Skeptics’ Circle, on May 25^th, will be held here at Skeptico. Yikes! I’d better write something myself for that one too.

John Edward Re-revisited

A few weeks ago Randi in his commentary analyzed a portion of one of John Edward’s “Crossing Over” talking-to-the-dead scam TV shows from December 2000. Randi figured Edward got three guesses right out of 23 – pretty abysmal considering the show is edited to make him look better than he really is.

This reminded me that a few years ago, for a friend I analyzed a transcript of Edward’s cold reading guessing game on Larry King Live, from June 19 1998. Since re-cycling old work takes less time than writing something new, I thought I would reproduce the analysis below for your amusement. You’re going to have to count the hits v misses yourself, although I’m pretty sure the ratio is similar to what Randi found. Worse probably – the live TV show allows no editing.

First, for those unfamiliar, a few of Edward’s cold reading techniques:

1. Make a lot of guesses. To start with, guess common initials – J (James/Jimmy), R (includes Bob, Robert), M (common especially among older women). Can’t go wrong with these in America.
2. Guess “chest area” as cause of death – covers all heart attacks as well as lung cancer. At a pinch can cover for a car accident too. Also, guess “cancer” – someone in the family must have died of it sometime.
3. Ask about “father figures” or “mother figures” – covers a multitude including older brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles – the caller will supply the actual answer that Edward can pretend he got.
4. Allow caller to “help”, This is a big part of the psychology of cold reading – the caller feels it is his or her fault if Edward guesses wrong and so the victim caller, if possible, will try to turn Edward’s miss into a hit.
5. Ask questions such as (for example) “who died in a car accident”. If you are lucky, someone will fit the guess and you look like a hero. If you are wrong you have not actually said anyone died in a car accident, and so cannot be accused of being wrong. Everyone will forget the wrong guesses. (Remember, confirmation bias is your friend.)
6. Ask “do you understand”. Caller will reply “yes” – they understand what Edward is saying and it appears they agree with him. But “I understand” is not the same as “you are correct”.
7. If your guess is wrong, insist the caller, not Edward, is wrong. The caller just doesn’t realize he had the older brother that Edward incorrectly guessed he had. Always sound supremely confident especially when you guess wrong – caller will think their knowledge of their own family is incorrect.

With those tricks in mind, let’s go to the transcript. Incidentally, this transcript does not appear to be on CNN’s website anymore, although I can verify I copied it verbatim when it was up. For fun, you could try analyzing a more recent transcript yourself. All bold is mine to emphasize the cold reading tricks and features.

CALLER 1
CALLER: I'm calling about my mother.
EDWARD: OK, stop right there. Your first name?
CALLER: Linda.
KING: Just give us your name and who you're asking for.
CALLER: My mother.
EDWARD: OK, Linda, the first thing I want talk about is, I know you're looking for your mom but I'm getting an older male who's also there on the other side. I feel like this is somebody who would be above you, which means it's like a father-figure, or an uncle, and he passes from either lung cancer or emphysema, tuberculosis; it's all problems in the chest area. OK, that's the first thing. And I feel like there's a J or a G-sounding name attached to this.

“CHEST AREA” Covers about 50% of causes of death in America. Also, the “J” name makes its first appearance (didn’t take him long).

CALLER: That's my mother.
EDWARD: She's got a very dominant personality.
CALLER: That's my mother. Her first name starts with G and she had emphysema.

Edward had said the “chest area” person was the “older male”. Caller recollects this ailment is her Mother. Note how caller accepts this as a hit. (The first call and already the caller is working with Edward to turn a miss into a hit – see # 4 above.)

EDWARD: Hold on. Does the month of August have a meaning for her, or the 8th of a month?

Fishing question.

CALLER: Not that I know of.
EDWARD: OK, I want you to write this down, because she's telling me to say "eight" then. I have to tell you that this is coming through so strong there's a male, it's got a very dominant energy, but this is how I'm interpreting it, and she's telling me to talk about "eight." "Eight" to me would indicate that the month of August has a meaning, or that the eighth of a month has a meaning. She's telling me that there's a father-figure that's there, so I don't know if your father's passed but there's a father-type figure...

Fishing to see if her Father was dead. If caller had replied yes, Edward would then have milked this one. But think about it: if he’s talking to her Mother and other dead people why does he have to ask if her Father had passed?

CALLER: No, my father-I just spoke to him on my son's phone and he wanted me to ask...
EDWARD: Wait a second.

EDWARD CUTS OFF THE CALLER’S QUESTION – doesn’t want anything too specific that he couldn’t answer.

KING: He's nodding, yeah, your mother was tough.

Shut up Larry

EDWARD: There's a father-figure...
KING: I can see your father, yeah.

What does Larry King think he is seeing now?

EDWARD: ... who's with her, from what she's showing me.
CALLER: Her father?
EDWARD: It's not her father. It's connected to you. So I don't know if there's a father-in-law for you who's passed, but there's a father-figure who's there. It's a male figure who's there.

The guess of “8” didn’t come to anything. Or August. Or this “father figure”. Nothing.

KING: But the important thing is, how is she doing?
EDWARD: Your mom is fine and I think it's important that you know that she was around-somebody missed seeing her from what she's showing me, and she's telling me to let you know that.

She’s “fine”. That’s OK then. Pity he didn’t let the caller answer the question she wanted asked. And there is no “older male” figure: the caller said her Father was alive.

CALLER 2

KING: Old Bridge, New Jersey, hello.
CALLER: Hi. This is Peter.
KING: Hi, Peter.
CALLER: I'm looking about-asking about my brother Michael.
EDWARD: OK, hold on Peter. Again, I get a lot of information through dates. The first thing that's coming through is I'm getting the feeling that April or the fourth of a month holds some type of a meaning. In the family does April have a meaning? Birthday or anniversary?

Fishing questions.

CALLER: No.
EDWARD: On your mom's side of the family, Peter. They're telling me "April."
CALLER: Not that I know of.
EDWARD: Hold that thought. On your mom's side of the family there's an older female who has crossed over. It's either her aunt or your grandmother. There's an M-sounding name that's attached to this, besides your brother, who you said is Michael,

And now the “M” makes an appearance. Only the second caller and already we’ve had J and M (plus a G for luck).

CALLER: Mavis.
EDWARD: And they're telling me that there's something to do with the fourth month or the fourth of a month, and I'm also getting the feeling of being out of state, so I don't know if your brother was away from you or at a distance from you, but I see something as being debilitating and affecting the body.

From someone who died? No way!

But I think your brother is OK.
CALLER: That's good to know.
EDWARD: All righty. Also, there's a congratulations going out to the family, which is either a happy birthday or some sort of a wedding thing that's coming out.

Someone in the family is having a birthday or a wedding. What are the odds?

KING: Now that comes through you how?
EDWARD: I see pictures. Like the pink rose on the video is their way of expressing their love. When I see like a white flower, that means happy birthday or congratulations.

Fourth month OR fourth of month (or ANY four connection) was wrong, as was out of state. And he sees “something as being debilitating and affecting the body” Wow, from someone who died? Again, what are the odds?

Sum total of this reading – his dead brother is “OK”.

CALLER 3

KING: Easton, Pennsylvania, hello.
CALLER: Hi, this is Cindy. I would like to talk with my grandfather and ask him a question.
KING: Can she ask him a question?
EDWARD: She can if he comes through.
KING: What's the question?
CALLER: I just want to know if he can see if we're going to have any kids in the future.
EDWARD: The first thing that I'm seeing is they're talking about-and don't get alarmed, I think this has already happened-they're talking about something burning. I don't know if there was a burning thing or if somebody had a fire in their house, or this is going back a few years. But they're telling me to talk about something that I would see as being like a fire or a barnfire or some type of a fire- type thing. Is there anything that used to happen in the backyard or something that he used to do?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Some type of outside fire or a fire thing?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: OK. This is what they're showing me, so remember what the symbol is to me, I'm interpreting this as being some type of fire, or like fire-thing, but that's what's coming through. As soon as you-as soon as I listened to your voice, and I'm tuning into your vibration, this is what's coming through.

“Don’t tell me there wasn’t a fire. That’s what the dead people are telling me”

And I know you're asking me about kids, but I'm seeing boxes, and when they show me boxes it's their way of telling me that you're moving. Or that there's a move that's coming up.
CALLER: Uh-huh, yes, we just moved.

Who hasn’t moved, or is going to move, (home or work), or knows someone who is. “Boxes”, I’m underwhelmed.

EDWARD: OK, so that's a confirmation of what they're telling me.
KING: But his-her late grandfather couldn't tell her if she's going to have children or not.
EDWARD: I'm not getting...
KING: Or could he?
EDWARD: He could. He could.
KING: The spirits would know that.
EDWARD: They could come through and say stuff like that.
KING: We'll be back with more of John Edward on LARRY KING LIVE. Monday night, Leon Panetta, Bob Schieffer, Stuart Taylor, on the investigation of the investigator. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

One hit in this reading – “Boxes”.

CALLER 4

KING: By the way, this is John Edward's videotape, called "One Last Time: After-Death Communication." A lovely rose on the cover and that's available at 1-800-967 -- don't call here -- 1-800-967-4100. There's a book coming, same title, this fall. Northport, New York, hello.
CALLER: Hi, Jackie; I'm looking for my grandmother.
EDWARD: Hey Jackie, how ya doing? Um, the first thing I'm getting is I'm getting an M-sounding name; that's maybe like a Mary or Marie. Is that on
your mom's side of the family?
CALLER: Um, no.

He’s really milking that “M” tonight. M, J, G, R – the most common initials. Still, there is no “M”.

EDWARD: No, I'm saying is this the grandmother on your mom's side of the family?
CALLER: Augustine.

Caller supplies the name without having to be asked.

EDWARD: No, is this your grandmother on your mom's side of the family?
CALLER: yes it is; I'm sorry.
EDWARD: OK. Connected to her,

He had to ask if it was her Mom’s side. (50% chance of getting it right.)

she's talking about M-A-R. That's maybe like a Mary or Maureen, a Margaret; it's an M-A-R sounding name.
CALLER: OK.

“OK” is not “yes I know a MAR name.” M is a very common initial for a woman, especially older one. He still got it wrong though.

EDWARD: She's also telling me that there's a younger male figure who has crossed over who is there also. I don't see if this is a cousin or-it's a younger male figure who's passed.
CALLER: She had a baby that died.

A baby is not a “younger male figure”. Note caller accepts this as a hit.

EDWARD: OK, well she's got him who's with her. Um, she's also waving a flag at me, so I don't know if she passed around July 4th, or there's some type of governmental holiday that she passes around, 'cause I don't think she's buried with the flag. But she's waving a flag around me, so I want you to know that. And what it symbolizes to me would be that the person passes around something significant like a Memorial Day, Veteran's Day, Labor Day, there's some type of like a governmental holiday that she's showing me.

Caller has no clue what he’s talking about here. Complete MISS, but you can bet your life caller will not remember this miss.

Now, does your-is this-this is your mom's mom?

He’d already confirmed this

CALLER: My mom's mom.
EDWARD: Is there an Anne in that family?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: Who is the Anne?
CALLER: Her niece.
EDWARD: OK, do you know if she just miscarried or if somebody's just lost a baby there?

Fishing question

CALLER: Not that I know of.

Wrong. If he had been right, though, believers would trumpet this as proof Edward is genuine.

EDWARD: OK, 'cause they're making me feel like, besides the child that she was talking about, there's another child who's also over there in that side of the family. Please let them know the child is OK.
CALLER: OK.

Caller agrees to pass on message that this non-existent child is OK.

EDWARD: And they're also talking about November or the 11th, something about the 11th. 'Cause she's showing me "11."
CALLER: OK.

Again “OK”, does not mean “yes she died on the 11^th”. 11 means NOTHING to caller.

EDWARD: But she's telling me to let you know that she's OK, and let your mom know.

Another dead person who is OK. Along with the child the caller doesn’t know about.

KING: Do you see a miscarriage, or do you feel it? How could you come up with miscarriage?
EDWARD: OK, my background-I used to work in a hospital-so a lot of my health care information comes through very, very clear to me from different parts-from seeing different parts of a hospital. And it's just an image of something that I see that I can identify with.
KING: And how did Anne come into you?
EDWARD: I saw my aunt.

Translation – it was a lucky guess. I suppose he deserved one after all the other wrong guesses.

CALLER 5
KING: To Morrisville, Pennsylvania, hello.
CALLER: Hi. My name is Toni and I'm trying to contact my mother.
EDWARD: OK, Toni, the first thing I want to talk about is I'm seeing pink roses and I see thorns on these roses. Now bear with me, here. When I see pink roses it's their way of expressing their love to you. When I see thorns on it, it lets me know that there are issues that were not settled or complete before your mother passed, OK.
CALLER: OK.

Again “OK” not “yes”. Wrong guess.

EDWARD: I'm also feeling that there is a something that affects her mind that would either stop her from being able to communicate with you in the way that she needed to, or something that would affect your being able to communicate with her, OK. This is what's being told -- this is what's being shown to me.

Caller doesn’t even OK this one. Another wrong guess. (BTW, my guess is that the “thing” that is stopping the caller’s Mother from being able to communicate with the caller in the way that she needed to would be that she is DEAD, but that’s just me.)

They're also talking about either Josie or Joey or something with a J-O sounding name. Is that connected to her?
CALLER: Yes.

That “J” word again. Isn’t that the second time? Connected in what way? Vague.

EDWARD: OK. Does she have a brother who's passed?
CALLER: A long time ago.
EDWARD: OK, 'cause she's telling me to tell you that she was greeted by the brother.

Stop right there. This caller’s Mother is apparently talking to Edward, but Edward had to ASK if her brother had died. When this was conformed, then he said that the brother had met her on the other side. If she was telling him “tell you that she was greeted by the brother” why did Edward have to ask this question? This is a perfect example of Edward asking a question, and if the answer was in the affirmative Edward tries to make out he knew this all along. If the answer had been “no”, he would have gone a different route.

Also, somebody's missing a finger or had a deformity attached to a finger; do you understand that?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, is that your dad?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: It's an older male though; who is this?
CALLER: Possibly could be an uncle.

“Possibly” – so caller has NO IDEA if anyone was missing a finger. But caller confirmed it by a yes anyway.

EDWARD: OK, she's also talking about the male who had the drinking problem, because she's showing me a beer mug. Whenever they shows me that, I always joke around and say "They're hanging out at the Other Side pub."
CALLER: That was my brother.
EDWARD: OK. Is he also there?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK, can you please know that your mom, your brother, her brother; they're all coming through together. Did somebody there commit suicide?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. 'Cause they're telling me to let you know that they're OK also. And to tell me to wish you a happy birthday. Is your birthday coming up in the next week?
CALLER: Not mine, my sister's.

Someone in the family is having a birthday or some kind of celebration soon.

EDWARD: OK, they're jumping up and down about this birthday. They're saying Linda or Lindy or Leslie; who's this L name?
CALLER: No L name.
EDWARD: OK. When they show me L, it's gonna be like an L- sounding name, like Lisa or Len or-when they come through with names, it's either who they are, who they're with, or "Please say hello to."

The dead people say there is an L name, so go argue with them.

They're also-they also have a, you'll laugh, but they're making me hear a dog, so that means there's a dog who's passed also. So your mom's telling me to let you know that the dog is with her.
CALLER: She had a dog that passed.

What family (or extended family) never had a dog or a cat?

EDWARD: All righty. But your mom's great.
KING: Thank you. What a phony; he got everything wrong there. Missed everything. All right. We'll keep him with us. John Edward is the guest. More phone calls after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

For once King makes some sense. Pity he was being sarcastic.

CALLER 6

KING: By the way, when you order that tape, in the tape comes information as to where John Edward is lecturing and where you can reach him. To Coram, New York, hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, my mother passed away, quite a while ago, and I'd like to get in touch with her.
KING: What's your name?
CALLER: My name is Karen.
EDWARD: OK, Karen, the first thing that's coming through is not your mother, but I want to tell you that there's another female figure who is older than you, who's making you feel like she either helped raise you, or was around when you were growing up-is coming through. And she tells me she either passed from breast cancer or lung cancer. I see blackness in the chest area, but I don't think that this is related to you. I think that this might be either a friend's mother or a mother-in-law-I don't feel like there's a blood connection here.
CALLER: My stepmother.

Mother passed “quite a while ago” and so Edward guesses caller was raised by someone else.

EDWARD: OK, because I don't feel like there's a blood connection-is she passed?

Edward tells the caller what caller had just told him.

CALLER: She just passed away recently.
KING: From what?
CALLER: Lung cancer.
EDWARD: OK. Please, you need to-this is important. I feel like somebody is questioning the medical care that this woman received, and they're saying that there was nothing wrong here. OK, this is what's being shown to me. Now, is there a Ganette or a Janet-
CALLER: Janet.
EDWARD: Who's this?
CALLER: That's my step-sister.
EDWARD: OK. She's living, though?
CALLER: Yes, she is.
EDWARD: She's out of your state?
CALLER: She's out-of-state.
EDWARD: Can you please let her know that mom came through? I feel like there is a lot of tears and a lot of crying over-either missing seeing her before she passed, or not getting a chance to say good-bye, which is very, very important. But I think what we need to do here is clean the slate for her; and there is an issue about relationships, or about being involved with the wrong person, or not liking her husband or something like that. I don't know what this is, but I feel like you need to let go of all this stuff, and let her know that she's OK;

A lot of waffle, unconfirmed by caller

and that she's got Maggie or Margie, or some sort of M-G-sounding name, who's with her, and know that she's OK.
CALLER: OK, I'm not sure about the MG.

That “M” name again – isn’t that the third time? Still, caller says there is no M name

EDWARD: Remember what I said-it's an M-G-sounding name-not just Mary-it's like Margie or Maggie.
CALLER: OK.

Edward: yes there is.

EDWARD: All rightie. Thanks for calling.
KING: Maybe she liked monosodium glutanate.
(LAUGHTER)

CALLER #7

KING: Secaucus, New Jersey. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, my name is Julie, and I'm trying to contact my mom.
EDWARD: OK, Julie, the first thing that's coming through is not your mom. Sorry, sometimes I gotta talk to them; I'm not an operator; I can't place calls. What is coming through is a younger male figure, who is passed over, and I feel like he passes because of a car accident, or because of an impact to his body-something that impacts his body. He's telling me, "He's connected to R"-like Rich or Richie or Robbie; and he's connected to somebody beneath you. So I don't know if you have a son, and this is a son's friend who's trying to come through to his family. But there's somebody younger coming through like this; and it's in your area, it's not out-of-state. It's not far away-
KING: Do you know anything about that?
CALLER: No, I don't.

Multiple fishing guesses. Also that “R” name again. Complete miss this time on all guesses.

EDWARD: I want you to remember this. This is really important, because many times clients come to me and you wind up becoming the medium; you become the messenger. But it's important that you let the family know that he's with the older male, which is either his father, but most likely going to be his grandfather. And I think-to let you know this-they either died in the same month or their birthday's-there is a parallel between dates or months, which would mean-he died in the grandfather's birth month, or vice versa, or something connected like this. But the biggest connection is the R-like Richie or Rickie-or there's that kind of R connection that comes up.
CALLER: OK.

Edward insists he is right. Still complete miss, but caller says OK.

EDWARD: When you find this out, you can-you know-let them know here, or let me know, but-
KING: What about her mother?
EDWARD: I'm not getting her mom. That's what is coming through.

Translation – the guess didn’t work this time.

CALLER #8

KING: Elizabeth, New Jersey, Hello.
CALLER: Hi, my name is Kathy, I'd like to talk to my mother.
EDWARD: Kathy, did your mom pass from congestive heart failure?
CALLER: No.

Heart failure one of the main causes of death in America – guess doesn’t work this time though..

EDWARD: I'm seeing congestive heart failure, filling up with fluids, a lot of problems in the chest, but it's heart-related. That's what's coming through.
CALLER: Probably, yeah; towards the end.

Edward won’t accept his guess was wrong. Caller wants Edward to be right and looks for a way to help him – so she now agrees with Edward even though she said he was wrong 5 seconds before.

EDWARD: OK. Did they have to make it-was there-this is strange -- did they have to make a split-decision at the end, whether or not to treat her -- or something?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. She's telling me that-they didn't do this, correct?
CALLER: They did.

A miss, I think. Answer was ambiguous.

EDWARD: This is incomplete, from what she's making me feel, like something was not done or something was not completely done; and she's telling me it's OK. She's telling me either Ellen or Helen, or Eleonore-it's like an Ellen-sounding name; and she's making feel like it's either-hello to -- or it's who she's with-or some type of connection to this name, from what she's acknowledging. Do you understand this?

CALLER: Yes.

Caller understands what Edward is saying. She is not confirming the Ellen, Helen, guesses. (Although Ellen/Helen leaves the door open to any H or E names – two initials for the price of one guess.)

EDWARD: She's also showing me my birthday, which is in October, so it's something symbolic to October for her, from what she's also acknowledging; all rightie, so I don't know if there's a birthday-I think it's around the 16th or the 6th, from what she's showing me.
CALLER: OK.

I think “OK” means “no”, except caller doesn’t want to say this.

EDWARD: Write the date down. It's October-it's around the 6th or the 16th. OK. It's the 10th month, and it's around the 6th. She's fine, and I feel like she's OK.

Edward: I’m determined this October guess will be HIT, so write it down goddammit. (It’s still a MISS though.)

(Snipped load of softball questions from King and rationalizations by Edward.)

CALLER #9

CALLER: Hello, my name is Dennis, and I lost my father three months ago.
EDWARD: OK, Dennis, hold on. Was he in a different country from you?
CALLER: No. He was in a distant city.
EDWARD: OK-I'm sorry, did you say he was away from you?
CALLER: He was in a distant city, yeah.
KING: A distant city?
EDWARD: What's coming through is I'm feeling that there is a distance, but I feel like it's a pretty big distance. That's why I thought it might have been a different country. This is going to sound really strange: did anybody around you pass like in a plane crash or in an accident that they were up high and then fell down-or was high and then went low?

Fishing – trying to find SOMETHING that sticks

CALLER: No.

But fails. This is an example of the sort of outlandish guess that if correct can seem like compelling evidence. If wrong though, no one remembers it.

EDWARD: I want to you remember this-because I'm getting it really strongly-they're making me feel somebody being up high, passing because of an impact, and then falling. There's normally to me what I perceive to being a plane crash.

But doesn’t give up. Caller must be wrong.

KING: What about his father?
EDWARD: I'm not getting his father.
KING: OK. We can't do everyone. Fallon, Nevada. Hello.

CALLER #10

CALLER: Hello. This is Pam, and I'm calling about my grandfather, who passed away about 50 years ago.
EDWARD: Okay, Pam, there's somebody more recent, who also crossed over-about three years-three or four years ago-and I feel this is somebody, to the side, someone like a husband, a brother, a brother-in-law. It's a male figure, that I feel has crossed over. He passes because of something that affects his head area. It's either brain tumors, or an aneurysm, or an embolism; something that goes to the head. It's more physiological, from what they're showing me. Do you understand this?

“Head Area”. Along with its good friend “chest area”, virtually all causes of death can be explained.

CALLER: Uh-huh.

Is that yes or no?

EDWARD: OK. It's important that his family hears from him, because they keep teasing him: well, if you were there, you'd be able to do this. And he's telling me: he's trying to do this. They're not listening. So if you can get that message across to them; there is something regarding a phone-I think he's trying to do something with them, either over an answering machine, or a phone. But it's got his likeness, so it's probably and answering machine. Pass that on. Is Jimmy connected to you, or is that to that family?
CALLER: No, un-huh.

Again, Jim, Jimmy or James makes an appearance. But caller doesn’t know him.

EDWARD: It sound like they're saying: Jimmy, I'm going to leave that with you, but put it to that family. Again, when it comes (INAUDIBLE)
KING: Not her mother?
EDWARD: I'm not getting-I'm not getting who she's looking for.
KING: There's no explai-explanation of that?
EDWARD: No, there's-
KING: It's on her dime.
EDWARD: That's right. It's a party line.

CALLER #11

KING: New Milford, New Jersey, hello.
CALLER: Yes, hello. Hi, john.
EDWARD: Hi. How are you?
CALLER: This is Charlene, and I'm trying to reach my mom.
EDWARD: OK, Charlene. Is dad also passed?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. Did dad go first?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Dad is coming through first.
CALLER: OK.
EDWARD: Dad is telling me to talk about-does he have a badge, or do you have a badge?
CALLER: No.
EDWARD: Who has got the shield or the badge-who is in the police? Or there's some sort of badge that they're showing me.
CALLER: No one that I'm aware of.
EDWARD: Yes, you do. They're showing me the father figure, and they're telling me to talk about the badge.

YES YOU DO. The dead people tell me there is a badge goddamit. What’s wrong with you?

Is there a second father, like is there a father-in-law who has also crossed?
CALLER: A grandfather.
EDWARD: No, like a father-in-law-or an uncle who has passed? It's an older male, but not that old?
CALLER: Older male, but not that old, with a badge.
EDWARD: Who had the leg missing?
CALLER: Nobody that I know.

A leg missing? A pretty major thing to get wrong. Imagine if the guess had been right, though.

EDWARD: Yes, you do. There's somebody coming through, and they're making my leg feel like it's not here.
CALLER: OK, well-well, my aunt is still living, and she did have a problem with her leg, almost losing it when she was younger.

That was classic – Edward insisting caller is wrong and Edward’s guess is right. Note how caller desperately tries to find a connection – ANY CONNECTION – that will help Edward. Someone somewhere had a bad leg, allrighty then.

EDWARD: That's not what I'm seeing. This is a male figure, who has crossed over; he's talking about the leg, which means it's either not here, or he was paralyzed and couldn't use it. He's talking about being an older male, which is above you; which is like a father, a father-in-law-he's telling me to show you the badge. Like, the badge is the clue here. The badge is the thing that's supposed to validate who he is. That's what's coming through. However, you're looking for you mom, but these are the people that are coming through with her.
CALLER: OK.

“OK” Translation: “I have no idea what you’re talking about”

EDWARD: Do you have roses, or something, a flower that's pressed of hers?
KING: Hello? I don't know what happened to the call. I'm sorry-I didn't cut you off, so I don't know what happened.

CALLER 12

Point Pleasant, New Jersey, hello.
CALLER: Hi, John. How are you? My name is Gene; I'm looking for my mother and my brother. I'm a little nervous.
EDWARD: That's OK. Makes two of us.

Don’t blame him with this record.

Is there a Katherine or Kathleen connected to you?
CALLER: My brother's name was Keith.

See how caller tries to help? “Kathleen” is accepted as a hit for “Keith”.

 

EDWARD: I'll take that. Sounds the same to me.

 

He’ll take anything he can get. This was closer than most of his guesses I suppose.

Do you guys have the same birthday or something?
CALLER: Mine was in January; his was in November.

LOL – they both have “r”s in them I suppose.

EDWARD: What's the similarity in dates-that he's showing me?
CALLER: I don't know. Mine was-his was November 9th; mine is January 2nd.
EDWARD: Nope, that's not it. There's a similarity-there's a parallel between dates. I similarities between-between you and your brother, from what' being acknowledged to me. Is his middle name with a J?
CALLER: His middle name was Michael.

“J” again – isn’t that the fourth time? WRONG though.

EDWARD: Who's got the J name?
CALLER: My wife's name is Joan.

Someone in the family MUST have a name beginning with J – finally something he can claim as a hit.

EDWARD: Is she new to the family from when one of them passed? Hold on. Let me just say this. They're welcoming somebody to the family, like they need to welcome somebody; and they want you to know that they see this person as being part of the family now, and they're connecting this to a J. It's a J-sounding name. Did somebody just have a baby or something?
CALLER: No, but neither one of them knew my wife-or met my wife -- before they passed-well, my brother did.

Caller helps Edward by saying the dead people didn’t know caller’s wife. Well, except the ones who did know her.

EDWARD: OK. I want to tell you that they're acknowledging your wife, but they also want to tell you congratulations; because there's a baby coming.
CALLER: That's surprising.
EDWARD: They're rocking a baby for me, which means that there's a baby that's coming to the family-and they're telling me DN-like Donna or Dan -- or something, like Diane. There's a DN-sounding name that coming through.

Caller does not even “OK” this guess.

Who had cancer?

QUESTION. Let’s find out who died of cancer and work that one. It is the most common cause of death in America and so there must be someone.

CALLER: My mother.
EDWARD: Was she misdiagnosed?
CALLER: Yes.
EDWARD: OK. She's telling me she had it twice; she's telling me it was in two separate parts of the body. Is this true?
CALLER: Yes. Yes. She had it in her back, and then she had it in her breasts.
EDWARD: OK. She's telling me to tease about you the slippers. I don't know if you have her slippers-or if you bought her, like, funky slippers -- like pull-over's, or something. But she's showing me something about slippers or feet, and it's like a funny thing; and she's, like, trying to be humorous with me. She's got a very comical feeling; she's very light-hearted.

Caller has no idea about the slippers, apparently. Is too polite to say so, though.

She letting me to let you know that she's OK, and that she also acknowledges your wife; and your wife's father, I believe, is there. Is that true?
CALLER: No, he hasn't passed. No.

Obviously there is an imposter on the other side claiming to be the guy’s wife’s father.

EDWARD: There's an older male on your wife's side of the family, connected to the J, who is there.

Edward is determined he is right.

CALLER: I don't know.

Caller tries to help Edward all he can – the answer is “no” but he can’t just say “no”, apparently.

EDWARD: Remember, I said this: the guy passes from either a vascular thing, like a stroke, or it's an ambulysm.
KING: Well, you were nervous when you called in. Right?
CALLER: I'm even more nervous now.
KING: Why? You're going to be a father. I think you ought to go tell her.
CALLER: All right. OK?
KING: And name the kid with a J. What the hell? Or the kid'll be born on the 9th. Who knows? We'll be right back with John Edward. Don't go away.

Why not? So you won’t miss any more of Edward’s blunders? To see if he guesses a “J” name for a fifth time?

There were actually several more callers after this but I got bored and I’m sure you are too.

The transcript I really want is the LKL show from September 10^th, 2001. Edward bombed so badly they never even put the transcript.

November 23, 2012 edited to add:

Reader Luke sent me a link to the September 10^th, 2001 transcript. It was as bad as I remembered it. The most notable thing was how often he used the "yes you do" response - ie when Edward makes a completely wrong guess, he just insists that he is right and the caller wrong. Without going back and counting, I think it was somewhere between 5 and 8 times. Amazing he gets away with that.