Small Town Skepticism

Really? That's the best you could come up with?

2012-01-27T10:59:00.000-05:00

Sorry for such a short entry - I'm traveling today so this has to be quick - blogging from a smartphone is a challenge.

The local newspaper, The Sarnia Observer, has published, in the Friday, January 27th edition of it's editorial, an entry (really a sales pitch for the guy's book) from an believer who argued that Hitch (Christopher Hitchens) had it wrong and science doesn't support his claims (Atheist’s faith a leap too far for science).

The complete argument that the contributor is making is that the earth and the universe is fine-tuned and that if any of the physical constants were off just slightly, we would not be here. The only plausible reason for this author making such a horrible argument would be that he was in an area that did not permit him to have internet access (or science books) - maybe because he lives in a remote area or is incarcerated? One simple google query for "fine tuning argument" would bring up the Wikipedia reference that has the "counter argument" and it states:

Victor Stenger argues that "... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God of the gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon".

The argument from imperfection suggests that if the universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the universe is highly hostile to life.

Additionally Stenger argues, "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.

And just below it is a reference to Douglas Adams' famous "puddle thinking"...

... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Really, Tom Harpur? Is that the best you could come up with? I was able to demolish your argument while driving and blogging from a smartphone. Sadly you'll never see this blog - if you can't get to Wikipedia or Google, you probably can't get here.

Religion Deserves Ridicule Not Respect

2012-01-26T10:12:00.001-05:00

Jay Leno is a comedian and being a comedian means poking fun and pointing out absurdities. During his opening monologue on a recent show, he referenced a "sacred" building in the Sikh religion when suggesting that Mitt Romney vacationed in a golden palace.

As a result of the joke, someone from the Sikh faith filed a lawsuit against him because of his statements, "claiming Leno is responsible for encouraging hatred and ridicule of his religion".

Dr. Randeep Dhillon, the person suing Jay Leno, is right, however. Just simply showing the building to people and educating them about it is going to draw ridicule - in the same way that we ridicule the Catholic church for the Pope's (as Sarah Silverman says) "house that is a city". Wondering where their next meal is going to come from and being taught that an invisible sky fairy father is always there for them while their cult leaders amass such massive fortunes at their expense is, well, ridiculous. Shovel on the ridicule.

Where Dr. Randeep Dhillon is wrong, however, is in his suggestion that what Jay Leno did was wrong - religion IS absurd and it IS deserving of ridicule. Thank you Jay Leno.

It is "freedom of speech" not "freedom from being offended" - for the same reason that you are entitled to say crazy shit like "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" or "evolution isn't true", I'm entitled to say "you're batshit crazy" (though I'd be the only one making a statement of fact).

Stephen Fry put it succinctly: ”It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that”, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. “I’m offended by that.” Well, so fucking what?”

And for a reminder of Sarah Silverman's plan to feed the world:

The Pope on Gay Marriage

2012-01-10T09:50:00.003-05:00

Recently the guy with the funny hat piped up about his views on gay marriage - he feels that "Gay marriage (is) a threat to humanity's future".

This from the same person who is against condoms and heads an organization exposed for its consistent and thorough cover-up of child sexual abuse (which included sodomy). I will admit that there is a substantial difference between "gay marriage" and what the clergy were doing but it doesn't favour the Catholic Church. Gay marriage is between consenting adults and the "gay sex" committed by the clergy was forced on young children (rape, we call it).

Back to what marriage is/should be all about - the Pope needs to be reminded of his "great book"...

Tim Minchin's Song Cut from ITV Show

2011-12-23T10:46:00.000-05:00

Though many will have already seen this, in the interest of keeping it trending, here is Tim Minchin's song that was cut from Jonathan Ross' show on ITV (Britain).

It is a beautiful, intelligent and funny song about Woody Allen... Jesus.

The Logan Tucker Case: Not Solved by Psychics

2011-12-21T11:47:00.000-05:00

Because I'm busy (preparing for Isaac Newton's birthday party), this is a cross-post from www.stoprobbie.com (the site with the focus of exposing the harms committed by liars (psychics) like Robbie Thomas - who is not psychic).

I received an email about Robbie Thomas being on a recent "radio" show (December 15 or 16) and though I haven't had a chance to listen to the program yet (I have to put all my forks away or the "radio" show will drive me to poke my eyes out - Robbie is a consistent liar and an abuser of the English language. Listening to his radio programs involves a re-write of the dictionary to make his statements even close to sensible - but enough with the ad hominem attack), but I followed some of the links they included in the email.

First, let me point you to further proof that Robbie Thomas is a scumbag - on the following site, Danielle Egnew advertises her upcoming (at the time) participation in the Psychic Justice Tour (which failed miserably because of supposed anthrax attacks (though I suspect the more likely reason being that he is such a horrible liar)). The advertisement that is placed on the site is almost verbatim what Robbie had initially used when promoting his tour - so Danielle Egnew can really only be guilty of failing to even do a cursory search of Robbie's (false) claims. Robbie Thomas continues to use and abuse already victimized families by claiming to have been involved in solving their cases - even when the cases haven't been solved. That's what a scumbag does.

http://www.wix.com/backseatbordello/psychic

Danielle will be the featured guest speaker during the Los Angeles leg of renowned criminal Psychic Profiler Robbie Thomas' Psychic Justice Tour dedicated to the families and victims of unsolved crimes, hitting 30+ cities in two countries thus far. The Los Angeles event is tentatively scheduled for July / August of 2010, times and venue TBA.

The tour showcases Robbie Thomas, whose TV pilot "Psychic Justice" has already been shot, discussing his 18 years as a psychic criminal profiler while presenting his involvement with sensitive high profile cases such as Victoria Stafford (Woodstock, ON), Elisha McMaster (Toronto, ON), Cesar Ivan Aguilar-Cano (Louisville, KY) , Logan Tucker (Oklahoma City, Ok) Natalie Holloway (Birmingham, AL), Karen Caughlin (Sarnia, Ontario), Marc Campbell (Sarnia, Ontario) and many others.

I suspect that I needn't point out that the Natalee Holloway case has not been solved (notice the misspelling - I suspect it is to limit people finding out that he is abusing her name but it could simply be that Robbie is that stupid.) But, for those that don't know, the Elisha McMaster case is not solved (Elisha's mother, Jane, is still searching for help and, unfortunately, from other 'psychics'), the Karen Caughlin case is not solved (follow the link above for more information) and the Logan Tucker case is one that was not solved by Robbie Thomas.

The Logan Tucker story is available online and it clearly does not involve a psychic solving the crime. Other psychics who attempted to get involved were outed as failures (see Oklahoma is not "OK" for psychic) and as the body of the missing boy has still not been found, Robbie is obviously lying about his involvement in the case.

The Marc Campbell story will be for another entry - but, rest assured, Robbie Thomas did not solve the crime and definitely didn't do so with his so-called psychic powers.

Robbie Thomas is a liar and a fraud - these are not merely opinions but statements of fact. We've made these claims for a number of years and if they were not true, they would be actionable. As always, if Robbie Thomas wishes to sue me, I will happily identify myself to his lawyers and I would be overjoyed to expose his lies, further, in a court of law.

Call in the authorities: Michelle Duggar kills baby

2011-12-09T14:38:00.001-05:00

Okay, maybe she didn't kill the baby, maybe the baby committed suicide. One of them is definitely going to hell.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/09/showbiz/tv/michelle-duggar-miscarries-ppl/index.html

I had to point out this (really sad - even if you disagree with people literally fulfilling the requirement to "go forth and multiply") story to give some perspective on the inanity that is being labeled as "personhood". The religious right is trying to push through legislation to define the beginning of life at conception which would, ultimately, make it illegal (a felony) to have an abortion (which is their ultimate goal anyway). But would that same legislation bring about the need for an investigation into the death of every unborn fetus, embryo, morula and zygote? Surely it would - a miscarriage is simply an abortion by another name.

If Michelle's body terminated the pregnancy, is she responsible, criminally, for its death? If the pregnancy self-aborted, does the unborn baby's soul go to hell to suffer eternal punishment for committing suicide?

"Personhood" legislation is stupid - life does not begin at conception - regardless of what your beliefs are about abortion.

Oh My! Fake Psychic Endorses Pure Stupid!

2011-12-05T21:02:00.000-05:00

Let me first apologize for not checking my email so frequently - I will do my best to read and respond to the emails in a more timely fashion.

I was sent a link to a website for wristbands that claim to improve health/balance/all sorts of other things that it doesn't actually do and I clicked on it before I read the rest of the email. I looked at the site (www.shuziqi.com) and was instantly reminded of the complete smackdown that PowerBalance received and the recent news of PowerBalance filing for bankruptcy. I clicked away from the website thinking "that's a tax for not thinking" and returned to my email.

Noticing that the email was longer than simply "take a look at this site and the claims they make", I read a little further. It turns out that the email was more to point a finger at non-psychic Darin James/Darin Scheiding and giggle. Darin James/Darin Scheiding endorses the wristbands by providing a testimonial to them:

Darin Scheiding (Ontario, Canada)

I was first introduced to Shuzi just over two yrs ago. I have used Q ray and various magnetic products. But nothing gave me the relief and energy that the Shuzi did. I don't know if it is my bodies energy but the Q ray didn't work more than six months and thats alot of money. I swear by Shuzi and recomend everyone has one of these amazing products.
I am disabled with four separate conditions mostly in my spine . Shuzi gave me the energy to do more than I was in some time. And I can honestly say in my case 90% or more of my fybromyalgia pain was gone thanks to Shuzi. Having that kind of difference in my life means alot to myself and my family so thank you Stealth Health Canada for introducing me to this life changing product. Darin Scheiding Sarnia Canada.

Though he cautions that it may not be the same Darin Scheiding from Sarnia who also claims to be a psychic (liar), I think that the spelling (ha!) is on par with Darin's best. (See Darin's twitter account or his website and compare for yourself!)

Seeing scammers being scammed by other scammers just doesn't seem so bad.

(I do have to point out that the "Doctor Testimonials" on the Shuziqi site are laughable - the first two are clearly identified as D.C. (not real medical doctors, just gullible chiropractors) and the third is not a real medical doctor either - but they fail to disclose on their site that he, too, is a chiropractor. Why aren't other chiropractors speaking out against such inanity? Probably because when you live in glass houses...)

Duty Exemptions for the Religious

2011-12-03T19:52:00.002-05:00

While browsing through the Customs Tarriff T2011-3, as most of us regularly do, I came across some interesting duty differences. Though it is frustrating to see religious exemptions, I was mildly entertained by the related statements.

In Chapter 62 (pdf) (some in Chapter 61 as well), you will find that the Most Favoured Nations (MFN) duty rate for most clothing is 18%. However, there are a few items that are less than 18%, see below:

You will notice that under "Other made up clothing accessories; parts of garments or of clothing
accessories", it states "For clerical or ecclesiastical garments or vestments", the tax rate is 7.5% - for all "other", it is 15%. A 50% savings in duty simply because it is "For clerical or ecclesiastical garments or vestments".

Below that you will see that prayer shawls are 0% duty and all others are 18% (with the only other exception being one that made me giggle - "Of protective suits to be employed in a noxious atmosphere;", which, for many of us, "noxious atmosphere" includes anywhere that someone is babbling about their sky-fairy daddy (ie. church, on your doorstep, at family dinners and the like.). Does "protective suit", in that situation, simply mean any article of clothing that clearly suggests to the babbler that you are an atheist? If only.)

Sadly, just below that, you will also see that bullet-proof vests are subject to a regular duty rate of 18%! Something that can help you (a bullet-proof vest) costs you 18% (duty) while something that can't help you (prayer/prayer shawl) is duty free. Religious exemptions seldom make sense - this is no exception.

Lawsuits to Silence Criticism & The Streisand Effect

2011-11-29T16:01:00.000-05:00

Without explaining the whole "affair", Rhys Morgan, a young skeptic from the UK, had blogged about a clinic in Houston, Texas that was offering an, at best, unproven treatment for cancer (that science-based medicine actually has treatments for). After writing the blog, he received threats from a (though not confirmed) lawyer threatening him with legal action.

Unfortunately for the clinic and his "treatment", Rhys didn't roll over and, as a result, the clinic is experiencing the Streisand effect - "The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity." (Wikipedia)

In addition to the Streisand effect, people like Burzynski will also be faced with a further empowered and more determined adversary - I should know, I've been threatened with legal action a number of times. Though the letters and threats are rather unsettling at first, once the reality is discovered (that they are baseless, pointless threats), the attention to the matter and resolve of the accused can encourage them to dig deeper.

Case in point: Robbie Thomas

I had blogged, jokingly, about Robbie Thomas (who is not psychic - he just lies about his supposed skills (note: that is an actionable claim if it were not true!)) and his lack of recognition at a police press conference regarding an abduction/murder case that he claims to have been involved in. I did a couple follow-ups on Robbie Thomas (not psychic) but it was his threats of legal action that drove me to dig a little deeper into who he is and what he claims.

Today www.stoprobbie.com exists to follow Robbie Thomas' claims and actions (it hasn't received many updates recently because Robbie is, apparently, lying low - after having failed at conventions, failed at his tour and been exposed by his manager, he probably needs to build up a new web of lies before he resurfaces) and to expose him when he claims to have psychic abilities or when he claims to have solved any crimes using his supposed psychic skills.

In more than 20 years (his claim), Robbie Thomas has solved 0 crimes using his self-proclaimed psychic powers. Robbie Thomas is not psychic and he didn't predict (because he isn't psychic) that threatening to sue me would only encourage me to do more. Congratulations Robbie Thomas and Stanislaw Burzynski - you have achieved the complete opposite of what you set out to do.

For more on the Stanislaw Burzynski / Rhys Morgan news, visit:
Rhys blog entry about the threats
The schoolboy blogger who took on a US clinic (Guardian)

For more information about Robbie Thomas (not psychic):
www.stoprobbie.com

Your Health: Worth Changing Pharmacies For

2011-11-17T14:07:00.000-05:00

"It's one of those things that can't be repeated too many times, but homeopathy is ridiculous." - Orac

One of Sarnia's local pharmacies has a Homeopath - I've blogged about it before. I was really (really - honestly - seriously) hopeful that the amount of bullsh*t that she'd try to push would be rather innocuous and she would encourage people to use the PROVEN remedies and just throw in some water (homeopathy - it's just water) to earn a few extra bucks for herself. However, while I was driving by Hogan Pharmacy today, I saw a sign that made me lose ALL respect for Hogan Pharmacy.

Selling Homeopathy as a "complementary" (albeit useless) medicine is one thing - "yeah, keep taking the stuff that is actually doing something and to make you feel like you're doing something more, have these tiny sugar pills that will change nothing". The following sign is not about "complementary" medicine - it is about avoiding REAL medicine and taking something that is going to do nothing but leave you susceptible to a REAL disease.

Influenza is something that can be deadly for some people and is definitely not a pleasant thing to endure. The old saying is "Once you've had the flu, you'll never miss a flu shot" comes with the standard caveat of "if you survive the flu" but, otherwise, is pretty accurate. Many often confuse a "common cold" with having influenza - they are not the same thing and the illness, though similar, comes with additional serious concerns. Seasonal influenza is typically much worse than the common cold and will often lead to secondary infections (bacterial pneumonia) and can worsen chronic medical conditions like heart disease, diabetes and asthma.

For a pharmacy to suggest that there is an "alternative" (note: not complementary) method of protecting a person from getting seasonal flu is outright reckless. Many people rely on their pharmacist to be knowledgeable and trustworthy and this borderlines on abuse of patients. Homeopathic flu kits do not work. They put people at risk of real infection and the idea of a homeopathic prophylactic is absurd - not only does it go against the "laws" of Homeopathy itself but Homeopathy is blatantly absurd. There is NO active medical ingredient (or should not be or it isn't homeopathic) in a homeopathic "remedy".

If you go to Hogan Pharmacy, you might want to consider switching. At the very least let them know that pushing absolute stupid on a credulous and trusting public is a violation of trust.

Get your flu shot - it might not only be your life that you're saving - don't be a selfish prick.

Who is Maurice Hilleman?

2011-11-10T15:02:00.001-05:00

“There are many fascinating stories about this scientist. Yet almost no one knew about him, saw him on television, or read about him in newspapers or magazines. His anonymity, in comparison with Madonna, Michael Jackson, Jose Canseco, or an assortment of grade B actors, tells something about our society’s and media’s concepts of celebrity; much less of the heroic. This is not a frivolous observation.” – Ralph Nader, April 2005, Scientists or Celebrities?

I recently received a book (Vaccinated: One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases) from a fellow skeptic and it came with a strong recommendation that I read it. I have read much about vaccines, vaccine controversies and the pharmaceutical industry but, on his advice, I read this book and, I must admit, it is an inspiring and captivating read. The quote above by Ralph Nader was about Maurice Hilleman – the focus of the book – a man that, unfortunately, very few people know.

Ralph’s comment is truly telling about our society and what really makes a celebrity – we know who Paris Hilton is because of sex video, we know about some classless Jersey residents because of a reality show and yet few people know about a man who, during his career, developed 40 (yes, FORTY) vaccines. Some of his vaccines are still used today – like the Jeryl Lynn strain of the mumps vaccine can be found in the MMR vaccine – Jeryl Lynn being the name of Maurice’s daughter. He, as any good father would do when confronted with a sick child, had the housekeeper watch her, drove to his laboratory and picked up a swab (among other items), returned home to swab his daughter’s throat and, ultimately, created the world’s first mumps vaccine. Though the vaccine was not able to help Jeryl Lynn (who made a full recovery), it has gone on to prevent illness and death for countless children.

In the vaccine schedule there are (approximately) 14 recommendation vaccinations – 8 of those were developed by Maurice Hilleman. It has been said that Maurice Hilleman has saved more lives during his lifetime than any other scientist. And you don’t know who he is?

I STRONGLY recommend that you get a copy of Vaccinated: One Man’s Quest to Defeat the World’s Deadliest Diseases – it is a moving and compelling book that will have you wondering how we, as a society, pick our “celebrities” and “heroes”. Maurice Hilleman is a true hero and the story of his life is definitely a worthwhile read.

Advice to 'Psychics': Predict your own failure - it's a sure bet!

2011-10-11T09:52:00.000-04:00

My last blog entry (sorry that I've been so busy) was about Darin James speaking at Robbie Thomas' Paranormal Conference the end of October (this month).

As I suspected, another venture by Robbie Thomas has been canceled. You can see the notice on Darin James' website.

Robbie Thomas is not psychic. Darin James is not psychic. If psychics existed, they wouldn't be doing party tricks and scamming trusting people - they'd be collecting their million dollars from the one person who has been calling them liars for a number of decades.

Since Robbie Thomas (who is not psychic) has taken down the website, here is the poster that he emailed to me.

Double the stupid or stupid squared?

2011-05-25T16:36:00.001-04:00

My good friends Darin James and Robbie Thomas will both be appearing at Robbie Thomas' big waste of time (aka paranormal conference) to be held the end of October, 2011, at the Super 8 in Sarnia. I'd give you more details about the event but it seems that they can't seem to settle on what they are. Is it 2 days? 3? What is the price? Is there a VIP pass anymore? Depends on what poster/flyer you read and what website you read and on what day.

What makes me most excited about Darin James and Robbie Thomas "joining forces" (ha ha ha ha) is that collectively they'll still not be able to figure out who I am (at least not using their claimed psychic powers). Just another point I can make when I point out that if Robbie Thomas and Darin James weren't lying (scumbags) when they claim they have psychic powers, why can't they figure out who I am or who the people are behind http://www.stoprobbie.com/?

Learn more Darin James and Robbie Thomas and make up your mind - is the "pairing up" going to double the stupid or will it become stupid squared?

(Unfortunately this posting comes shortly after my posting about the Caughlin request for an external review of their case - I was just sent information about Darin James appearing at Robbie Thomas' gong show and didn't want to wait to post the information.

The FACT that both of these lying pieces of shit contacted the Caughlin family (directly and through "associates") to claim they could help them is simply a coincidence and is not related to the following posting. Neither Darin James or Robbie Thomas have solved criminal cases using their claimed psychic powers - if they claim otherwise, they're lying or mentally ill.)

Media Advisory: 1974 Unsolved Homicide - 14-year old Karen Caughlin

2011-05-25T09:33:00.000-04:00

From: Caughlin Family
Date: May 31, 2011 10:00 AM
Location: Holiday Inn, Point Edward, Ontario (East Hall)

Victim's Family to Request for OPP Commissioner Chris Lewis to Order an External Review of the OPP's Criminal Investigation into the Unsolved Homicide of Karen Caughlin

(Pt. Edward, ON) The Caughlin family will hold a press conference to discuss and seek public support for an external independent review of their sister’s 37- year unsolved homicide under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Provincial Police.

Bob Sauve, father of homicide victim Kim Sauve (1983), will be in attendance. Convicted killer, Richard Boudreau, remains part of both families’ unease.

The Caughlin family will bring forward new information related to Karen’s whereabouts prior to her murder. They are seeking support for an independent review of Karen’s investigation in the interest of truth and justice.

Contact Information: Kathy Caughlin: caughlink@shaw.ca

Chiropractors are not real doctors

2011-04-29T12:38:00.000-04:00

A number of people who email me about my blog want me to "take on" chiropractic "more" - and I can surely understand their reasoning. I have blogged about chiropractors and the lack of evidence to support their claims and I have received a number of comments (from both sides) regarding those posts.

First of all, there are "good" chiropractors out there - though, in Sarnia, the number is probably closer to how many you can count on one finger than on one hand.

Chiropractors should NEVER EVER EVER be considered as your primary care "Doctor" - they aren't real doctors. Most have received extremely limited science based training and most have never received any training in diagnosing disease. They aren't doctors and the title "Dr" before their name is misleading to many. I get that and I understand the strong desire for me to blog about chiropractors (let's not forget that YOU could easily set-up your own blog and explain the problems with chiropractic - I needn't be a lone voice in this) but I'm cautiously optimistic that people are coming to understand that Chiropractic (for the most part - and by most, I mean, MOST) is silly (and can be dangerous).

With all that said, this story is disturbing (not all that uncommon - we just don't have investigative press, locally, to expose the scammers in Sarnia): "We Were 'Duped' by Chiropractor's Ads". When they try to hide the fact that they are chiropractors is another whole story.

Jeffrey Needham, in Sarnia, who is not a doctor, has made extremely dubious claims himself and has been forced to remove a number of claims from his website. I have blogged about his "feature" in a book.

Nothing fails like prayer

2011-04-28T13:19:00.000-04:00

A recent article on canoe.ca shows another example of prayer doing nothing - or it says that the god he was praying to also wanted his father dead.

"Confessed killer Ranjit Singh was convinced prayer could overcome the demons who told him to do bad things, a psychiatrist testified Wednesday.
But Dr. David Tano agreed with Crown prosecutor Gary Cornfield only modern medicine could cure Singh of the evil spirits which haunted him."

and

"Basically, medication is the only thing that would keep the disease under control, as opposed to his decision to pray?" Cornfield asked Tano.

"Yes," the forensic psychiatrist said.

And for those who will be offended, remember that I'm probably not talking about your god.

Confronting silly propositions where necessary

2011-04-27T08:00:00.001-04:00

My wife and I were recently at a dinner party that involved some heavy discussions relating to weight loss, alternative medicine and the usual terms used by Alt med (toxins, balance, natural, wellness).

It is extremely disheartening (albeit somewhat laughable) that many of these 'certified' 'fitness experts' have little (no) understanding about weight loss and human physiology so I felt it important to explain some basic points to someone who was speaking, with conviction, rubbish.

After the evening conversation, my wife suggested that maybe I shouldn't have been so firm with my words when discussing another's profession. I asserted that nonsense, spoken as fact, needs to be confronted head on. I'm fine with people being passionate about and making claims about 'things' so long as they are prepared to explain why or present evidence for such claims. I'm willing to listen and I often learn from others - however, when the basis for a claim is clearly rooted in nonsense, I'm not afraid to suggest that they might be a bit 'off'.

During our drive home, I told my wife that I feel it is important to confront silly propositions especially when other people could be mislead by them. That evening was definitely one of those times. The truth matters and I believe that this person ultimately realized that maybe their position was based on bad reasoning. Others who were listening, however, benefitted the most. And that can often be the case - bystanders or witnesses to a discussion are potentially saved from accepting the proposition.

Yesterday, however, was a different case. While having dinner with our extended family, someone began talking about complete nonsense and I didn't even offer a skeptical comment. After they left, my wife reminded me of our conversation from a couple days earlier. I suggested that, because the person making the claims is one that regularly 'talks shit' and was in the company of people who would understand that little of what he has to say is based in fact, there was no need to point out the obvious.

I also find it difficult to introduce a logical explanation to people who are so simple that they could not understand it so I often don't even bother.

To put it simply, if you talk nonsense to me and I don't point out that it is silly, I likely think that:
1) You are probably thought of as a regular bullshitter and most people would see that
2) You seem so simple that I don't think you would understand how silly your claim is anyway
Or
3) I think you are the only one who might act on such a belief and the outcome has potential to be truly funny for the rest of us

In other words, if you make a claim and I ask you why you accept/believe/claim such, it is because I feel that you are possibly intelligent enough and/or respectable enough to engage. If I don't respond it may be that I have reason to believe that you may be speaking of something resembling the truth but it could be that I have reason to believe that most people would hardly reference your claims to support their arguments for your lack of integrity.

Call things stupid that are stupid unless the people claiming such stupid appear to be as stupid as that which they claim. Sometimes claims made by crazy people will drive people to assume the opposite is more likely to be true. Not engaging pure stupid can often be just as (or more) successful than actually giving them the respect of a response.

(And, yet, I am driven to argue with homeopaths, reiki practitioners and others. Silly me.)

Homeopathy Awareness Week

2011-04-17T09:10:00.001-04:00

Now that Homeopathy Awareness Week has come to an end, I thought I'd let Homeopaths in on the big secret - people use homeopathy because they aren't aware of what it really is.

I see homeopathy awareness week, really, as counter-productive for those hoping, really, to avoid the truth.

Almost without fail, when you ask someone about homeopathy, they make reference to 'natural' and 'herbs'. I am not going to tackle the misapplication of the word 'natural' here (natural includes: influenza, feces, anthrax, lead, mercury) or what benefits might be derived from 'herbs' because homeopathy is not about that.

Often, homeopathy claims to use the very 'toxins' (don't get me started on that word) that the 'natural' 'pushers' are so against. I say 'claims' because almost all homeopathic preparations don't include even a molecule of the supposed active ingredients.

So, yes, I fully support homeopathy awareness week - we need to make people aware of homeopathy including:
- the active ingredient is diluted beyond the point of actually being present
- there is not a single large scale RCT that shows homeopathy to be any better than placebo
- it is just water
- it goes against almost all understandings in modern science
- to accept that 'water has memory' would require some evidence for such a claim (none exists but plenty of evidence exists to show that that is not the case)
- if water did have memory, how does it forget all the pooh it has had in it?
- a treatment that works also works whether or not you believe in it (homeopathy doesn't work even if you believe in it)
- just because it is sold (legally) doesn't mean that it has been tested for efficacy OR safety (ask Gary Null)

For more on homeopathy, see:
www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com
www.1023.org.uk

Magnet Therapy - A Closer Look

2011-04-06T12:42:00.019-04:00

There was a booth at the recent Sarnia home show for Magnets 4 Health (http://www.magnets4health.ca/). Joanne Caissie is the owner of Magnets 4 Health and someone who I have had conversations with. She readily admits that she is not a Doctor and that she isn't suggesting that magnets can cure anything - but only when you press her for the science behind what she sells/claims.

At her booth, if you just listened to what she was telling other potential customers, you would be left with the impression that magnets can cure, or offer relief from, all sorts of things. Calling her on such claims is about the only way to get her to become matter-of-fact about her products. "Many people report..." with a reference to a few different anecdotes is about as far as she would go with me. "Search the internet for yourself" and "I'm not a Doctor" was her response to "Where is the science?".

On Joanne's website, you will find the main body of the site stating "Experience relief..." followed by a list of maladies/diseases ranging from Acne to Epilepsy and Shingles to "Alzeimer's". Interestingly, Joanne would like you to believe, if you don't accept her anecdotes, that she's not claiming magnets can affect the natural history of any of those conditions but, if you aren't skeptical, it might just help you.

Remember, a therapy that actually works does so even if you don't believe in it. For example, antibiotics work whether or not you "believe" in them.

Not surprisingly, Magnets 4 Health also has a flyer that you can get at her shows and it matches her website very closely. One element, oddly, happens to be missing from her website that is listed on her brochure/flyer. Where it says "Experience relief..." on her website it says "Experience relief from..." on her flyer. I don't doubt that she took the word "from" off her website because it might be construed as implying that magnets can "heal" asthma, Alzheimer's, cancers, Multiple Sclerosis, etc - things that she can't back up with evidence.

If you happen to search for Magnets 4 Health in Google or view the source of her webpage, you'll notice the "Description" of her site begins with "Experience the healing and energizing effects of magnetic jewellery!". The same statement is found on her flyer. And the "Keywords" for her website include: "increase blood flow", "toxins removal", "pain relief", "reduce inflammation", "body healing" and "increase immunity".

In her brochure and on her website she boldly states: "Our jewellery provides the same healing effects as the methods used successfully by physiotherapists all over the world". She also claims, "Exactly how magnets help alleviate pain is only now being scientifically discovered and understood. One main benefit is the increase in blood circulation in the affected areas. Acting like a heating pad, but not limited in time of use, magnets appear to relax blood vessels, allowing them to bring more oxygen-rich blood and carry toxins away from the affected site. It is also felt that a magnetic field helps to diminish electronic pain signals sent by nerve receptors to the brain."

Unfortunately for Joanne (and the people who are mislead by the claims), we know that much of what she is claiming borders on outright fraud.

Consider this ruling by the FTC against a company that marketed magnets for "healing" that states, in part:
IT IS ORDERED that respondents, directly or through any partnership, corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, including franchisees, licensees or distributors, in connection with the manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of magnetic therapy products in or affecting commerce, shall not represent, in any manner, expressly or by implication, that such products:

A. Are effective in treating cancer, including lung and breast cancers, diabetic ulcers, arthritis, or degenerative joint conditions;
B. Lower high blood pressure;
C. Stabilize or increase the T-cell count of HIV patients;
D. Reduce muscle spasms in persons with Multiple Sclerosis;
E. Reduce nerve spasms associated with diabetic neuropathy;
F. Increase bone density, immunity, or circulation; or
G. Are comparable or superior to prescription pain medicine,
unless, at the time the representation is made, respondents possess and rely upon competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representation.

The order deals, clearly, with claims similar to those made by Joanne at http://www.magnets4health.ca/. Studies have been done to see if magnets help reduce pain and they have been clear - there is no benefit of "real" magnets over "sham" magnets.

Let me also deal with other misconceptions about magnets (especially those used in Magnet Therapy):

They often are not even strong enough to present a magnetic field below the skin.
The iron in our blood is NOT magnetic - if the small magnets could affect blood flow, an MRI would kill every one of us.
We are subjected, on a regular basis, to far greater magnetic fields with no ill effects (and no benefits).
The claim that these magnets are not safe for pregnant women is a silly tactic to get people to believe that these magnets actually do something.
If magnets truly increased blood flow, why isn't erectile dysfunction at the top of the list of conditions they treat?

I don't doubt that Joanne is aware that much of what she claims is not supported by science and her attempts to distance herself from specific claims of healing and relief are nothing more than an attempt at avoiding litigation.

In saying that, I'm often left with wondering whether someone, like Joanne, is being willfully deceptive - the idea that they can know that the science doesn't support their product and the regulatory agencies have made judgements against people for similar claims yet they still will attempt to get the idea across that their therapy can cure something without explicitly stating it.

Magnet Therapy does not work, has no plausible mechanism of action and it definitely is not a replacement for physiotherapy and other treatments/therapies. Joanne is, as she claims, not a Doctor and has no evidence to support the idea that magnets elicit anything more than a placebo.

People often ask me if they should "talk to their doctor" about things like this. I think, "Yes, you should talk to your Doctor about magnet therapy. If she/he laughs at you, you've probably got a good Doctor."

Below is a scan of the flyer available at her booth at the recent home show: (click for larger image)

An email response from Joanne Caissie (caissiej@xplornet.ca) when asked about the evidence to support her claims:

You can go on Google and research Magnetic Therepy like I did. There are hundreds of pages on studies on magnets. I am not a doctor or anything like this. I do not cure people either. I have had great sucess helping people with their small aches and pains(*). Magnets will work on most people but there are some that it does nothing for them. Magnets have been around for many years. Hope this helps you. Thanks so much.

Joanne Caissie

(*Do I need to point out that conditions often not considered small aches and pains include (and this list is a DIRECT copy off of her site - spelling is hers):
Arthritis, Achilles Tendons, Acne, Allergies, Alzeimer's, Anxiety, Asthma, Back Pain, Blood Pressure, Bone Fractures, Bronchitis, Cancer, Carpel Tunnel, Chronic Fatigue, Cold Hands & Feet, Constipation Cramps, Depression, Diabetes, Epilepsy, Fibrosis, Fibromyalgia, Fluid Retention, Frozen Shoulder, Gastric Ulcer, Gastroentreritis, Gout, Headaches, Irritable Bowel, Lumbago, Menopause, Migraines, Muscular, Spasms, M.S., Neuralgia, Papilloma, Parkinson’s Disease, Prostrate Disease, Psoriasis, Repetitive Strains Injury, Restless Leg Syndrome, Rheumatism, Sciatica, Shingles, Stomach Ulcers, Stress, Tendonitis, Tennis or Gold Elbow, Tinnitus, Torn Ligaments, Travel Sickness and Varicose Veins.)

Of course, psychics aren't self-serving - that's why I love them

2011-04-03T18:16:00.001-04:00

Have you ever heard someone say "why don't you ever see the headline 'psychic wins lottery'?". It bothers me when I hear that - I think, to myself, "geez, educate yourself people - psychics can't use their powers for personal benefit."

Ask any psychic and they will tell you they don't do what they do for their own benefit, they just want to help people. If that truly is the case, you can understand why none have used their powers to win the lottery, predict the stock markets (for themselves) or even made life-altering decisions to protect/benefit themselves.

Let us remember that psychics, unlike the average population, don't have 'bad' members. Never has one abused their powers and secretly purchased a lottery ticket. It is for this reason that I absolutely admire psychics and their selfless acts.

Given their special gifts, you have to appreciate that they spend their time working with people and not benefitting from it themselves. Please, the next time you encounter a psychic, take some time and thank them for everything they do - especially with no expectation of personal gain.

Crap. I wrote the above blog entry because from what psychics have told me, they're awesome people. When my wife proofed it, though, she thought I left out some important information.

I'm left with quite a quandary. My wife pointed out that psychics almost always charge for their 'readings'. If that is the case, then the reality isn't that psychics can and do use their 'powers' for personal benefit.

It also occurred to her that, if it were true that they can not benefit from their powers, psychics can no longer get involved in solving crimes where rewards are offered. That would explain why there are countless unsolved cases on the books.

So, to accept that psychics exist we have to accept that:
1.) psychics have agreed not to use their powers for personal benefit
2.) of all the 'psychics' that exist, all of them have always been honest (and not used their skills to win the lottery, game the stock market, purchase life insurance to take advantage of an unexpected death, etc)
3.) everything we know about physics is wrong

Or we could apply Occam's Razor and accept that psychics don't exist.

Really, if psychics were such caring and selfless people, why would they be spending their time charging people to do parlor tricks when they could be alleviating substantial amounts of pain and suffering of others by solving cold cases?

There are three self styled 'psychics' in Sarnia that actively advertise their skills. Today I challenge each of them to stop just claiming selflessness and start living it.

The local news agencies have recently reported that CrimeStoppers is offering $2,000 for information leading to the arrest of the person responsible for the death of Karen Caughlin. Solve the crime, reduce the suffering and silence the critics OR you should be looked upon not as selfless and caring but fraudulent and heartless.

The three psychics I refer to are:
Darin James
Mary Young/Mary Demitro
Robbie Thomas

My challenge to Darin, Mary and Robbie: Solve the Caughlin case, collect the $2,000 and I'll write a public apology and publish it (full page) in the Sarnia Observer.

My challenge to you, reader of this blog, is this: make sure that Darin, Mary and Robbie are familiar with this challenge.
Darin James - darinjames@darinjamesonline.com, Phone: 519-542-7482, 519-402-0024, 519-491-6138 or twitter @the_darin_james
Mary Young - 519-337-8770
Robbie Thomas - RobbieThomas@cogeco.ca, 519-337-8333, 519-337-2344

(Note: Robbie Thomas has, for years, publicly claimed that he worked with police on the Caughlin case. The case, as mentioned above, has not been solved and Robbie Thomas has inflicted substantial amounts of pain on the Caughlin family. Robbie Thomas is a liar and a fraud - www.stoprobbie.com)

Excitement lies ahead (or excitement and lies ahead?)

2011-04-01T22:14:00.001-04:00

Thanks to RealityInSarnia, I came across this site. I will have to set some time aside this weekend to wade my way through it. It is packed with some of the craziest ideas every dreamed up by crazy people.

I am reassured by the facebook 'like' button saying 'be the first of your friends to like this'. Though some of my friends are woo 'leaning', I think all of them would have a laugh at this site.

Take a look at the site. Laughs are no charge - everything else is probably a scam.

If I was in the country I'd be going to her Forest Health and Wellness Fair - that'd be excitement well worth the $3.00.

Stop Robbie Thomas and Accommodationism

2011-03-29T22:25:00.001-04:00

I have blogged, in the past, about accommodationism as it relates to evolution acceptance. I'm not an accomodationist and I don't think we should be afraid to recognize that acceptance of evolution does undermine many religious beliefs.

However, my reference to accommodationism in this entry is related to our goal, at www.stoprobbie.com, to get Robbie Thomas to change his lying and abusing ways. In the past few weeks, we have been contacted by people who would be willing to help our 'cause' with Robbie Thomas/Police/Crimestoppers but my skewering of their beliefs (on other topics) make them hesitant to take part.

A couple of the other contributors to the site had pointed out the complaints and concerns and wondered what we should do about it. Rather than have this issue discussed on www.stoprobbie.com, I thought I'd talk about it here.

First of all, yes, I'm a skeptic and an atheist. Yes, I have attacked the firmly held beliefs of almost everyone (we all hold to at least a couple truly whacky ideas) and I'm not about to stop.

Robbie Thomas is a liar - he does not have psychic powers and he has never solved a missing persons or murder case using paranormal methods. I despise his activities as they relate to abusing already victimized families and I think that the goal of www.stoprobbie.com is admirable. I joined the group because I truly wanted to help - it does bother me that, possibly, the group is not getting the support it needs because of my other activities.

However, I am not going to apologize for them. I'm not sorry if something I said was counter to your firmly held beliefs - whether it be reflexology, homeopathy, reiki, therapeutic touch, chiropractic, creationism, psychics, ear candling, other altmed practices, any other anti-science or even god. My goal, here, is to encourage critical thinking, increase the understanding of logical fallacies and to promote science. Your woo-woo is fair game.

Note: I don't spend much time blogging about homeopathy and other pure stupid on stoprobbie.com - I could see it being a problem if that were the case.

If you can't be bothered to help stop the abuse by a psychic because you don't share my skeptical views on other topics, it is you that is in the wrong. Robbie Thomas is causing real harm and your inaction is only allowing him to continue doing so.

So...
What do you think? Should I part ways with the group? Will it get broader support without me? You can post your thoughts in the comments, email me at sarniaskeptic@gmail.com or email the group at emailus@stoprobbie.com. Your input, either way, is truly appreciated.

The only skeptic in the room...

2011-03-18T15:45:00.002-04:00

I'm sure, if you follow any of the skeptical blogs, that you've already seen the following video but it brings me to publishing a blog entry that I wrote a while ago and had not yet posted. Watch the video, if you haven't seen it, and then continue on to the rest of my blog below it.

It is often that I am the only skeptic in the room. Often it is an uncomfortable position (or experience) to be in (probably moreso for my wife than it is for me) but one that I do value and cherish. Don't get me wrong, I wish I wasn't the only skeptic in the room but I value that my comments/questions/ideas could ultimately be helping people be better thinkers (or thinkers in the first place).

Seldom, when I'm in a group setting, that I engage a person and question their (truly questionable) beliefs/statements, do I not get a positive response from at least one person in the group. Richard Dawkins has often suggested that sometimes the discussion isn't for the purpose of winning over the person who you are directly engaging but the other people listening - I think that is often the case and, in those instances, calling something absurd when it is absurd doesn't have such a net negative effect. It may entrench the person who espoused the crazy belief but others who are simply watching it unfold may very well appreciate that the beliefs are crazy/absurd.

Though it isn't the point of this entry, I think it is important that people keep "approach" in mind when there is an audience. Conceding "points" to the other person in an attempt to get them to explain their beliefs (or lead them down a garden path) doesn't necessarily help get the real point across to those just listening in. They might, wrongly, assume that some of your "opponent's" claims are valid.

I wanted to discuss or express my frustration with how other people react to nonsense. After I ask someone to explain why it is they believe something and then, possibly, point out the faulty reasoning for the belief, I am, almost without fail, approached by someone who says "I knew that what they were saying was dumb but I don't know enough about it to challenge them so I just let it go in one ear and out the other".

The point I want to make is this: You don't have to be an expert in a subject to understand whether or not the acceptance of a position is based on logic and evidence. You can't afford to not speak out - you'd hope others would do it in situations where someone is trying to bamboozle you - you owe it to others to do the same when they might need it.

A person's belief could be based on the acceptance of something that you DO know about, as well. If someone was to state that we aren't going to run out of oil and we shouldn't be investing in renewable energies, you might not be aware of what oil reserves actually exist and what rate we go through the oil, but what if the premise for their belief/claim was that they believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that the oil is naturally produced in a matter of years and not hundreds of centuries? The premise is wrong so any logical extensions from it are, at best, suspect.

I'm the first to admit that I'm not an expert in much - I'm definitely not an expert in everything. I do not know much about demolition techniques, building engineering, jet fuel burn temperatures, etc. but I can reason my way through potential red flags presented by "9/11 Truthers". Simply applying Occam's Razor would lead one to look at the "Truthers'" claims about "9/11" being an inside job. Asking questions like "What makes you believe that?" or "What evidence do you have to support your claim?" or even asking them why they reject the other hypothesis/explanation can be enough to have them expose their weak reasoning and for others to see just how wacky their beliefs are.

Be a skeptic, if you find something implausible, ask questions. Your first assumption about the claims seeming "far-fetched" may be wrong and you might actually learn something but, gee, is that really a bad thing?

Do yourself and the ones around you a favour - withhold acceptance of a claim until you have good reason to accept it and, most importantly, don't incredulously relay decision-affecting information that you don't have reason to suspect is accurate.

And maybe, one day, I won't be the only skeptic in the room :)

This week in eSkeptic - Pet Psychics

2011-03-16T09:56:00.000-04:00

In this week’s eSkeptic, in a spin on David Letterman’s “Stupid Pet Tricks,” psychologist Bryan Farha examines the very real world of stupid pet psychic tricks—people who think their pets have psychic power. Farha not only debunks the claims of psychic pet owners but reveals how the tricks are done through a series of techniques based on natural (not supernatural) powers.

Read the article...

Okay, psychics are entertaining - if you're not the one being screwed by them

2011-03-10T10:15:00.000-05:00

I do get a laugh out of 'psychics' and their claims, so I will give credit where credit is due - they're entertaining for those who understand that they're nothing more than bullshitters.

However, I was flipping through the newspaper and a little piece of paper fell out. I picked it up off the floor and turned it over to find...

Mary is a local 'psychic' who, obviously, advertises via our local newspaper. You'll notice the disclaimer at the bottom that says "For entertainment only". What? You can't see it? That's right, because it isn't there.

I guess that makes Mary, just like Robbie Thomas, a liar. And this might make her a fraud.

(Yes, I've blogged about Mary Demitro/Mary Young before.)

Penn Point: Massive Homeopathic Overdose Cures

2011-03-09T15:27:00.002-05:00

Judgement Day / The End of the World - May 21, 2011

2011-03-08T18:12:00.001-05:00

Since I have a low tolerance for stupid, I can't seem to make my way through the websites that are suggesting that "Judgement Day" will occur on May 21, 2011 so I'm left with a few important questions.

What happens between May 21, 2011 and October 21, 2011?
Do these people actually have licenses to drive?
Is 'stupid' contagious?

But, seriously, I'm thinking this whole May 21, 2011 thing is a joke being played by atheists and it will turn out to be a movie launch for Gawd Bless America by Blake Freeman.

Let's start from the beginning

2011-03-07T18:43:00.001-05:00

I feel like I'm repeating myself. Okay, maybe it isn't a feeling. I'm repeating myself. I'm repeating myself.

Often when someone brings up Homeopathy, Prayer, Healing Touch, Psychics, etc., a "believer" in the item being discussed will argue a couple ways:

1.) Quantum mechanics/Quantum physics explains how it works
2.) We don't have instruments to test how it works so we shouldn't dismiss it/As instruments get more precise, we'll see how it works

But, they will forget to argue about the most important point.

It is true that there are a number of things that "happen" or "work" but we don't know how they happen or work even though we know that they work. We may not know, precisely, how a particular medicine works but that is not the first part to be discussed.

There are many things about our world and the human body that we know and there are many things that we do not know but that doesn't mean we should simply accept or reject claims based on our current knowledge (or lack of knowledge). We use our current knowledge and models to come up with potential methods of action for new drugs/treatments and then do studies to determine effectiveness/usefulness BUT not everything that we expect to work, works and not everything that seems slightly implausible, fails to work.

Things that work, we try to figure out how they work so we can apply this knowledge to other potential drugs or treatments. Things that don't work, however, we don't give a shit how it is supposed to work.

In other words - present the evidence (real evidence, not just stories) that it works, FIRST.

So, for people who claim 1 or 2 above, let me say this. You're wrong. Quantum physics/mechanics does not explain Homeopathy, Prayer, Healing Touch, Psychics, etc. because they don't work and there is nothing to explain.
Quantum physics doesn't explain how Homeopathy works because Homeopathy doesn't work.
Quantum physics doesn't explain how prayer works because prayer doesn't work.
Quantum physics doesn't explain how Healing/Therapeutic Touch (TT) works because TT doesn't work.
Quantum physics doesn't explain how Psychics work because Psychics are lying scumbags (http://www.stoprobbie.com/).
Quantum physics doesn't explain how anything works if it doesn't work. (Quantum physics might explain why something doesn't work, however! But only if it doesn't work!)

Before you argue about or claim 'evidence' for how something works, please, please, please, please present the evidence that it actually works.

We know why Homeopathy doesn't work (no possible method of action, no active ingredient left, biologically implausible). We know why prayer doesn't work (too many non-existent gods to choose from). We know why TT doesn't work (no possible method of action - it's not even f'ing touching!). We know why Psychics don't work (dead people are mute).

(And, to deal, in advance, with the standard arguments:
1.) I've tried it, and it didn't work for me. It's stupid.
2.) It didn't work for you. You need to learn about logical fallacies ('post hoc ergo propter hoc', 'argument from authority', 'argument from antiquity', 'argument from popularity' for sure), regression to the mean, the natural history of the disease and learn about spontaneous remission, misdiagnoses of the initial condition (thanks Tim Minchin), confirmation bias, anecdotes vs. data, proper blinding, placebo, etc.
3.) I'm not a Big Pharma shill. I don't get paid to do what I do here - helping to stop the abuse of others is payment enough.)

Two things that 'Therapeutic Touch' isn't

2011-03-02T19:11:00.001-05:00

1.) Therapeutic
2.) Touch

More on Therapeutic Touch.

Homeopathic remedies that work - complete list

2011-03-02T19:06:00.001-05:00

Consult the following list of symptoms and the proven homeopathic remedies.

Symptom - Remedy
1.) -

End of list.

(Note: Thick wallet syndrome is not a recognized condition though all homeopathic 'remedies' can alleviate its symptoms.)

Looking for a REAL psychic - check out this list

2011-03-02T18:57:00.001-05:00

Before you contact a psychic, be sure they are a real psychic - consult this exhaustive list of proven psychics. If they're not on this list, they aren't psychic.

1.)

End of list.

If you think you're psychic, you can get your name added to this list by going here. Successfully complete the challenge and we'll add you to this list.

How to tell if your house is haunted

2011-03-02T18:43:00.001-05:00

It isn't.

Indoctrination is not choice

2011-02-19T10:07:00.001-05:00

Discussing reasons for belief with people of faith is a touchy subject - not only because we are questioning the core beliefs of people but because it often isn't clear what their argument (or basis for argument) is (or even the definition of their god). I have tried to address this topic in other blog entries and, I'm sure, it will be a topic that we face for years to come. One point that is often neglected is not why someone believes but what made them believe in a particular god.

We (atheists) have a number of different arguments to make regarding belief in a god but I don't think we argue (often) enough about the method used for "making" believers - indoctrination.

It is almost always unfair for an atheist to ask what it was that brought a believer to believing in their "god" just as it is generally wrong for a believer to suggest that they "chose" to believe in the particular "god" that they follow. Religion relies heavily on indoctrination - teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically.

For the majority of believers, they follow the "god" that their parents followed - they stick to the religion that their family was a part of. Though some move to different denominations of churches, very few actually change the "god" that they worship.

To suggest "choice" it would have to be clear that one was given. Most families don't teach their growing children comparative religions and fewer families, I submit, consider leaving discussions/information about religion until the child is old enough to reason his or her way through the claims. In societies/religions where children were excluded from the religious rituals, practices and "instruction" until adulthood, Christianity and other religions were able to take hold and (almost) completely replace the previous/traditional faiths of those regions.

Indoctrination is not a choice. It is the circumvention or avoidance of choice.

Richard Dawkins and others have argued that it is a form of child abuse (and with good reason). Even ignoring the idea that children are being threatened with eternal damnation and hellfire - the abuse of a developing child's mind when it comes to reasoning and questioning is reason enough to see it as harmful. Though some religions are (or claim to be) in favour of science, one of the greatest potential harms to a future scientific career would be to teach someone to simply accept something without evidence - this is the core point of religious faith. To circumvent the skeptical view or to push the argument from authority before a child is even old enough to understand reason and logic is not the path we should be taking. But I digress...

When discussing beliefs with a believer, are we naive, then, when we try to make the "how do you know your "god" is the true "god"?" point? They didn't choose their "god" so the reasoning was never there to be questioned. As is often said, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to. This is made even more difficult because of the destruction of reason and logic in the indoctrination process.

The argument, although completely hypothetical, that we may really need to make is this:
Suppose you were not indoctrinated into your particular religion. When presented with the information and books for the different religions at this point in your life, would you have selected your current religion/"god"? Would you be able to accept the primary claims made by any of the major religions?

Since most people were not given the choice, the "what if" scenario might be a difficult one to get across or for them to imagine. Some will counter with the idea that they didn't really "believe" any of it until later in life when they were "born again". I would argue that if the child had not received the original indoctrination they wouldn't have had any pre-planted idea of it being true for them to return to later in life.

I seriously doubt that many adults could be reasoned into accepting some of the "amazing" stories presented in the Koran, Bible, Torah and other religious books without the predilection to "believing" miraculous claims without evidence - a penchant that was created during their indoctrination as a child.

I don't doubt, however, that people will suggest on this blog and elsewhere that they were 1.) raised as a non-believer, were not indoctrinated and 2.) reasoned themselves into accepting their "god". (I doubt that the claims are complete and accurate but I don't doubt that people will make them.)

If you believe in "god", is it the same one that your parents believed in? If you claim to have "chosen" your "god", what actually brought you to believing in that "god"? Had you researched the other religions/gods? (Over 2800 of them?) Why did you dismiss the others? I am, honestly, interested in the answers to these questions.

Robbie Thomas: Old Predictions Still Wrong (Crosspost)

2011-02-18T10:39:00.002-05:00

Take a look at this link we just received from a follower of the blog:

Psychic story questioned

Posted 3 years ago

Sir: Re: The article "Putting killers behind bars" (The Observer, Dec. 31, 2007)

I see that local, self-described psychic Robbie Thomas has again been allowed free advertising in your paper. With the exception of two paragraphs, this article becomes nothing more.

In these paragraphs, Mr. Thomas claims he provided Louisville, Ky., police with key information regarding the abduction, on June 29, 2007, of a four-year-old boy, with no result given. Together, with the headline of this article, the implication seems to be that his tip led to solving the case, but a visit to his website further elaborates to show his disappointment with police for not investigating his information. (The boy's body was discovered by trash collectors on July 6 and a suspect was arrested on Dec. 6.)

I don't see any evidence of his assistance in solving the case.

He may well possess the powers he claims, but perhaps he could publish some verifiable details of cases that he has helped solve, as inferred by the headline.

Mr. Thomas also states in the article that his predictions "have never been proven wrong," yet in an article from June 1, 2005, regarding his investigation of the (still) unsolved Karen Caughlin murder, he predicts "the case will come to a close in six months."

Could it be that some "psychics" are using well-documented methods to take advantage of people at their most vulnerable? Does a fee of $200 per half hour sound reasonable? Caveat emptor.

It has been almost 6 years since Robbie Thomas claimed that a case would be closed within six months (see what the Caughlin family has to say about Robbie Thomas). The case, still, remains open and unsolved. The other case that this letter writer was referring to was that of Cezar Cano.

For those who've read this blog for a while, this will come as no surprise to you. Robbie Thomas is not psychic - just a liar and a huckster.

No publicity is bad publicity? Robbie Thomas must be proud

2011-02-18T08:13:00.002-05:00

If the commonly used saying of "no publicity is bad publicity" is true, Robbie Thomas scored a major victory last week. When I contacted the company that we advertised with about extending the ad for http://www.stoprobbie.com/ (see it here), I asked them how many views the ad had as well as how many clicks it got, they told me it was "by far the most popular ad of the week". They sent me their standard "you should consider display advertising" email and I think we're going to do that.

Does anyone have any suggestions for what the banner ad should have? We can put pictures and have multiple "slides" in an animated banner. Send me your thoughts (sarniaskeptic@gmail.com) or email them to http://www.stoprobbie.com/ at emailus@stoprobbie.com.

I know that http://www.stoprobbie.com/ received donations from a couple individuals as a result of the Robbie Thomas/Crime Stoppers claims but they can always use assistance in other ways. If you are interested in helping out, don't send me money - contact emailus@stoprobbie.com for information. The group, as I see it, is more interested in promotion and assistance in getting the message out and, unless a big media campaign is the direction the group wants to take, we have enough money to sustain the site related expenses and current advertising for a couple of years. (The domains have been paid up for 10 years already as well.)

Robbie Thomas or, legally, Robbie Poulton of Sarnia is not psychic - if he claims otherwise he is lying.

And, Robbie, continue to contact my family, friends and associates - I love the comic relief. (Keep in mind that since many of the people you are talking to actually know the truth, you are only proving to them that you are indeed as big of douche bag as I've told them you are.)

Chiropractic Revisited

2011-02-16T14:32:00.000-05:00

Just recently I received emails from fervent supporters of Chiropractors - oddly, it is never people who support the possibly beneficial components of Chiropractic. They are almost always the dogmatic followers of the century old failed idea of innate intelligence.

An email in my inbox on Monday morning was from a lady who claimed that she "wouldn't dare let a doctor inject her child with toxins", has "never had the flu shot and never got the flu", is "the healthiest (she's) ever been" and has "taken my(her) kid to a chiropractor since he was 12 weeks old".

Without getting into the "fear mongering" that is attempted when someone says "toxins" as it relates to things like vaccines, I thought it appropriate for me to respond to her specific statements. To the not vaccinating statements, I said, "You owe me and a great percentage of the population a lot of thanks. Without us, you'd be putting your child at much greater risk. Choosing not to educate yourself does not allow you to abdicate your responsibility for your children. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience"

Sadly I had to address the vaccination point because many Chiropractors advise their patients to avoid vaccines - and that probably made sense when Chiropractic was invented (prior to effective vaccines). Chiropractors, I sometimes must restate, are not Doctors. They are definitely not trained in infectious disease and they should not be (I know, many do) making diagnoses.

Chiropractic may be bad for your life (insurance)
On Monday night, only about 12 hours after reading the obnoxious rant from an, obviously, ignorant woman, I get a call from my insurance company - I'm changing my life insurance so they start the process with a phone interview about previous medical history, high risk behaviour and the like.

One of the questions that I was asked went something like this:
"Do you use the services of a chiropractor or alternative health practitioner?"

Based on the majority of emails I get to my sarniaskeptic@gmail.com account, I thought the correct answer was "Yes, Yes, I use an alternative health practitioner - science based medicine." Like most of the questions asked during my phone call, I was able to answer "No". I paused for a second and then asked (and I paraphrase because I was definitely not expecting a question like that!), "If I did, would that affect my insurability?" to which she answered "Do you use an alternative health practitioner?" I reassured her that I did not to which she explained that it would not make me uninsurable but it could affect my premiums. With further questioning she told me that she does not think that seeing a chiropractor has ever lowered insurance premiums.

I'm certain that some will argue/suggest the insurance companies are simply conspiring to destroy chiropractic and that there is no basis for them changing insurance premiums based on someone seeing an alternative health practitioner. Get over it, there is no conspiracy.

Life insurance is based on a calculated risk as much as it can be. The only reason that life insurance could justify raising or lowering premiums is if the risk was real or if the potential risk was reduced. Following that, logically, there must be reason for insurance underwriters to consider chiropractic patients (and other users of alternative health practitioners) at higher risk of dying (or dying sooner - since, we are all going to die).

Chiropractic has very little science to support their services and, where they do, the services they provide are often available from other (licenced, regulated and OHIP covered in some instances) service providers (ie. Physiotherapists). If you see a Chiropractor, you owe it to yourself to be informed; see a Chiropractor that works hand-in-hand with your Orthopaedist and avoid any Chiropractor who suggests that they can cure anything (thick wallet syndrome excepted).

Surprise surprise - Priests accused of sex abuse

2011-02-10T21:11:00.001-05:00

I apologize for the quick/short blog - much on the go and no time to blog.

A recent article on CNN tells of three priests who sexually abused boys and the cover-up of it by the Archdiocese. This doesn't come as a surprise - it is something that seems to happen on a regular basis. The problem with teaching people to not question things is that enables priests and others to get away with such abuses of power.

Religion is not a force for good.

Oh, and fuck the pope.

Wow - Stop Robbie Thomas Activity!

2011-02-09T16:33:00.000-05:00

I just got an email from a contributor to http://www.stoprobbie.com/ - he has posted a new entry about Robbie Thomas, Psychics and Why it Matters! Head over there to read it.

I have just scanned through it - quite a bit to read but I did pick up a couple of things!

First of all, I love his Penn Jillette quotes. It is hard to beat what Penn says and the way he says it.

Secondly, I can't help but laugh when I read one of the links he included. Back in April of 2010, Robbie's ex-manager exposed him as a liar, a cheater and a fraud and I posted the manager's complete "release" on the blog. In an attempt to be fair, I offered Robbie the opportunity to respond. His response was priceless and is even funnier today.

And finally, the "advertisements" that he is referring to include some signage that is being made for http://www.stoprobbie.com/ as well as some posters and other ads. (And... this.)

Having fun at the Walmart Pharmacy - Homeopathy awareness

2011-02-07T09:47:00.002-05:00

My wife and I ran in to Walmart to get a few things earlier today and, while we were there, my wife asked if I needed anything (she probably regrets that now). I told her I had to go to the pharmacy - the cold medicine aisle. It was full of people but I was able to squeeze in to see the nonsense on the top shelf (homeopathic flu treatment). I grabbed a few of them (I had to reach above a couple that was squatted down looking at other medicines) and it got the attention of a few people around me. The couple that was squatted down asked if what I grabbed was 'good stuff'. I told them, no, that it was pure stupid. It is homeopathy and there is nothing in it. Completely stupid.

The lady responded and said that it was made from herbs and natural stuff. I corrected her - I told her that it is not herbal medicine or anything like that, homeopathy dilutes the active ingredient to the point when there is (literally) nothing in it. I pointed out that the particular crap that I grabbed was made from duck liver and that it is diluted "a million million million million million etc etc times. There is nothing in it.".

When she responded with the word "holistic", I knew I was dealing with an ill-informed person. Her comment was "I think that holistic medicines combining alternative medicine with western medicine..." and I interrupted her and said "what do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine." while I put the crap back on the shelf and said "at least it is on the top shelf where most people won't be able to reach it". I left the aisle and my wife and I went to check out.

My wife suggested that I make life interesting but I'm not sure she meant it as a compliment.

Update Feb 7, 2011 9:39AM:

PS. If you think it is stupid that Walmart carries a few Homeopathic "medicines", consider Hogan Pharmacy - they have a Homeopath on staff! (A few points about the picture below - it was scanned out of "Business Trends" "magazine", contains a bunch of stupid - anyone who mentions "allopathic" or "allopathy" deserves to be heckled and because something is "old" doesn't make it right. If we're going to mention "the turn of the century" (forgetting that we've actually "turned" another century in case Lynn hadn't noticed - she's referring to the 19th - 20th century not the 20th - 21st), we should also mention that life expectancy was decades shorter than it is today. Homeopathy may have appeared less stupid then but we've grown up and we KNOW that it is stupid today.) (Click the image for a larger version.)

Come on Bill, don't beat around the bush - Is there a vaccine/autism link?

2011-02-04T15:50:00.000-05:00

Bill Gates was interviewed by Sanjay Gupta about his recent annual letter. Sanjay asked him about the link between Autism and vaccines...

This is definitely worth a read (or watch the video):
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/03/gupta.gates.vaccines.world.health/

This might be it...

2011-02-04T13:22:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow, I will join with my fellow skeptics in an overdose. Unfortunately that might mean that this will be my final blog entry. (Ha!)

February 5th will be the world-wide demonstration to show that Homeopathy couldn't possibly be more dumb.

http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

xkcd: Sickness

2011-01-31T21:31:00.000-05:00

Aimee Martin Responds

2011-01-26T10:57:00.003-05:00

A few weeks ago, I posted a blog entry, "New Year, More Stupid". I had copied (word for word) an ad that was placed on a local classifieds site (classified.sarnia.com). The advertisement was for Aimee's business that included a number of services. I inserted links to sites that explained what some of those services claim to be and to explain what they are not.

Just this morning I noticed that there was a comment awaiting moderation (the blog automatically sends comments into moderation for old posts) from Aimee. I have approved it on that entry but have copied it below.

Aimee Martin said...

Ok... first of all, I am one of the Registered Myomassologists that you have blatantly criticized without any personal knowledge what-so-ever. So before you make comments that you cant substantiate, please do take me up on an offer for a treatment, then blog about it! At least have some knowledge before you open your mouth. I am registered by the largest massage therapy body in Canada... the Natural Health Care Practioners of Canda...and we recieve the same "D" designation as all the other community colleges, medix, etc... I have all my training in Swedish Massage, just like any other therapist you would see. Most insurance companies do recognize us, and the United States employs Myomassologists throughout their health care system. Myomassology originated from the US Association of Massage Therapists in 1972. Our massage is very hands on, and not spiritual or based on energy- although many find merit in those treatments as well. And No, we are not into making a quick buck, and again, get your minds out of the gutter because we do not perform that type of massage! In fact, why not ask one of the several nurses and other health professionals that have become clients because they were thrilled with the massage they recieved from us. So before you pass judgement, I welcome you to come in and have a massage...heck I will give it you for free...but you might be covered for your additional treatments by your insurance provider...you might want to check into that! :)

First of all, I don't think I made any mention about "myomassology" at all - the only links related to the advertisement for "myomassology" related to the use of the word "holistic" and when there was mention of correcting leg length. Since we're talking about substantiating claims, let me remind you that I made NO claims about massage therapy being bunk and it was you (Aimee) who made the claims about bunk (see below). The ball is in your court to substantiate the claims (you won't because you can't - the evidence is counter to your claims).

With that said about "myomassology", it seems that it is massage therapy on woo-woo. The link suggests that the concept behind "myomassology" was to take massage therapy from basic legitimacy and into complete stupidity. You (Aimee) seem to be trying to take "myomassology" back to massage therapy and, if that's the case, I applaud you for that (you have a lot of baggage to ditch, however, first).

I'm all for massages (though my wife will attest that I don't care for them myself) as long as they are being advertised honestly (see Massage Therapy) - to relax a person and relieve pain.

Also, to criticize claims, I don't need "personal knowledge" - I am familiar with the claims being made and where they are bunk, I called them bunk. I included the ad in my blog because of the references to mismatched leg lengths, Reflexology, Cranio Sacral Therapy and Fire Cupping - all of which are bunk. I've talked about named techniques (like Contraction Release Therapy, etc.) in the past - most of which are bunk too. Since the claim isn't distinct, I didn't get into it. The only information about it that I could find included "correcting leg length" and bullshit regarding "correcting muscle imbalances". If you have any specific information on it, I'd be happy to review it.

So Aimee, if you ditch the woo-woo, the massage therapy is valid.

Thanks for the response and I apologize if you mistook the point I was trying to make. I hope this makes it a little clearer.

Homeopaths and other idiots tout the "great" blog on bioclinicnaturals? Really?

2011-01-21T10:24:00.001-05:00

Before I go into the whole entry - I will summarize the only response that needs to be made about these arguments and Homeopathy in general.

If something does not work, it doesn't matter that science (supposedly) can't explain how it is supposed to work.

On to the response - this was posted at http://bioclinicnaturals.com/us/en/articles/6/student-voices/20/professional-themes/show/74/homeopathy-and-cbcs-marketplace-expos-or-propaganda and someone linked to it in the comments on a recent blog entry. I'm finding that I have to address the same claims over and over and it needs to be a direct response or people can't figure out that their argument is a failed one. Here we go...

The following is a list of arguments sighted by "Marketplace" in their exposé on homeopathy with the premise of the argument clearly stated and my personal rebuttal to the premise.

Argument #1: We tested the remedies and we could find no active ingredient and no difference between two reportedly different remedies.

Premise #1: We can’t find the active ingredient so it doesn’t exist.

Stupid. That is not how science works. The 'theory' that is put forward to explain the super-dilution is question begging - how does it forget the soap, dust, etc. that the water has in it? We don't need to figure out how something is supposed to work if it doesn't work.

Rebuttal #1: The lack of precision of our tools or the flaws in our methodology does not preclude the existence of something beyond our perception. When I went to school we learned that electrons were the smallest particle. Now we have discovered several smaller sub-atomic particles and, in fact, we are no longer sure that an electron is a particle at all! Furthermore, we know that sunlight is needed to synthesise vitamin D in our skin. One might say vitamin D comes from sunlight; though no matter how we measure or analyse sunlight we are unlikely to detect any molecule of vitamin D in it. This is a simple illustration of how different mechanisms than the traditional substance-receptor model, on which pharmacology is based, might be at play with homeopathy to produce an effect.

Really? I'm beginning to think the greatest concern with homeopathy is that its adherents have never heard of Google - search 'vitamin d in sunlight' http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind/ . And not understanding pharmacology presents a real problem when you're trying to argue against it. Homeopathy doesn't work. We don't care how it might work if it did because it doesn't.

I'm also amazed that people use the evolving precision of science as an argument against it. Predictions/descriptions were made about the atom before it could be seen, etc. Science makes valid predictions and testable and falsifiable claims - Homeopathy does not.

Argument #2: People can take on an overdose of homeopathic pills and it doesn’t harm them so obviously homeopathic pills are inert and useless.

Premise #2: All medicines that have the ability to heal have must cause harm when taken in large amounts.

This is hardly just a premise, it happens to be true. More evidence that Homeopathy doesn't work.

Rebuttal #2: We know that all medicines have a therapeutic window where benefit out ways harm. Some drugs like warfarin and digitalis need to be precisely dosed whereas water-soluble vitamins like vitamin C and B12 can be taken in hundreds to thousands of times the required daily amounts without any signs of toxicity. If you take the argument to extremes anything can cause harm - even water. Maybe the “overdosers” didn’t take their experiment far enough. I’m sure if you gave enough homeopathic remedies for long enough you would see first lactose intolerance in some, then obesity and diabetes in most.

The toxin is in the dose - everything can be toxic - even vitamins - ask Gary Null. So you think that (because eating too much sugar is the end result of taking too many pillules) somehow you have an argument in favor of homeopathy? You are just admitting that there is nothing in it. Stupid.

Argument #3: There is no scientific proof from placebo controlled human trials that homeopathy is effective therefore homeopathic remedies are nothing but a placebo.

No, the scientific evidence shows that homeopathy is nothing more than placebo which, again, is nothing when it comes to actually treating/curing things.

Premise #3: Homeopathic medicines are placebos and placebos are an unacceptable, deceptive and ineffective form of treatment.

Rebuttal #3: Placebos are by far the best studied medicines. Their benefits have been evaluated and proven in every placebo controlled study ever conducted. Placebos definitely have an effect; in fact they have become the standard by which all pharmaceutical are compared. While the objective of a drug is to perform better than a placebo, there are many instances when the placebo performs as well or even better than the active treatment! Placebos also have the ability to cause harm which supports argument #2 that they have the potential for benefit.

Drugs that don't perform better than placebo shouldn't be permitted to be sold/offered as treatments - that's why homeopathy is stupid. Placebos are nothing - you keep forgetting that and, at the same time, are countering your own arguments. Lying to a patient (homeopathy) is unethical and, more importantly, not necessary because 'conventional treatments' also elicit the placebo effect. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20129180 - the complete (not quote-mined) conclusion of the study is: Placebo effects in RCTs on classical homeopathy did not appear to be larger than placebo effects in conventional medicine. Best of all, that was published in the Homeopathy Journal - one that is generally apologetic for homeopathy.

Argument #4: The use of homeopathy causes harm because people are convinced to use it in place of real treatments like vaccines and chemotherapy.

Premise #4: Persuading people to use treatments that aren't proven prevents them from using more proven treatments.

More than a premise - http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Homeopathy-Parents-Charged-Over-Baby-Daughter-Glorias-Death-In-Australia/Article/200905115276109 and here, here and here.

Rebuttal #4: The irony of this argument is that the examples used as standards of care are the same ones that have come under the most fire recently for their cost benefit ratio. Many cancer patients are opting out of chemotherapy for secondary cancers because of their experience with side effects and lack of results. Parents around the world are taking a hard look at whether vaccines are as safe and effective as they have been convinced to believe. Ultimately whether people chose to use homeopathy as an adjunct to conventional care, as an alternative to conventional care, or choose no care at all, the choice is theirs.

It is true that people make stupid decisions based on misinformation - want an example? People use homeopathy. Sorry. Arguing from anecdote and popularity is dumb - don't do it if you expect us to take you serious. Parents avoiding vaccines are doing so because people are lying to them. Consider.... http://www.gatesfoundation.org/foundationnotes/Pages/christopher-elias-110114-ending-the-silence.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/17/AR2011011703882.html

We are not against choice - we are for informed consent and honesty and ethics in medicine - that means using the best available science and evidence and the avoidance of tooth-fairy science and wishful thinking.

The Underlying argument: Homeopathy doesn’t fit with what we know about medicine. Despite the reports from users that it helps them, we can’t understand how it could possibly work. Since we haven’t experienced benefit directly, and we can't imagine how it might work, it is best to conclude that homeopathy is untrue because it is incongruent with our paradigm.

This is as bad as an argument from anecdote - maybe even worse. What is being suggested is "don't knock it until you've tried it". Human fallibility is what is the problem - that is why we do controlled trials to see if the effect is greater than placebo and the potential benefit outweighs the potential harm. If someone tries homeopathy and thinks it works for them it is still just them (falsely) thinking it worked for them. Most illnesses to be treated with Homeopathy are self-limiting so we, wrongly, assume a causal effect simply because symptoms improved without considering the natural history the disease normally takes without an intervention. (ie. Whether or not you treat a cold with an OTC cold medication, it is going to last about a week - the OTC cold medication does not alter the course of the illness.)

The Underlying Premise: If something seems to contradict the current truth then it is untrue.

Strawman. That was never claimed, stated or implied.

Rebuttal of the Underlying Premise: This premise is the opposite of science. Everything we believe to be truth is but a working theory. The purpose of science is to observe phenomena and attempt to explain them. Not to exclude phenomena from our present orthodoxy to maintain a sense of omniscience.

Orthodoxy? Homeopathy is a cult - science isn't.

It is true that we cannot say for certain how homeopathic remedies work. For certain they may not work for everyone - at least in the ways we might expect. And so, one might conclude that we should only use treatments if we know how they work. But ask yourself this: Do you know how any medicine works? You personally, not the pharmacologist who designed it, the consumer. I would suggest that most people don’t know how aspirin relieves their pain but they believe it does. In fact, unlike many of the modern designer drugs, aspirin and its predecessor white willow bark have been used with great satisfaction and efficacy long before anything was know about its mechanisms of action.

They don't work so we can't find out the mechanism. Medicines that work we use and ones that don't, we don't. If they work, we'll want to learn how they work because it might help with developing other treatments and it might enable us to refine it or enhance the effect. If homeopathy worked (it doesn't) you would have a point - there would then be reason to research its mechanism. However, since it doesn't work, no point.

Patients and practitioners alike can only know so much. We gather information from various sources and we have to determine how much we trust these sources. Ultimately, we all have to make decisions based on what we believe. I think the reason more and more people are seeking alternatives like homeopathy is because they have lost faith and trust in the conventional system. Evidence based critics often sneer with contempt at the patient who trusts anecdotes from a family member over a clinical trial. However, this choice is becoming more a reflection of the loss of credibility in the establishment of medicine in the eyes patients than an example of pure ignorance. To the patient they have a relationship with their family member –they trust them, they believe them. "Marketplace" aired a story that reflects the message they want to convey. I think their message is clear. What do you believe?

Science-based medicine enabled us to move from using ineffective treatments (that appeared to work) and dangerous treatments (that were based on what seemed to be logical hypotheses) to what is now saving millions of lives every year. Science isn't perfect but it is self-correcting. It continues to advance and change as new evidence is presented. The scientific method provides a valid testing methodology for Homeopathy - randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial - and, in well done studies, Homeopathy has failed to meet the basic requirements for efficacy. The effects that it presents are nothing greater than (and explained by) the placebo effect. With that knowledge, we are wasting our time arguing over how it might work, what quantum mechanics, physics and biology have to say about its mechanism. There isn't a mechanism to be studied.

The problem with your suggestion is that anecdotes do appeal to us. Who doesn't love a good or feel good story? A lack of understanding of science, logic and biases is what leads people to accept stupid propositions. People choosing alternative medicine doesn't mean it works.

I do agree that we have to determine what we trust - the reality is that people have a screwed up perception of what is trustworthy.

Marketplace did a valid investigative piece - the reality is that homeopathy is silly. There is no such thing as 'balance' when it comes to a ridiculous proposition.

I must confess...

2011-01-19T12:25:00.002-05:00

I can't believe how much time I've wasted responding to the same comments/points made by followers of Homeopathy. As with most "alternative medicine", the "evidence" presented is almost never evidence - it typically is a mix-up of logical fallacies.

I'll restate a few points and then get on to the point of this entry. (I've limited the number of links since I recently dealt with the "evidence" claims and linked to information on the other frequently used fallacies in recent blog entries.)

Just because something is popular does not make it true/right/safe/good. (Examples: Islam is popular. Lying is popular. Smoking is popular. Glee is popular.)

Just because someone well known and/or well respected said it doesn't make it factual. (Example: Linus Pauling claimed that Vitamin C could cure cancer.)

Words matter. Trying to poison the well using words like "chemicals", "toxins", "unnatural" does not help your case. Everything is made of chemicals. The toxin is in the dose (everything is toxic at the right concentration - water, vitamins, etc. too). Natural does not mean safe - "natural" includes anthrax, influenza, lead, mercury, venom, etc.

Personal stories (anecdotes) hold little weight in science when it comes to evidence. Anecdotes might give reason to suggest that a study might be warranted but they don't change the results of properly designed and controlled studies. Since humans are subject to personal bias and often conflate correlation with causation (Post hoc ergo propter hoc), science admits the fallibility of humans and does its best to remove such biases from studies.

I must confess...

There are not many subjects/topics in skepticism where the evidence is so clear. Not many topics can be so easily dismissed as Homeopathy. I'm beating a horse that is not only dead, it fails to exist.

Understanding and responding to the claims of Homeopathy is possibly the easiest place to break your teeth in skepticism. The proposition is so silly that anyone willing to understand logical fallacies and proper study design can deconstruct the whole argument in favour of Homeopathy.

Though some would argue that at least Homeopathy involves someone taking a "treatment" (ingesting a substance) and that, in itself, makes it harder to just dismiss when compared to Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, Prayer and the like. (For those that don't know Therapeutic Touch does not involve touching - mind you it isn't therapeutic either.) That the Homeopathic "treatment" has no measurable active ingredient and has been shown in studies to have the same effect whether the person receives the "real" "treatment" or placebo makes the rest of the arguments pointless. But, for jollies, skeptics will often dismantle them anyway.

What I mean is: Since Homeopathy has been shown to have no benefit beyond placebo (if even that), placebo is elicited by 'conventional medicine' and that placebo is really nothing - Homeopathy offers no net value. It also relies on lying to people for it to elicit the effect - something that I don't think should be generally accepted.

Or, to get to the main part of the argument, (and why we needn't even address most of the claims of Homeopaths) we needn't concern ourselves with how something might possibly work (or the "theories" behind it) if it simply doesn't work.

Having said that, let's consider what they claim. Homeopathy is based on some "laws" or "theories" (none actually meet the established criteria required to consider them laws or theories - those words are actually being redefined in the context of Homeopathy) that were made up, completely, out of whole cloth.

The "law of similars" suggests that "like cures like" - nothing in science supports that wild idea. (Vaccines don't "cure" illnesses, they trick your body into building antibodies so that if you actually encounter the pathogen, your body is prepared to fend it off. Vaccines also produce measurable antibodies that Homeopathic "treatments" do not.)

The "law of infinitesimals" claims that the less active ingredient contained in the solution ("treatment"), the more potent it becomes. Most Homeopathic "treatments" do not contain a single molecule of the original active ingredient and, therefore, any action would be counter to our clear understanding of "dose-response" relationship as established in pharmacology. What they appear to be claiming is: the most potent Homeopathic treatment would be to not take anything.

The other claim that they make is that "water has memory". Simply, it does not. Imagine, however, that it did (and this is a snarky response because that's probably all it deserves), how does it remember that active ingredient after serial dilution but forget all the crap that it has had in it.

But...

Though it is a silly proposition, hundreds of thousands of people push Homeopathy and there are people being bamboozled into accepting it - so the non-existent dead horse, apparently, demands further beatings.

And... (In case you can't scroll down or search my blog...)
Toronto School of Homeopathic 'Medicine' responds

http://sarniaskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/01/homeopaths-have-rallied-troops.html

Amanda Brown Responds with what is in Homeopathic 'Treatments': Nothing

Amanda Brown and the Power of Nothing

Homeopathic Medical Council of Canada Website: Just like Homeopathy

It doesn't work but I can tell you how it does!

Fitting Video - Dara O'Brien on Homeopathy & Nutritionists (Dara O'Briain)

Homeopathy is just plain silly Homeopathy - The Poster

Toronto School of Homeopathic 'Medicine' responds

2011-01-18T14:22:00.001-05:00

In response to the CBC Marketplace story "Cure or Con" that investigated Homeopathy, the Toronto School of Homeopathic 'Medicine' posted a blog entry yesterday. (I don't have time to respond to it right now but I wanted to capture it for a number of reasons - not the least of which the scary promotion of Homeopathy instead of vaccines.) Following the video (the actual show they are responding to) is their response.

Their response:

CBC Marketplace Cons The Public
We were expecting a biased program on Homeopathy by CBC Marketplace, but the final product was not only the worst example I have ever seen of so-called “investigative journalism”, it became obvious quite early on that there was a set agenda from the beginning.

I was disappointed that CBC Marketplace did not make any attempt to investigate the fundamental principle of homeopathy- the Law of Similars of ‘like cures like’. Of course, people will not feel any symptoms when taking large doses of Homeopathic remedies of Arsenicum Album or Belladonna if they do not have characteristic symptoms that match to either of those remedies.

Are these skeptic groups qualified or trained enough to be consulted for an unbiased and educated examination of Homeopathic medicine? I would say no as their knowledge about the science of Homeopathy was almost non-existent. These skeptics are really “pseudo-skeptics”. The original definition of "skeptic" was a person who questions ALL beliefs, facts, and points-of-view, including their own, in light of OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. This is obvious not the case. Media skeptics frequently and fraudulently make claims that there are “no studies” that support Homeopathy and therefore no evidence to support its efficacy. This is a lie. In addition to 200 years and roughly 25,000 volumes of clinical literature, there are almost 200 random controlled trials that indicate a positive outcome for Homeopathy.

A standard tactic that Marketplace uses when investigating natural medicines is to take it to get tested at some special laboratory. As a viewer, there is no room to question the scientific methodology, the parameters of the study or if that lab had the necessary equipment to properly measure Homeopathic remedies. Any first year student will know that it will be difficult to find material substances left in a homeopathic remedy of 30C since it is above Avogardo’s number with chemical testing. Secondly, the studies of several well-known scientists, such as Dr. Rustom Roy and Dr. Iris Bell, were not consulted.

Finally, Marketplace suggested that homeopathic prophylaxis is dangerous to the point of implying that those who chose to get them were ignorant. Again, this goes against the facts. Look at the recent results of the largest homeopathy study ever done in Cuba on Leptospirosis in 2008. Bracho, Gustavo et al. Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control. Homeopathy, 2010; 99: 156-166.

There were so many lies presented about Homeopathy that it is likely that CBC Marketplace purposefully and willfully had an agenda to denounce Homeopathic medicine. I would have loved to see a balanced investigation into Homeopathy exploring both sides of the issues, or consulting patients who have experienced positive results for conditions that Western Medicine was unable to treat. Why weren’t some of our leading Homeopaths, such as Dr. Joseph Kellerstein and Dr. Andre Saine, consulted?

The CBC should be ashamed for presenting such a farce as journalism. Check out the website Extraordinary Medicine which gives excellent information about Homeopathy, the scientific evidence and what is really happening with the pseudo-skeptics. http://www.extraordinarymedicine.org/

My response, on their blog was (if it has been removed - which it appears they're doing):

You, my friends, will have blood on your hands when someone dies as a result of the misinformation you are providing. Using homeopathy instead of a proven vaccine is possibly the craziest idea ever from the homeopathy camp (and that says a lot given your made-up, completely, 'law' of similars, your claims that dilution increases strength and claiming water has a memory yet forgets all the crap it has had in it).

Amadeo, I'm sure, would also prefer you spell his name correctly - at least then when you (and others) search for it, you'll understand what it means. Avogadro's number - do look it up. Homeopathy - there's nothing in it.

200 studies that suggest what? That homeopathy is better than nothing? Homeopathy does not and has not cured anything but thick wallet syndrome. How many studies have been done that shows homeopathy has no effect? Add to those the studies that have shown it to be equivocal to placebo and then compare that number to the 200 paltry studies you suggest exist. We'll ignore the quality of your 'positive' studies and the controls just to be kind to you and you have overwhelming evidence to suggest that the benefit of homeopathy (placebo) is not worth what it takes to achieve it (lying to the patient).

A "Joan" responded with:

I placed a call to the CBC and spoke in person to a customer relations representative. I respectfully challenged their declaration that the program was investigative journalism when the agenda from the outset was so obviously biased against the topic. I spoke of the many well educated scientists, teachers, and medical professionals with great knowledge of quantum physics who could have shed some light on the mechanisms of energy medicines. Instead the program focused on skeptics and scientists with virtually no knowledge or understanding of the depth or scope of any form of energy medicine but with lots of biased opinions based in ignorance.
The CBC should be ashamed of such a prejudiced presentation.
This was the focus of my phone call not the pros and cons of homeopathy as I felt the CBC needed to be called to task on this disgraceful approach to supposedly educating the public.

I felt it necessary to speak my opinion in this way even though it is probably filed in "nowhere land".

To which, I responded:

Joan: You know nothing about quantum physics. That is clear because you suggest that quantum physics explains homeopathy.

To accept Homeopathy, we'd have to throw out everything we know about biology, chemistry and physics. There is no such thing as energy medicine; you're just making crap up.

If a treatment doesn't work, we don't care how it is supposed to. The evidence is clear - if Homeopathy is ANYTHING, it is PLACEBO. And, to be sure, placebo isn't anything either. No binary outcomes are altered by placebo. Subjective and self-reported metrics might change but it doesn't matter if you simply feel better if you're not actually better. "Well, it feels like my cancer is gone" is not the same as "My cancer is gone".

Appeals to authority don't mean anything, popularity does not mean anything, anecdotes don't mean anything - the evidence matters and the evidence suggests that if it is okay to lie to people to elicit placebo then, and only then, is it okay to use homeopathy and only for diseases that are self-limiting and conditions that are simply subjective.

Homeopathy works (and only for non-binary outcomes) if you think they work. If you receive a treatment but are told it is placebo, the result is not the same as if you receive a placebo and are told that it is a treatment. Compare that to medicine - antibiotics, of example, work whether you believe in them or not.

The CBC program was an investigative piece - sure it didn't cover everything, it only had 23 minutes to do so and, guess what, the conclusion would have been the same. Homeopathy is bunk - it is a con and they called it as they saw it. There is no such thing as "balance" when it comes to a ridiculous proposition.

Homeopaths have rallied the troops (Homeopathy gets smackdown on Marketplace - Friday @ 8PM)

2011-01-13T11:29:00.002-05:00

While my wife and I were watching television last night, a commercial came on about CBC Marketplace (Cure or Con) and I almost fell out of my chair - it is going to be an investigation into ~~pure stupid~~ Homeopathy.

I did a quick search to find out more information about the show - I entered "Marketplace Homeopathy" into the google search and the first 5 or 6 links (for me) were for Homeopaths and those sympathetic to ~~pure stupid~~ Homeopathy. (Note: a blog follower asked why I capitalize the first letter in Homeopathy since it is so dumb when I often will not capitalize the "g" in "god". There is only one ~~pure stupid~~ Homeopathy - there are over 2500 gods.)

The Homeopaths have really rallied the troops - they are calling on people to contact the CBC and demand that it not be aired, demanding that the reporters lose their jobs, claiming that it is all lies, etc. On the CBC Marketplace site for this episode (http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2011/cureorcon/), the vast majority of comments are from people who support ~~pure stupid~~ Homeopathy - which tells me we have a lot of work to do. (The work isn't in making sure people know that Homeopathy is pure stupid, but in helping people understand science, the scientific process and what constitutes evidence in the realm of science.)

I have tried to comment on the Marketplace site but, as of a few minutes ago, the comments are still waiting for moderation.

Let your family and friends know to watch CBC Marketplace this Friday at 8:00PM - especially if they think that ~~pure stupid~~ Homeopathy works. (Yes, "think" and "Homeopathy" seldom belongs in the same sentence.)

Some links about Homeopathy:
http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxMz-4IKzew

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9762

Updates
The following updates may be considered rude, offensive and childish. And, if they are, I nailed it! Homeopathy is stupid.

It is often said that you fight fire with fire but, in response to the comments on this blog (and on Cure or Con), I'm going to fight stupid with stupid.

Homeopathy benefits patients, at best, by means of the placebo effect. You can argue it any way you wish but in a double-blind clinical trial with Homeopathy, placebo and a control, Homeopathy does no better than placebo. Period.

The first comment suggests that there are no new complaints against Homeopathy and, though incorrect, does not make Homeopathy work. It was stupid 200 years ago and it is stupid today. Medicine has progressed (in leaps and bounds) in the past 200 years and Homeopathy hasn't changed a bit (okay maybe it did become more of a religion like Chiropractic).

We know that patients (though they may not like to hear it) should be treated based on statistics - some will do better and some will do worse but treating the patient based on what they self-report as their problems fails the basic tests of science. Science requires data to not have been f#$ked with - a self-report is weak and easily manipulated. All that Homeopathy does, in claiming to make a specific treatment for the "whole person" is spend time with the patient - one of the key components for eliciting the placebo response.

Homeopathy doesn't work if you don't believe in it. Period. Antibiotics? They work whether or not you believe in them. Someone receiving a specially formulated treatment (for them) from a Homeopath but told that it is a placebo - do not see the same benefits as people who receive a placebo but are told it is a specific Homeopathic nostrum formulated specifically for them. This screams placebo. That's all it is, that is all it can ever be. An expensive and dangerous one at that. (People skip real medical treatments/diagnoses because of the bullshit that is peddled by these snakeoil sales people.)

"It can't be placebo because it works on babies and animals" is f#$king stupid. Anyone making that claim should not be allowed to breed. The placebo response does not solely rely on the patient expecting an outcome - that is not what we've ever claimed and it is not what actually happens. Expectations can and do affect the outcomes but they are not necessary. The placebo response can be triggered by simply increased attention (the Homeopath gives a patient a shoulder to "cry" on and listens to their problems - the benefit derived from that is a placebo) - babies recognize additional attention. More cuddling, the parent taking care to keep the baby comfortable, feeding the baby comfort foods, staying home from work to be with the baby (instead of putting them into day care), etc. Conditioned responses are seen in animals and babies all the time. Stop using that lame response to a claim that something is placebo. It is old, it is tired and it is stupid (just like Homeopathy).

Other comments include:
Comment: Homeopathy is natural and doesn't contain all the chemicals/toxins that "Big Pharma" puts into medicine.
Me: Stupid. Everything is made of chemicals. The toxin is in the dose (water is toxic and so are most vitamins). Natural does not mean safe. Shit is natural - so is mercury, lead, anthrax, mushrooms, cocaine, asbestos, carbon monoxide, etc.

Comment: It works for me, you can't tell me this stuff doesn't work.
Me: It doesn't work and it didn't work for you. There is not a single binary outcome that is changed by Homeopathy. Consider the natural history of the disease, regression to the mean, etc. Take a cold medication and your cold goes away in 7 days. Don't take one and it is gone in a week. Amazing!

Comment: Allopathic.
Me: Scratch anything that anyone says if they use the term "allopathic". They're sheep and they've been screwed by their shepherd (sounds like something that happens at churches).

Comment: As a result of Homeopathy my energy levels have increased.
Me: No, no. That's because of your Power Balance bracelet. Don't confuse them. I bet you'd have more energy if you didn't have to waste your time going to the store to buy the pure stupid.

Comment: Homeopathy is a science that has been around 200 years.
Me: Homeopathy is not a science. To accept Homeopathy, we'd have to throw out physics, biology, chemistry and theology (just kidding - but can we just throw out the last one anyway?). You know what else has been around for 200 years? Slavery. Oppression of women. Mumps. Measles. Rubella. Pertussis. Anything that hasn't been revised or updated in 200 years is out of date or obsolete. When Samuel Hahahahman (something like that?) invented pure stupid out of whole cloth, people often didn't live to reproductive age, the average live span was less than 50 years. Science, however, has increased that to well over 75 years. If we weren't wasting billions of dollars on sCAMs like Homeopathy, imagine where we'd be!

Comment: Unbalanced reporting. Biased reporting. (Re: Cure or Con) (Actual quote: "I would ask you to ensure the people you are interviewing for this segment are from both sides of this debate - it is unreasonable to assume that interviewing someone who potentially has a vested interest in a subject will give you an unbiased and fair interview.")
Me: Stupid doesn't deserve a platform to spew stupid. In a debate, the truth does not necessarily sit somewhere in the middle of the two viewpoints. One side can be completely wrong (Homeopathy in this case). Who doesn't have a vested interest in something that would speak about it? Homeopaths have a vested interest, people seeking the truth have a vested interest. People who use Homeopathy (have invested money in stupid) have a vested interest - whether they think it worked for them or not. What people are trying to argue is "big pharma is paying scientists to lie about Homeopathy so they can't be trusted" but "trust a Homeopath, why would they lie?".

Comment: "Big pharma"
Me: Big placebo. And by that, I mean, if following the money makes one suspicious, I suggest that we can't trust big placebo (I think this is a horrible argument either way.). They're in it for the money as well. Oh, and much of the market for sCAMs (Homeopathy, "natural shit", etc.) are dominated by big business (including the same pharmaceutical companies you're arguing against).

Comment: (Actual quote) "Wow. A lot of support for Homeopathy in the comments. I didn't realise that many Canadians were total ret@rds. There is no scientific merit to Homeopathy and no evidence that it works. It's water ffs. Homeopaths are dangerous as they encourage people to abandon real medicine (especially preventative, specious reasoning and all that) for diseases such as malaria and cancer. They're a dangerous plague and if this support is representative of the Canadian population then I'm afraid I'm going to have to scratch the entire country of my Atlas of Relevant Non-Idiot Countries (U.S. and a number of others gone already). I was hoping I could keep SOME of North America but I guess that's just not to be... :("
Me: I can't believe that got through the moderators.

Comment: (Actual quote) "numerous clinical trials and double blind tests have been conducted in

Europe that were set up to disprove the efficacy of homeopathic remedies by the allopathic community, only to prove that they DO work. "
Me: F#%k me sideways! Then aren't the Europeans stupid? They get positive studies (you suggest) and, from that, decide that it's time to stop funding Homeopathy in Britain? And Germany?

Comment: (Actual quote) "Question: Why did the CBC not consult with leading Homeopathic doctors for conclusive evidence on the efficacy of Homeopathy? It seems your research is lacking thoroughness."
Me: Two words: Coutier's Reply. You want a few more? You don't need to know what they claim about Homeopathy and how it is supposed to work if it simply does not work (and it doesn't).

Comment: (Actual quote) "My family and I have been using homeopathic remedies for the last 9 years, with great success. I used homeopathic teething tablets when my daughters were babies; the results are nearly instantaneous for stopping crying, reducing swelling and red cheeks."
Me: Jesus Christ on Crutches! Does death cause a baby to stop crying, have reduced swelling and stop their cheeks from being red?

Skeptics in Sarnia/Lambton

2011-01-13T11:11:00.000-05:00

In response to a comment that was posted on a recent blog entry (and an email to me from the commenter), I think it might be time to revisit the idea of a "group".

"TartanTim" asked if there was a "skeptics group" in Lambton County. First of all, I'm not aware of any skeptical groups in the area (do you know of any? email me at sarniaskeptic@gmail.com) and I have, in the past, blogged about the interest in creating one.

I'm not looking to organize a group but I'd be willing to get involved/assist in one if someone is looking to get one together. There are a significant number of people who get together on a(n) (ir)regular basis to just "shoot the shit". (I've defined "significant number" as any number greater than 2 for this item.)

If you are skeptically minded and would be interested in being notified about skeptical meet-ups/events in the Sarnia/Lambton County area, email me at sarniaskeptic@gmail.com. Even better, if you are interested in helping organize one, send me two emails!

Some suggestions for "the group" included co-ordinating/organizing "letters to the editor" in response to stupidity (errr.. irrational beliefs, lack of critical thought and misrepresentation of facts), working on fundraisers/public awareness campaigns, providing representation at community planning events/roundtables and getting involved in local events (ie. Paranormal Conventions *wink* *wink* Robbie Thomas (who is not psychic, by the way)).

New Year, More Stupid

2011-01-07T12:34:00.002-05:00

Thanks to "Eric" for sending me this. The following ad was posted in a local classifieds site (http://classified.sarnia.com/) and "Eric" thought the reference to "Reflexology" was funny (it is, but that's not the only funny part).

And by "funny", I don't want to neglect the FACT that there are real harms involved (check out http://www.whatstheharm.net/ - this bullshit can create unnecessary suffering and, at times, cost lives).

Here's the text of the ad: (I re-bolded the headings and italicized it but removed pretty much all formatting - the links are all added by me and are for additional reading)

Simply Serenity Centre for Natural Therapies- NOW OPEN and Accepting New Clients

New Client Trial Offer: 30 min. treatment session for $10. 3 DAYS ONLY from Jan.18-Jan. 20. Call to book your appointment today!

What is Myomassology?
Myomassology is the ‘holistic’ version of Massage Therapy and includes many other bodywork techniques.

Holistic? What does that mean?
It means we assess your ‘whole’ body when designing a treatment plan. If you come in with neck and shoulder pain, we check to see if your spine, pelvis and legs are lined up properly. If you have one leg shorter than the other (for example) it will cause your pelvis to tilt down on one side and your spine to tilt down on that side too. Your body compensates for this by tightening muscles in your neck and shoulder area. This returns your spine to the vertical plane again but the cost to the human body of this correction is non-stop pain in your neck and shoulders. This is called the ‘Body’s Compensation Effect’. It causes tightness in your neck and shoulder muscles. This is an internal force you cannot fight because it is a survival technique. In this very common scenario, Myomassologists use techniques to release tight neck and shoulder muscles then restore correct leg length again to the short leg by releasing tension in muscles in the hips and low back area. Myomassologists treat the ‘whole’ body this way- that’s why they call us ‘holistic’. We view the whole body as totally inter-connected. It makes a lot of sense really.

Are you a Massage Therapist?
Yes and No.

What do you mean?
Yes we receive full ‘Massage Therapy’ training in school and, yes, we are fully accredited in ‘Massage Therapy’ by the largest professional massage association in Canada and, yes, we provide full ‘Massage Therapy’ services for our clients but we do not use these terms to describe ourselves because the words ‘Massage Therapy’ were trademarked by the Massage Therapy Association of Ontario for the exclusive use of their own members. We choose to call ourselves Myomassologists- to prevent confusing the public.

Do you do Swedish Massage?
Yes. In addition we perform Contraction Release Therapy and Leg & Hip Balancing when we want to get therapeutic results for our clients. These techniques are unique to Myomassology. We also offer Tui Na Massage (known as Chinese Medical Massage), Traditional Chinese Fire Cupping (an ancient form of Deep Tissue Massage, thousands of years old), Pregnancy Massage, Cranio Sacral Therapy, Reflexology and much more. Make an appointment with a Myomassologist today- feel the difference a Myomassology treatment makes!

Contact: .......... for more information.

Available Monday-Saturday By Appointment .
............

Additional Points

The leg length disparity test is dumb. It is no different than what is done with Power Balance bands and is clearly a manipulation by the person doing the test.

With regards to "an ancient form of " and "thousands of years old" - remember, thousands of years ago, we lived half as long as we do now. In about 100 years, we've increased the average lifespan by 50%! If that crap worked, why didn't it correlate to a longer life? (Many of these "treatments" that they claim are thousands of years old aren't even hundreds of years old. Perpetuation of myths is not beyond quack practitioners, I guess.)

Reflexology when sold as anything other than a foot, hand or ear massage is an indication that someone (at least the person receiving the "treatment") doesn't understand biology or physiology. It can't possibly do what they claim it does.

At least with Reflexology you are getting something (a limited massage) - Homeopathy gives you nothing and Healing Touch gives you neither healing or touch!

The past couple of days...

2011-01-06T16:29:00.000-05:00

A few laughs
If you have a couple minutes and want a laugh, you need to check out what our good friend Robbie Thomas is up these days.

For some reason I don't think they meant it to be funny

Power Balance can't help itself from toppling
There is now a Power Balance bracelet class action lawsuit. Power Balance bracelets are pure stupid - if you still think they work, you shouldn't be entitled to a refund. They lied to you in the first place but now that they've admitted they were lying, continuing to believe in them should mean that what you paid is a stupid tax.

Autism, vaccines and the person that could have killed one of your family members
While on the topic of FRAUD - Andrew Wakefield (the assface who claimed that MMR Vaccine was a cause of Autism), in the past year, lost his license to practice medicine, had his paper retracted by the Lancet and, just yesterday, was exposed as having perpetrated an "elaborate fraud". I think this means that (since a number of people have died from vaccine preventable illnesses as a result) Andrew Wakefield has blood on his hands.

Unfortunately much of the damage has been done - rebuilding trust in science will be a difficult task.

I'm not taking away false hope - you're (wrongly) allowing it to be created

2011-01-04T13:36:00.001-05:00

This topic comes as a touchy/sensitive one for me. My wife and I have a close friend who suffers from MS so it is disheartening to accept that a cure doesn't exist. The condition also brings with it a myriad of "miracle cures" and scamsters who prey (though, at times, unwittingly) on helpless and, seemingly, hopeless people.

Our friend would love to be cured - it is, like many other illnesses, horrible. It steals the life from countless vibrant, loving and caring people and none of us want to see people suffer.

In the past number of years I've researched a great number of things and I've had discussions with people on a number of "touchy" topics. Not long ago the local newspapers were filled references to a topic that I have since done substantial reading on and that relates to MS - liberation therapy. (Much of the claims of liberation therapy have been taken up by other research groups and scientists and the results give great reason to be skeptical of it - though countless people were initially skeptical just from the sketchy descriptions that Dr. Zamboni had offered.)

I mention this therapy not because I think it is bunk (though I have every reason to accept that it is) - it is the reaction that people had to those who were skeptical of the surgery prior to the more recent research. MDs (real medical doctors), scientists and others were concerned with the claims that Dr. Zamboni was making about the "cause" of MS and what he claims he was discovering and the resulting comments on the news stories and blogs included (paraphrased.. some people took paragraphs to make their points):
"If you had MS, you would want the money to have this lifesaving surgery."
"You're just a shill for big pharma. Big pharma has never cured anything."
"Follow the money. You make your money by treating people not curing them."
"Leave well enough alone. You're destroying hope for thousands of MS sufferers."

When it comes to sCAM treatments, these are pretty standard arguments people use when someone questions their value or efficacy. We've discussed many of these subjects before so I will only briefly discuss most of them.

"If you had this condition..." Yes, if I had MS, I would hope that our health care system would pay for a lifesaving surgery (liberation isn't a lifesaving surgery and it has little/no plausible method of curing MS - whatever causes MS it isn't reduced blood flow to the BBB). I would expect that the surgery a.) be plausible, b.) have potential for benefit greater than the risks and, c.) have scientific support. Nobody questioning liberation therapy was asking for the government to blindly dismiss costly treatments. Money is a limited resource - (at the very least, potential) efficacy should be a requirement for funding any treatment.

"Big Pharma Shill" is a tired and old argument. Steven Novella has discussed it at length. As for "Big Pharma" never curing anything - Polio? Mumps? Measles? Rubella? Pertussis? Malaria? Tuberculosis? Pneumonia? Gonorrhea? What about (from a surgery standpoint) appendicitis? Re-attachment of severed appendages? Or how about increasing the average lifespan from below 50 years to over 75 years in about a century?

"Follow The Money" is often a stronger argument against the treatment that people are trying to defend. In this case, "liberation" is a money maker for Dr. Zamboni and his companies - he gets paid to train people, he has an agreement with a manufacturer of a particular piece of equipment and he guards his "secrets" closely. His "science" is done via press release, he has created his own foundation and stands to make untold millions of dollars from his claims. (This argument also fails for people like Mike Adams and Joseph Mercola - they argue that Big Pharma isn't concerned about you and I, they're just in it for the $$ - so you should avoid Big Pharma and buy stuff from them. Odd. Arguing against an indirect (if even that) profit motive while having solely a profit motive is, well, ironic.)

"Destroying hope"
This is the primary reason for this blog entry. Just as when I tackle the undue respect that religion gets, people who question quackery are confronted with the claim that we're simply taking away hope (and sometimes admittedly false hope).

I've struggled with this because I've often said "I'm not trying to take away people's hope" but I think I've been wrong all along in leaving it at that. The argument should be "no, you shouldn't be accepting the creation of false hope". Doing so opens the door for abuse - we need to speak out against this idea and we need to do it sooner than later.

Allowing people to create and perpetuate false hope is the problem - not "us" taking it away. If a treatment can't affect the outcomes of a particular illness, we need to be questioning it. The sooner that we dispel the myth, the fewer people that get taken by it (and the fewer people that needlessly die from it). We're doing people a disservice if we simply let them be abused. The price of false hope is too great - not only when it comes to money (wasted on sCAMs, being diverted from real research) but when it comes to science acceptance.

Our level of science literacy needs to change - higher levels of understanding of science will mean greater skepticism towards outlandish claims (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) and that isn't going to happen by allowing claims to be made simply because we "shouldn't be taking away (false) hope".

I feel that the hope is misplaced - hope can be found in the ever evolving world of scientific discovery. (And that isn't best achieved by undermining the scientific method.)

Sense About Science: Celebrities and science 2010

2010-12-29T12:33:00.000-05:00

I have referred to "Sense About Science" in the past and I think they are a wonderful (and necessary, unfortunately) organization that is dedicated to showing what the science really says about issues that are often misrepresented.

Each year they put out a report that reviews the health claims that are made by celebrities and other people in the public eye.

This year they tackle issues ranging from magnetic bracelets and Power Balance bands to "detox" diets and homeopathy.

You can download the PDF report or read some of the news coverage here and here.

(They tackle the "full of chemicals" claim that I, often, have to counter - Nothing is chemical free: everything is made of chemicals.)

The poor need help all year long (And helping isn't something only Christians do!)

2010-12-29T09:13:00.001-05:00

On Monday, a letter to the editor was printed in The Observer regarding a church helping a particular woman. Below is the letter (with a few comments from me inserted):

Church comes to aid of woman (link)

Sir: This time of year, the media reports the generous acts of so many inspired by the spirit of Christmas. Invariably, we lament this spirit does not last all year long. It does.

The Christians of Bluewater Baptist Church quietly (so quietly that she's bragging about it in the newspaper - luckily Jesus didn't say anything about being humble) and diligently watch over and provide for so many of the small needs of a close friend who lives in a dilapidated old house with her cat. Her small disability check barely covers her needs.

She is so poor that even a box of Kleenex, toilet paper, fresh fruit, bread and milk are a luxury she cannot afford in the middle of the month after all her bills have been paid. Every bout of cold or flu is an emergency for her since she rarely has any of these little comforts on hand. Moreover, her immune system has been compromised by the chemo pills prescribed for her arthritis and she gets sick a lot.

Her hands are so crippled that she cannot shovel her own sidewalk and keep her porch steps snow and ice free. She depends on the kindness of neighbours and friends.

God bless the Christians (and none of the others? Oh, right, my bad - god doesn't exist) who make a point of providing for her small needs, who rake the snow off her roof in the winter, who clean her eaves troughs in the fall, who paint the peeling house and mow her lawn in the summer and who recently added a handle to her door-frame so that she could pull herself through the doorway -a thousand small acts of kindness each year.

Jesus said the poor will always be with us (as long as people adhere to illogical ideas and dogma, for sure). At any time, if we truly want to be doers of The Word and not merely hearers of The Word, we can put our faith into action.

We can extend small acts of kindness any day of the year. We can welcome the poor and the lonely into our homes to share a meal and enjoy our company. These small works are opportunities for us to grow as human beings in charity for it is when we are giving that we are most fully human. (Especially if the giving is to support a million dollar church.)

Let us recall frequently the words of Blessed Mother Teresa, "Love gives until it hurts." (Now, Mother Teresa probably isn't someone I'd refer to - and I suspect Linda wouldn't either if she didn't just blindly accept what her pastor tells her from the pulpit.)

Linda Kennedy
Sarnia

Aside from the suggestion that it is only Christians who help others (which doesn't explain why the greatest philanthropists are non-believers), and the blatant bragging, Linda's letter is a good reminder to everyone (especially Christians) that help is needed all year long.

It bothers me that Christians, like Linda, can't see the sad truth that the millions (tens of millions) of dollars spent on churches (in our own community alone) and their upkeep/staffing could be used to address the problems of people like the woman referenced in this letter. She must ignore the fact that the vast majority of money given to churches does not go to help others - it stays in the church to pay salaries, upgrade churches, buy vehicles, install bigger parking lots, purchase nicer digital signs, etc.

Mother Teresa, as I mention above, is not someone to be idolized - she was a friend of poverty but not a friend of the poor. Mother Teresa was against birth control - she equated it with abortion and murder. We know that one proven method for elevating a society out of poverty is the empowerment of women. Giving women control over their reproductive cycle and providing them an education does wonders. (Which reminds me - Bluewater Baptist Church is intimately involved in the horrendous Pregnancy Centre.)

And, finally, if Christians do good because of the reward in the afterlife, they're simply doing good things for bad reasons. Doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do is a more honourable reason.

Fear as a motivator - an excellent example

2010-12-28T14:20:00.003-05:00

I was recently browsing a local online classifieds site (http://classified.sarnia.com/) and saw an ad:

Wanted: Health Wellness Work From HOME (Note: Since I started writing this entry the ad has been removed)

Are you sick and tired of all the hazardous and toxic chemicals found in your household products?

Well here's a solution!!!

It's a group called Motivated Moms. It's a team built up of mothers from all across North America who support each other by making a safer and healthier environment and lifestyle for you and your family, while still making extra cash!

If you are sick of all these brand name products being recalled, and want to convert to environmentally friendly products, or just want to make some extra cash then this is for you! You don't have to be a mom, ANYONE can join this group.

If you are interested or need more info email me!

Too often the method for attracting/motivating people is the use of fear in the advertisement. Some examples are a little more subtle (ie. When cholesterol was being talked about as being "bad", McCain's started advertising that their french fries were cholesterol free. The reality is that potatoes have always been cholesterol free.) but this "ad" goes straight to it.

The first sentence is simply poisoning the well - the idea that the "chemicals" found in household products are "hazardous" and "toxic" hasn't been established in the claims. One is to assume that it is true (and true of all household products - except the ones that she is trying to sell) and the logical position to take would be for you to be "sick and tired of" them.

Now that they've identified a horrifying problem they, as marketing wizards, introduce the solution. They suggest that their products are safer and healthier for the environment and, here's a great bonus, you can make extra cash!

The next paragraph builds on the promotion of "fear" - "all these brand name products being recalled" and "convert to environmentally friendly" are designed to provide a false impression. Not very many (relatively, at least) "brand name" products are being recalled and not all "brand name" products are the opposite of "environmentally friendly".

Her claims are unsubstantiated, they utilize fear as a motivator and are used to ultimately push a multi-level marketing scheme (I talked about these a few entries ago) - warning signs galore.

Using the word "toxic" is almost a guaranteed sign of "fear mongering" - the toxin is in the dose. Few would say that vitamins and minerals are "toxic" but, at the right dose, they are. Water is toxic if too much is consumed. "Chemicals" is a scary word for many people - possibly because of our lack of science education - but it shouldn't be. What is made of chemicals? Everything. The products that she is selling are most definitely made of chemicals too.

Think about it - doing so could be what saves your health, your life and your pocketbook. Skeptical thinking could help reduce the number of people who are taken in by such outlandish claims and destined-to-fail marketing schemes.

(Additional info. I went to http://www.motivatedmoms.net/ (I assume that is the website for the "company"). I read the "work from home" and "get more info" pages. They claim not to be a multi-level marketing company and that you don't need to make any sales. Yet, when you visit their success stories it is clear that products are being sold and you are recruiting other people. What makes it even more silly is that at the bottom of the site it states who engineered/maintains the site (an MLM marketing software company) and that "this is not an mlm site" but links to, you guessed it, an MLM software site. If it quacks like a duck and is greasy like a duck... something like that.)

(A blog follower pointed out the irony of a "program" that says you don't have to make sales (and recruit) actually posting an ad to sell products (and recruit members).)

Update (December 28, 2010 - 4:23PM) : I sent an email to the person who posted the original ad asking for more information ("than is supplied here..." with a link to this blog). She responded without, apparently, reading my blog:

i am with a company called Motivated moms and we are teamed up with a wellness company called melaleuca. Melaleuca has over 400 products that are safer then the grocery store brands with no harmful chemicals! If you would like i can book you in for a presentation it takes about 45 mins. and then you can learn all about what it is we do and how it works and how you can be on your way to making 500-1000 extra a month! Just let me know a day and time that would work that you can be infront of your computer for the presentation. Thanks!

You can do your own searching on Melaleuca :)

Quickly - A couple letters to the editor

2010-12-26T20:40:00.000-05:00

Bob Maniuk writes to The Observer in response to a column by Bob Ripley. You can read the letter to the editor here:

http://theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2902961

The letter had a number of sentences and words that weren't necessary.

Sir: Regarding the column "Reason in the Christmas season" by retired Rev. Bob Ripley (The Observer, Dec. 18, 2010).

I read his column each week, and although there are times I do not agree with him, he does offer a unique perspective. But this is the first time I've felt compelled to respond. I have never heard Rev. Ripley sound so ~~cynical~~ sensible.

He seems to question the Virgin birth of Jesus, and that He was the Savior of the world. He goes on to lament that the "kind Bishop St. Nicholas has been hijacked into a mythological marketing tool." ~~The last part~~ That I agree with.

As a child, as I got older and realized that there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy, I ~~wrongly~~ concluded there was no God or Jesus Christ, and that was my thinking as I entered into adulthood.

When I was 23 years old, a miracle happened. Jesus made himself known to me personally, and I experienced the New Birth. The Bible says God is Spirit, and we must worship him in Spirit and Truth. We are body, soul and spirit. When God said "Let us make man in our own image," it is our Spirit that is in His image. Once I experienced the Supernatural miraculous awakening of my spirit, it was only reasonable to accept the Virgin birth of our Savior.

As an adult, I determined to tell my children about the truth of Jesus. I also determined not to lie to them by trying to make them believe in myths that I knew they would eventually grow out of, and come to know were false. I determined that my children would only hear me speak the truth, and that they could trust me. I would always give them my best, and would never steer them wrong.

Rev. Ripley is correct, that at Christmas time we are asked to "ponder the immortal and invisible becoming mortal and visible," although he suggests this is suspect. ~~I believe it with my whole heart. A miracle, by definition, is going to suspend logic and what is reasonable, for if it was reasonable, it would no longer be a miracle.~~

The Rev. Ripley goes on to say, "The only reality is the family feud and the annual coping binge." As for my extended family, we love being together and there is no feuding. And as far as coping, it is only the details of coming together, which are kept to a minimum as we keep our focus on the "Reason for the season"-~~God's Gift to mankind, the Lamb of God who would become Savior and Redeemer: Jesus.~~ man's gift to the god they created - the repurposing of pagan celebrations by illiterate men writing their own myths to replace older myths.

Bob Maniuk, Petrolia

---------

Ken L. Maness Jr.'s article needed a lot of cleaning up.

Sir: I have a Christmas thought to share.

I would like to inform those who don't know that tobacco is a sacred gift given to First Nation people from Lord God and Creator, the Great Spirit, Chi GitChi Manitoo. It was given to Turtle Islands' (North America's) original Greenpeace Turtle Clan people as a natural healing medicine so that the life circle of Mother Earth could be sustained and maintained for the benefit of all life on her bosom.

Dictatorship and controlling people would eventually land on the last unconquered territory and try to assimilate a people used to living in harmony with all of creation as foretold by Christ before promising his return to finish his "natural" teachings.

Is it?

Fast forward 2,010 years of recorded history to present day and the dictatorship of British hierarchy continues to blindly tell us how to be in a supposed "free" country. First Nations people were corralled on to reservations of jail-like conditions and design so they could practice their spiritualism at a distance.

Tobacco is our strongest of many medicines and has quietly encompassed the world. Global smudging, world cleansing and/ or devine intervention would follow when the Great Divide realized how in the wrong they were and were given the respect and acknowledgment to the original keepers of the sacred and holy ways.

When other cultures and creeds of our Mother realize their wrongs and listen to our strong and natural voices, a vibrant culture will emerge and reality will be again gifted with the missing lessons and teachings necessary for our world to live as one body.

Do not judge others until you have run in moccasins and experienced firsthand what First Nations people have had to endure and still maintain.

Don't hate. Just love and all will benefit from what other culture has to offer.

The heartbeat of Mother Earth is represented in the drum. If you like music and the arts, then you are part of our assimilation plan laid out by God before time became.

"X" marks the spot and Sarnia is the heart of Turtle Island and our Mother Earth. Stop her abuse and listen to her pleas for world peace and goodwill to reign supreme towards all men, women and children on her bountiful bosom.

(He should have added:
We're all related - take care of each other. )

Ken L. Maness Jr. Sarnia

Is your Power Balance wristband wearing out? Get a refund.

2010-12-22T13:36:00.001-05:00

Okay, so your Power Balance bracelet never worked in the first place:

"Power Balance slammed by ACCC for misleading wristbands"

(To save you from having to read the 5 lines that I didn't quote...)

"All users who purchased the wristbands can now get a full refund if they feel they've been misled".

"Power Balance has admitted that there is no credible scientific basis for the claims and therefore no reasonable grounds for making representations about the benefits of the product."

"Consumers should be wary of other similar products on the market that make unsubstantiated claims, when they may be no more beneficial than a rubber band."

(Funny thing about this article is right below it (for me anyway), I see an ad for: "Pure Energy Bands Canada" - http://www.pureenergybandscanada.ca/ - a site that is selling the same bullshit. They are making unsubstantiated claims that are not supported by reality. Time for a complaint?)

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I’m An Atheist

2010-12-20T11:46:00.002-05:00

Why don’t you believe in God? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless. People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like “it’s true to me” and “it’s faith.” I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite. It is ironic therefore that “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe,” comes across as both patronizing and impolite.

Arrogance is another accusation. Which seems particularly unfair. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence -- evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition. If it did, you wouldn’t get a shot of penicillin, you’d pop a leach down your trousers and pray. Whatever you “believe,” this is not as effective as medicine. Again you can say, “It works for me,” but so do placebos. My point being, I’m saying God doesn’t exist. I’m not saying faith doesn’t exist. I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

Continue Reading...

Amen.

Darin James Revisited

2010-12-19T16:24:00.001-05:00

I've talked about this tool, Darin James, before. He had advertised his claimed psychic services on a local classifieds site so I called him out.

As a result, I would say that Darin and I had become friends - but we haven't really kept in touch. This is my attempt to rekindle our relationship - an olive branch of sorts. (Do you think I should have held off on calling him a tool at the beginning of this entry?)

Regardless, Darin came to mind because I had received an email from a blog follower regarding another woo-woo peddling scumbag in Sarnia - Mary Demitro/Mary Young (whom I've also mentioned in earlier entries). The emailer wanted to alert me to a site on the internet (this one). The link he had included, however, didn't work so I searched for "psychic sarnia" (the same search he claimed to have done). The first link I came across was the above one but I also saw the second link (Darin James - Medium / Psychic Counsellor).

I was browsing Darin's site and came across the following statement:

Note from Darin James:
It is all about the energies and the emotions that I pick up . All readings are kept very private and I will never use any person or case to promote myself. If I can help I do and if not I will say so ....... trust is a two way street .
To all my current clients thank you so much for your faith and trust. Blessings DJ.
(Found near the bottom of this page.)

It brought back memories of Robbie Thomas (http://www.stoprobbie.com/) - another person who is not psychic - and his self-promotion that included using the names of dead people and the suggestion that he had solved their crimes. Since Robbie Thomas did not solve many of the crimes that he mentions (he hasn't produced any evidence to support the claim that he has solved any and he certainly hasn't solved the ones that are listed on his site as of this posting), he was lying.

I commend Darin for not using other people's tragedies to further his goal (the goal of helping people fix their fat wallet syndrome). So Darin, here's my olive branch to you - could you work with us to help stop other psychics from referencing horrible crimes they didn't solve to suggest they have abilities that they don't have?

Consider a quote I found on a psychic's blog:
Years ago when I was working on the Bernardo case I had to take a long break from doing these kind of cases due to the disturbing nature of the crimes and the things I seen and experienced via my gifts. It was good to get alot of the information I recieved and to have an arrest shortly after. I am not saying I completely solved this case by anymeans but any info that helped in a conviction is the important thing here.
(You can find this quote in this entry.)

Wait a minute - that's your blog, Darin! You lying piece crap. You can keep the olive branch - insert it where the sun doesn't shine.

(For the record, Darin James' name is not mentioned a single time in the court documents of the Bernardo trial - nor was any evidence brought forward that was credited to a psychic. Homolka did report that she, herself, had seen a psychic for some advice after the murders had occured. One of the investigators had this to say: "No. The answer to your question is no. We did not receive any useful clues from psychics." when asked if psychics helped solve the Bernardo case. )

It is not cynicism, it's skepticism.

2010-12-17T10:08:00.000-05:00

I am often troubled by comments that friends make - allowing the statements to go unquestioned would go against everything I'm hoping our society could achieve. On the other hand, however, I need to balance the desire to keep my wife from getting mad at me for "offending" a friend.

Typically I simply try my best to avoid topics where pure stupid can be exhibited by those who have done little (no) research on the area of discussion. However, there are times when it is inevitable, a topic is being discussed that asks for (no, requires) a response.

When my friend responded with a statement of idiocy (when they gently punched my shoulder I joked about having just got my flu shot (I got it months ago) but they responded about not getting the flu shot because it is a "scam" - they referred to homeopathy, at first, and then vitamins and supplements - for the record they were unaware that homeopathic "remedies" were not the same as "herbal remedies" nor did they know that 200C meant "1 drop in 'there-aren't-that-many-drops-of-water-in-the-whole-universe"). I stopped, for a second, and weighed, quickly the benefits and drawbacks of responding. My skeptical side won out (to the chagrin of my wife).

This person suggested that they (and their kids) take an homeopathic (or herbal - it's the same thing to them! :) ) "treatment" and the kids "never get sick" but "when they do get sick, I give them X treatment and it works". Either the kids "never get sick" or they do - but no time for semantics. Mark Crislip (http://www.quackcast.com/) mentioned a quote in one of his podcasts that I often attempt to repeat (but fail miserably as you'll see): "If you have a common cold and take an over-the-counter cold remedy, you'll get better in about 7 days but if you don't take anything, your cold will get better in about a week."

Regression to the mean, the natural history of the disease and the FACT that most (all?) common cold viruses are self-limiting often result in people attributing a causal effect of a (non-)treatment with the improvement of a set of symptoms. The anecdotes that follow seem compelling and interesting but, as far as evidence goes, anecdotes are of little value - whatever the plural of anecdote is, it is not data.

I thought I would speak to them, a bit, about Airborne but when I mentioned the product, they quickly responded with "yeah, that stuff works great, I take it before I travel or when I start to feel a cold coming on". It put a smile on my face, I could hardly hold my excitement. Airborne was falsely claiming that its product could prevent the common cold or reduce the effects of it and the FTC called them on it - as a result they had to refund purchasers' money (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403142.html).

Explaining the airborne refund lead my friend to ask "why are you so cynical?" It is a question that skeptics, on occasion, will have to face. Ironically, we're not the cynics - we have a positive view of the strengths of science and humanity - someone who believes in homeopathy or is anti-vaccine or believes that 9/11 was an inside job (activate comment trolls!) is cynical - they're suggesting that the "medical industrial complex" or "big government" is actively trying to profit with no regard for their fellow humans/citizens. We (skeptics) have a positive view of humanity, not a cynical one. We just happen to require a little more evidence before we accept a life-affecting proposition.

Skepticism is a positive and healthy approach to take. It is educational and rational and can help one avoid scams, health risks and abuse. So go out, be skeptical - you're helping, not hurting, your fellow human, your family and your planet.

(As a side note: Ironically, this person, who is rather against the idea of germ theory (seriously!), carries around a container of anti-bacterial hand wash.)

Pope: F#$k the minority unless that's us!

2010-12-16T17:17:00.000-05:00

Maybe the Pope didn't say it as it is being reported...

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/12/16/16572196.html

When condeming "the West" for enforcing the strict separation of church and state, the Pope says: "denial of history and the rejection of religious symbols which reflect the identity and the culture of the majority of citizens". (Majority Rules!)

But..

"In the message for the Roman Catholic Church’s World Day of Peace, marked on Jan. 1, he also reiterated recent condemnations of lack of religious freedom in countries in the Middle East where Christians are a minority, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia." (Hey, the minority rights matter!)

And then he adds this:
“The same determination that condemns every form of fanaticism and religious fundamentalism must also oppose every form of hostility to religion that would restrict the public role of believers in civil and political life.”

It's what the Bible says and endorses that worries me. Having people live it out in civil and political life is dangerous.

Tim Minchin said it best...

Multi-level Marketing: The math doesn't work

2010-12-16T13:02:00.003-05:00

This is an interesting topic to handle but since it is the holiday season and my wife is getting more and more invites to "parties", I thought I'd discuss, quickly, multi-level/network marketing.

Some of the most known multi-level marketing schemes (look up 'scheme' before you wrongly suggest that I'm poisoning the well) include Amway, Mary Kay, Qixtar, Tupperware, Avon, Herbalife, etc. Some of the newer/more recent ones that you might have heard about (or are hearing about) include: Arbonne (Cosmetics), Stampin Up, Tahitian Noni Juice, etc.

Most network/multi-level marketing organizations rely on recruitment to build an income. It is thinly veiled in the idea of selling a product and earning an income from that but sales, alone, don't allow for a real profit (unsustainable, at the very least).

For the most part, people are sold on the idea that they often buy many of the products that the particular MLM company is selling and "why not make money while using and selling the products you're going to buy anyway?" A simple and compelling concept - if it were true. They add in the idea of recruiting a few friends or family members who, like you, are also using these products in their homes. If they get a few people under them, too, and you're making commissions on their purchases and their sales, you can be making "thousands of dollars a week" or "conservatively, a couple thousand dollars a month" (these quotes directly from someone who was trying to get me to attend a "sales presentation" on Qixtar).

Without speaking about a specific multi-level/network marketing company, let us consider the simple math.

If they suggest profits based on having 5 people "directly below" you, that seems like a simple number to achieve. You have 5 friends or family members. They only need to get 5 people below them (each) - surely they know 5 people who'd be interested. If they each get 5 and that group, too, gets 5, and that group another 5 and you, along with them, sell $500/week (easy, huh, you'll spend $100 a week yourself and the people below you will as well.. all the way down the line) - you'll make $2000/month.

5 levels of 5 people - 3905 people
10 levels of 5 people - 12 million people
15 levels of 5 people - 5-6 full planets of people

Schemes like this can't simply work - there are not enough people on the planet to sustain them. Sure, the few people at the "top" might make a bunch of money (for a short time) but would you be comfortable with knowingly screwing your family and friends to make a bit of money in the short term?

Even if it only required 3 people - 363, 88572, 1/3 of everyone on the planet.

The companies selling the products/services are often selling over-priced items/services so not only are you not making money, you're spending more than you should on a product or service of similar quality/benefit. The net result is that you have better odds of making money at a casino than you do with any recruitment driven (no matter how much they try to hide that) method of earning/paying.

http://www.mlm-thetruth.com/

http://www.mlmwatch.org/

Santa Claus <> Real, Zombie Jew = Real

2010-12-15T11:06:00.000-05:00

Forgive me for having to reiterate this. I spend countless hours trying to remember this and if what they say is true, by teaching everyone else, I'll learn this twice.

Archbishop Fabriciano Sigampa reminds us that it is Santa Claus that is not real but the Zombie Jew (aka Jesus) is.

Now that we've dealt with that, get back to celebrating the birth of the Zombie Jew - after all, he was born (though likely never existed) on December 25th - just like the bible says!

Whether you believe in a god or not, happy holidays (oh, and there is no war on Christmas). Enjoy this lovely Christmas song.

Hold your false look of surprise: Robbie lied

2010-12-09T15:10:00.000-05:00

(Note: This is a cross post from http://www.stoprobbie.com/)

Well, the publication ban has been lifted on the Tori Stafford case and, as suspected, Robbie Thomas was NOT involved in solving that crime (he has never solved a crime using his claimed psychic abilities).

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2010/12/09/16485601.html

Details also show that, not only was Robbie not involved in solving the crime, he (as mentioned here and on http://www.stoprobbie.com/) actually told the family that Tori was alive and would be found alive and well - about a week after she was brutally murdered.

April 8 - Tori goes missing. (Abducted)
April 8 - Abductors buy garbage bags and a hammer.
April 8 - Lifeless body is disposed of.
April 13 - Robbie Thomas claims (on X-Zone radio) that Tori Stafford would be found alive and safe. (He also told the family this as was reported in the London Free Press and other websites)

I will make a prediction now. Robbie Thomas' solved cases counter will not change in the next 9 years. Robbie Thomas has solved 0 cases in 18 (or 20) years. A perfect record!

If you have a moment, congratulate Robbie - robbiethomas@cogeco.ca (and, if you do, carbon copy us - emailus@stoprobbie.com)

Yes!!! Now we're getting somewhere!

2010-12-08T15:32:00.002-05:00

I am so excited to see the latest marketing campaign from CFI Canada. Following up their "There's probably no god" from last year is a campaign focused on a wider set of claims.

What I like most about this ad is that we're not skirting around the issue - belief in god is just as wild and crazy as accepting the existence of bigfoot, zeus, psychics, homeopathy (and the site goes on to include: chiropractic, boogiemen, vampires, leprechauns and many more) or, from the other side, believing in homeopathy or zeus or boogiemen is just as wild and crazy as accepting that a god (or gods) exist(s).

http://extraordinary-claims.com/

Enjoy!

Amanda Brown Responds with what is in Homeopathic 'Treatments': Nothing

2010-12-06T15:22:00.006-05:00

After posting the first entry on Watford's own Amanda Brown, I invited her to comment or add something to the discussion. Another post followed shortly and then, like magic (like Homeopathy?), an email from Amanda.

The content of her email was eerily similar to Homeopathy - empty but with some suggestion of content.

Sarnia Skeptic,

I just wanted to let you know that I have now read both your blog entries, and you obviously have your mind made up about homeopathy and myself! Everyone has a right to their own option. I wish you would have made reference to all the websites that confirm the amzing things Homeopathy helps people to achieve. But like you said, you are Sarnia's very own Skeptic!!! I really do not have anything to add or to comment on, because I believe and stand behind Homeopathy 100%!

Thank you for pointing out my spelling error on my initial consultation form, I will be correcting that today!

Yours in health,
Amanda

I have, since, responded to Amanda with a request that she not only imply that there are "websites that confirm" but actually include them for us to consider. I suspect our communications have ended as a result - how dare me ask such impossible questions! (Almost a month has passed, as of this posting, and no response.)

I do think that Amanda is sincere in her belief in magic (homeopathy) - I've never met a Homeopath who didn't appear to be. I think, like all of us, the desire to believe can sometimes allow us to cherry-pick information that agrees with our position (confirmation bias) and ignore the contradictory evidence.

Without a doubt, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of websites that contain countless anecdotes about people overcoming the impossible with the help of homeopathy. One must be reminded that the plural of anecdote, however, is not data.

In the past, I have linked to studies done on homeopathy (real studies) that show no benefit beyond placebo and I have linked to a couple of tiny studies that suggest further study is required and that there may be a small benefit to homeopathy. Small studies with limited (no) controls are not what science relies on. Larger and more complete trials have shown, conclusively, that homeopathy's benefit is simply equal to (if not because of - which I would suggest it is) the placebo effect.

The reality of homeopathy is that it isn't based on reality - to accept that extremely dilute substances, so dilute that they can't possibly contain a single molecule of the 'active' ingredient, can affect the natural history of a disease would require us to forget what we know about biology and chemistry (nevermind physics and modern medicine).

Amanda Brown is pushing products that have no plausible mechanism of altering specific outcomes of a disease but, as a result of seeking homeopathic "treatments", having people delay real treatment can have terrible effects. Homeopathy is not only silly, it has real potential consequences.

The Real "Secret" - Alternative Medicine is a killer

2010-12-06T07:59:00.000-05:00

From David Gorski at Science Based Medicine: Death by “alternative” medicine: Who’s to blame? (Revisited)

I hate stories like this. I really do. I hate them with a burning passion that makes it hard for me to see straight when I first find out about them.

In fact, you might even say that stories like this are a major part of the reason why I do what I do, both here and elsewhere. They’re a major part of the reason why I’ve recently branched out into public speaking, something that used to terrify me beyond belief but that lately I’ve become at least competent at–sometimes even not bad at all. Sadly, the story I’m about to tell is one I’ve told before, most recently at the Lorne Trottier Science Symposium, where I gave a talk on cancer cure “testimonials,” although at the time I gave the talk the story’s outcome, although predictable, was not yet known.

Now it is.

The woman to whom I refer is named Kim Tinkham, who was diagnosed with breast cancer over three and a half years ago. Regular readers may recall that Kim Tinkham achieved fame not long after that when she was featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show in an episode about The Secret, an episode I discussed posts entitled The Oprah-fication of Medicine and On the nature of “alternative” medicine cancer cure testimonials. I don’t want to discuss the utter nonsense that is The Secret in any detail here. However, for those unfamiliar with this particular bit of New Age woo, it’s important to point out that The Secret’s “Law of Attraction” takes the germ of a reasonable idea (namely that one’s attitudes and wishes influence whether one gets what one wants in life, something that’s been known for millennia) and goes off the deep end of woo by proclaiming that, in essence, you can get anything you want by wanting it badly enough and thinking positive thoughts. Basically “The Secret” is that you have the power to “attract” good to yourself by thinking happy thoughts (hence “the law of attraction,” which, according to Secret adherents always works). It’s an idea that resonates in so much of “alternative medicine,” such as German New Medicine or Biologie Totale. Of course, the implication of “Secret” thinking is that, if you don’t get what you want, it’s your fault, an idea that also resonates with so much “alternative” medicine, where a frequent excuse for failure is that the patient either didn’t follow the regimen closely enough or didn’t want it badly enough.

Basically, The Secret is what inspired Kim Tinkham to eschew all conventional therapy for her breast cancer and pursue “alternative” therapies, which is what she has done since 2007. Before I discuss her case in more detail, I’m going to cut to the chase, though.

This weekend, I learned that Kim Tinkham’s cancer has recurred and that she is dying. On Saturday, a reader of my other blog sent me an e-mail...

Continue Reading... http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=8745

Michael Shoesmith: Should atheists be asked to leave Canada?

2010-11-24T11:05:00.005-05:00

A follower of my blog has suggested that The Sarnia Observer has an internal bet going on about how long it will take for me to respond to some of the rubbish they publish. Sadly, if they're entertaining themselves, it comes at the expense of perpetuating the ignorance that is rooted in religion.

Michael Shoesmith had written a letter to the editor with the title of my blog as the headline - asking if atheists should be asked to leave Canada. Before you read the letter to the editor, let us answer the question based on how religion has asked in the past - No, True Christians(tm) wouldn't ask, they'd murder them(us).

I don't have much time to completely respond to his letter but I have highlighted a few of his words/phrases with links. The truth isn't what Michael wishes it were, you'll quickly see.

Here is the letter to the editor (yes, it really was published - see it here):

Sir: The United Nations has released their best and worst list of places to live. Norway has made the number one spot this time and Zimbabwe has hit rock bottom.

Here's the reality. According to the CIA World Fact Book, Norway is 90% Christian while Zimbabwe is 75% Syncretic. While you're all dusting off your dictionaries consider this question: Should atheists be asked to leave Canada? Well, according to our national anthem, the answer is yes. Since part of the anthem is an actual prayer to the transcendental creator of the universe, atheists aren't even a factor in our most important representative symbol.

In case you're wondering which God the anthem is referring to, keep in mind that the french version makes direct mention of the "cross."

It should come as no surprise then that countries which promote atheistic tenets have the highest rates of suicide (China, et al). Therefore, the less atheism that exists in a culture, the happier the people will be.

Perhaps the non-atheist country of Zimbabwe could learn something from Quebec which has included the cross in its symbolic expression of the national anthem. Because blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.

Mike Shoesmith Sarnia

To sum it up - Norway is among the most secular nations in the world. China is hardly non-religious (it's one of the most religious) and Quebec is possibly the most secular province in Canada. I agree, maybe we could learn something from them.

If Norway is among the most secular nations in the world and it is the best place to live, then the premise of Michael's letter is completely backwards. Norway IS among the most secular nations in the world (Society Without God) and it IS the best place in the world to live (as Michael has stated) so asking atheists to leave would make Canada a worse place to live (following Michael's logic).

It turns out, too, that "our" national anthem was based on a version from 1908 by Robert Stanley Weir:
O Canada! Our home and native land.

True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
And stand on guard, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, glorious and free,
We stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
The link (according to our national anthem) above states "The official English version now in use incorporates changes recommended in 1968 by a joint committee of MPs and senators that added the lines "from far and wide" and "God keep our land glorious and free!"" That's hardly in agreement with the idea that Mike is trying to put forward - the "god" part was added 60 years after the original was written and 101 years after we were (Canada was) given autonomy.

Arguing that mention of the "cross" in the French version implies that it is the Christian god makes little sense, too, when you consider that the cross symbol, itself, is of pagan origin. Come on Michael, is this the best you can do?

A Robbie Thomas Supporter Responds

2010-11-23T13:15:00.000-05:00

I logged in to my blogspot account to find a bunch of comments requiring "moderation". After an article has been posted for a certain length of time, any comments added are automatically set for moderation. If you post a comment shortly after the article appears, the comments will automatically appear. (I have since approved all but two of the comments awaiting moderation - one of them is why I'm writing this entry.)

The comment that I thought deserved some attention was the following from an anonymous person that was recently posted:

You know, I have had dealings with Robbie Thomas, and he "saw" something that I had in my house that had belonged to my parents. There was no way that he could have known that these things even existed. Why do you people have to be so hateful and jealous. Do you have nothing better to do with your time than to try to bad mouth other people. Give me a break. Just because he made the mistake by going "public" with his gifts just opened the door to people like you. I think that you just have nothing better to do with your time than smash other people. If you people were responsible for low ticket sales at his shows, then I dont blame him for cancelling the rest of his tour. You people seem to know it all dont you.....well you know what, from what I can see you are all nothing but some small town people that arent happy unless you are bad mouthing someone or other, and he, because of his talents, is a good target for you.

I must start off by saying "No, I didn't know. I'm not psychic, just like Robbie." Thanks for the anecdote (void of any real content, mind you) about what Robbie "saw" and how that suggests he is "psychic".

"Hateful and jealous"
I don't hate Robbie Thomas and I'm certainly not jealous of him. What Robbie does, however, is deserving of substantial amounts of hate - he is destroying the memories of lost loved ones, preying on already victimized people and lying about his abilities.

"Nothing better to do with my time than to bad mouth other people"
To be completely honest, no. I think spending time to out liars and frauds is an important and necessary duty that we should all be involved in. More appropriately, however, is that I'm not "bad mouth"ing other people - the truth can be painful to those it exposes and I offer no apologies.

"Just because he made the mistake by going 'public' with his gifts"
Though you fail to mention what such "gifts" Robbie has, I must assume you are referring to his claims that he is "psychic". If that happens to be the case, let me say this: Robbie Thomas is not psychic. If he was, he'd go collect the million dollars from the JREF. Better yet, have Robbie actually find a missing person using such "gifts". In 20 years he has failed to do so and I'm fairly certain that the next 20 will be just as fruitless.

"If you people were responsible for low ticket sales at his shows, then I don't blame him for cancelling the rest of his tour"
First off, I hope we were responsible (or partly so) for his low ticket sales but I doubt that is the case. All of his shows had very few attendees so I'm doubtful that we played any part in it. Being a commercial failure is likely why he cancelled his tour (though his former "manager" might suggest different reasons for the shows failure). Since most people who would have went to his "shows" would have been fairly credulous (and already believers), they wouldn't have sought out dissenting opinions.

"You people seem to know it all don't you"
Yes. Great point. :) No, we don't know it all but it isn't necessary to know everything to see a fraud. If someone claims that they have solved crimes using psychic powers but can not (or will not) present the supporting evidence, we should have no reason to accept such a claim. If we have evidence that is counter to specific claims that the person has made, we have reason to suggest that they are lying or are being fraudulent. Specifically, Robbie Thomas did not solve the Victoria Stafford case nor did Robbie Thomas solve the Cezar Cano case. He has also not solved the Natalie Holloway case. One could assume, then, that he is lying if he claims otherwise.

"Because of his talents, is a good target for you"
Robbie Thomas is a valid target because of his claims. He doesn't have any supernatural talents. He makes testable claims that are blatantly false. Until such time as he stops victimizing people, he, and those like him, will continue to be "targets".

http://www.stoprobbie.com/ site is dedicated to stopping the abuse by psychics. Much more on Robbie Thomas (who is not psychic) is available there.

Joan Hall: Jesus Offers Hope for Today's Teens

2010-11-15T10:38:00.000-05:00

Joan Hall, a resident of Sarnia, wrote a letter to the editor of The Sarnia Observer about Jesus and, in fine Observer form, they published it. (I swear they do this simply to entertain me.)

JESUS OFFERS HOPE FOR TODAY'S TEENS

Sir: The Oct. 30 Observer article "Finding the Light," concerning "a spate of recent suicides," reminded me that back in 1963 (47 years ago) prayer (and God) was removed from the public schools.

Point made - only youth in public schools (and none in Catholic of Christian schools) commit suicide. Oh? Maybe not?

Before 1963, chief problems with kids included talking, chewing gum, making noise, getting out of line, etc. After 1963, things escalated to the problems becoming rape, robbery, assault, murder, suicide, etc.

The absurdity of that statement is amazing. No murders, assaults, robberies, rapes and suicides before 1963? Shake your head. And next are you going to tell us that before "god" came down to Moses, people didn't know not to kill and rape? And how many people have committed suicide because of the oppression and subjugation brought on by people who believe in "god"? Homophobia, oppression of women and out-group hostility are victimless crimes?

Did you know that when public schools were founded, the Bible was the main textbook? Also, Harvard, Yale and Princeton were all founded as Christian colleges for the purpose of teaching the Bible.

You talk about kids behaving badly and then mention the bible? Time to stone the kids! (Joan, please read your bible, it obviously doesn't say what you think it does.) And who cares what Yale, Princeton, etc. were founded with/to do(never mind that you have your facts wrong)? Over 300 years ago, we didn't have "modern science". The Universities have grown up - you should too.

There is an answer to the "light" that today's children/ teens are looking for. It is Jesus Christ.

And here I thought they didn't want light - I was thinking they wanted to be recognized as equal and valuable members of society. Maybe people do yearn for people to call them sinners and sick and abominations and they simply also need Jesus Christ to be invoked when all that happens (as if that isn't the reason for a good portion of it already). Thank you, Joan. Your logic is perfect.

Do you wonder why young and old alike are lost, confused, depressed with no reason to live? They have no hope.

I wonder if that is because they've prayed and prayed and prayed and have never had a prayer answered? They've been lied to all their lives about the existence of some sky-fairy who will look after them when they need help and now, in times when they need help, he's not there (and never has been).

Jesus is the answer. He will enter into your life -just ask Him.

Jesus? Still nothing.

Jesus offers and gives hope. But you have to go to Him. He's always waiting.
-- Joan Hall
Sarnia

God will save us from climate change...

2010-11-10T15:17:00.001-05:00

When the headline of a major Canadian newspaper is "God will save us from climate change: US Representative", I can't help but laugh - at first.

John Shimkus really is a member of the house in the US. He really does believe that man cannot destroy what "god" has created. That's funny in the sense of "that's fucking stupid." It's not funny in the sense of "wholly fuck - he's actually an elected member of the house who can affect policy change".

You see, no matter what your beliefs/ideas are about global climate change, the idea that ONLY "god" can end the existence of humans is wrong and the implications of such an idea could be horrible. Humans do have the ability to end humanity.

The most religious nations on earth have stockpiles of nuclear (and other) weapons. So maybe John is right - "god" may save us from climate change - by having "his" followers, on earth, continue the war over who has the best imaginary friend. Total destruction of humanity in the short term would save us from extinction in the long run.

God belief is stupid: Confrontation works!

2010-11-10T10:42:00.001-05:00

I'm a dick but I think that being a dick has value. Many argue that confronting the beliefs of others only makes them retreat to their side and never results in a change of their beliefs. I've said (and will continue to say) that different things work for different people and we need to take a number of different approaches.

To the people, however, who suggest that the likes of "The Four Horsemen" are not changing people's minds, check out this story: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/atheist-ministers-leading-faithful/story?id=12004359

The claim that the only people that Dawkins (Hitchens, Dennett and Harris) convince are the "fence sitters" is a bit silly when you consider that "Adam (one of the ministers in the story) said his initial doubts about God came as he read the work of the so-called New Atheists -- popular authors like the prominent scientist Richard Dawkins. He said the research was intended to help him defend his faith."

Though I disagree with the claims that people like Dawkins are "strident" and "shrill", I will say that they are not apologetic and they have no problems with pointing out absurd positions. I think that is a valuable approach.

Now, there is a difference between saying someone is stupid and saying that some one's beliefs are stupid. There is also a difference between tolerance and respect - and Penn Jillette says it well:

“There’s a big difference between tolerance and respect. Tolerance is you saying something crazy and me smiling and saying ‘that’s nice.’ Respect is when you say something crazy and I say ‘you’re out of your f---ing mind.’ Direct confrontation, direct conversation is real respect. And it’s amazing how many people get that.” The Toronto Star, "Penn Jillette and the gospel of disbelief"

So, yes, the beliefs that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that dinosaurs lived alongside humans and that we don't share common ancestors with all living species are stupid beliefs.

Amanda Brown and the Power of Nothing

2010-11-08T14:28:00.002-05:00

I have to say Amanda Brown's information about Homeopathic Flu "Vaccines" was among the most disturbing things I've seen since I started blogging. As a result, I have this real urge to continue to point out the stupidity of homeopathy - so...

After writing the last blog entry about Amanda Brown "CHom", I sent her an email to see if she had anything to add. She has yet to respond. I'm doubtful that she ever will.

A comment on my blog referred to a Science Based Medicine article on Homeopathic Vaccines that appeared shortly after I posted my blog entry. I happen to be a big fan of Mark Crislip's writings and his podcast (http://www.quackcast.com/) so I was happy to see him cover the topic. It is well worth reading.

Below is a video with Ben Goldacre (http://www.badscience.net/) explaining Homeopathy. It is about a year old but does a good job of quickly explaining how it is supposed to work and the ethical question surrounding the use of Homeopathy.

Often people argue about the value of Homeopathy - since there is supposed to be absolutely nothing in it, the risk of Homeopathy, it is said, is none. 'If there is no risk but people can "feel better" by taking it, what is the harm?' Assuming that this statement were accurate (Homeopathic 'medicines' have been known to be adulterated or have been contaminated so the risk isn't "none".), however, REAL medicine isn't about making people "feel better", it is about actually making people "better". Feeling better is not the same as being better.

The argument of "what's the harm?", I would suggest, is a horrible one for a number of reasons but, without getting into that (yet anyway), when you consider the "replacement" of a vaccine with a homeopathic "treatment", the risks are real. The flu is real - it costs thousands of lives every year (in North America alone). Not everyone who comes in contact with the flu virus gets the flu and not everyone who gets the flu dies from it. Not getting the flu shot, however, means that you are at an increased risk of becoming infected and, as a result, falling ill. Taking "nothing" (replace "Homeopathic Remedy" with "nothing") can be harmful.

There are risks to Homeopathic "treatments" as well. If a person with a cold takes a Homeopathic Remedy and shortly after gets "better" it is possible that they will attribute the "healing" to the Homeopathic "treatment". It is often said that if you have a common cold, taking an over-the-counter cold remedy will result in the cold lasting only 7 days. Without taking the over-the-counter remedy, it would last about a week. The natural progression of the common cold is, generally, not altered by treating it with most over-the-counter products. The natural progression of the common cold is not altered by treating it with a Homeopathic remedy so the person giving credit to the Homeopathic "treatment" is wrongly associating the "remedy" with causing them to get better. This is where it can become a problem.

The next time the person feels ill then, as a result of what they might feel was a "successful" treatment of their cold, they may attend a Homeopathic practitioner instead of seeing someone who actually might be able to help. Delaying the treatment of, what could be, a serious illness can have real harmful effects. Also, taking a homeopathic treatment and "feeling better" while the disease continues to run rampant can further delay the real treatment.

Homeopaths should never be diagnosing a person - they, almost without exception, have very little (if any) scientific training and often no real-world clinical experience. The "school" that Amanda Brown claims to have "attended" offers clinical experience via DVD. Her "certificate" (whatever) is something that is achieved with only 20 weekends of study (500 hours total). (Oh, and over $9000!)

On browsing Amanda's website (she has since moved her website: http://amandabrownhomeopath.com/index.asp), you will come across her form for an "Initial Consultation" (her form is no longer online) - it is no wonder that most people who have seen a Homeopath will not talk openly about them. It's like Scientology - "tell us all of your dark secrets, it will only help you" and then when you try to leave the cult, "ummm, you do remember that form you filled out with all of your dirty secrets? WE wouldn't want anyone to find out about that, would we?" :)

I'm not saying that is what Homeopaths do but are you really going to tell some unregulated (and, in so many ways, uneducated) person about your medical history? The form asks you to list "medical conditions" that you have had in the past or that you currently have, including, "HIV/AIDS, Gonnerrhea, Syphilis, Parasites, Drug Abuse, Alcoholism, Cirrhosis, Miscarriage, Herpes (gentalia)" (and, yes, the spelling is how it is found on Amanda's form). Ready to sign up yet?

Update: See "A Bitter Pill to Swallow" by Edzard Ernst. (Posted today - November 8, 2010)

Michael Shoesmith - Need I say more?

2010-11-03T16:23:00.000-04:00

Michael Shoesmith (formerly known as "The Internet Pastor") has written another letter to the editor of the local newspaper (The Sarnia Observer). The main point of the message, it seemed, was about parents being aware of what their children are doing on-line. Wow, I thought, something sensible from possibly the least sensible person I know.

Sadly, that wasn't really all he had to say. He suggested that TV is really really bad and should be removed from homes with children and that letting your child use the Internet unsupervised is like knowingly leaving your child with a serial child molester.

Near the end of the article, however, he states the following:

Finally, while modern scientific enlightenment has come a long way to make our lives easier and more exciting, the term "science" has been hijacked by agenda-driven atheistic groups and Darwinian evolution plays a large role in promoting the attitudes of these groups. Evolution has become a religious tenet in the main stream scientific community, even though real science is happily performed without it.

Parents must realize that there is a battle going on for the hearts and minds of their young ones. Neither you nor your children are animals. Real science makes no such claim. Intra-genus micro adaptation is an obvious reality, but gametic isolation restricts any extreme extra-genus variance and none has ever been observed. Remind your children that they are special, unique creations and there is a God in heaven who loves them.

Starting from the first paragraph, let me say that science has done more than make life "more exciting" - it has made our lives, on average, twice as long. It has brought about some of the greatest and most awe inspiring discoveries of all time and it has (and continues to) provided us with a greater knowledge of the universe. In turn, one could argue, it has removed the necessity for belief in sky-fairies. The scientific method is self-correcting and, because of that, can't be hijacked.

The statistics tell us that the higher level of education a person has, the less likely they are to hold beliefs in a god. They also show that an overwhelming percentage of scientists do not hold on to supernatural beliefs. The agenda, if any, is to find the truth. Science is about following the evidence and building comprehensive theories that successfully explain the evidence. From there we are able to make valid predictions and, in turn, create new medicines, new technology and much more. As a result we have been able to increase crop yields, decrease childhood mortality, extend life, generate electricity, improve quality of life - the list is almost endless.

Evolution is, in many ways, the central unifying theory of biology. Without evolution, biologists can make little (no?) predictions and have little to explain life. Without an understanding of evolution, little (if any) modern medicines would exist and germ theory doesn't make sense. To suggest that "real science is happily performed without it" is ignorant (at best), but (more likely) blatantly misleading and false.

Michael - you, like all other humans, are an animal. We are all animals and every living thing on this earth is related. We share a common ancestor with apes, aardvarks and apples. Simply wishing that were not the case does not change that fact. Get over your self-importance.

And, people, remind your children that they are special - imagine how many chance occurrences had to have taken place for them to have ever lived. Billions of possible sperm, thousands of possible eggs - for each generation before them, billions of possible pairings of couples - and, in all that, the statistical improbability still resulted in them having the fortunate (and nearly improbable) ability to ever experience life. That is pretty special.

As Richard Dawkins said in his 1998 book, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder:
We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

Homeopathic Medical Council of Canada Website: Just like Homeopathy

2010-11-03T12:23:00.000-04:00

The Homeopathic Medical Council of Canada website (which was launched in 2008) is, as the title suggests, just like Homeopathy.

How, you ask?

1.) For the most part, it has nothing in it. Most of the links have no content (ie. "Work in progress. Please visit again to view these details.")
2.) There is nothing helpful in the site.
3.) It is completely useless.
4.) It can distract you from going to something that might actually be worthwhile.

See for yourself: http://www.hmcc.ca/

(This was going to be a blog entry about a Woo-woo homeopathic practitioner in Watford - YAY WATFORD!! - named Amanda Brown but after I had written the entry, I looked for some links to include about Homeopathy and came across this one. The link talks about what is found on the Society of Homeopath's website about Homeopathy - something I didn't think they'd really admit to. As a result I wanted to see what Canada's own "group" had to say about Homeopathy... apparently not much.)

But I can't let Amanda Brown off so easily. Amanda has a flyer about "Homeopathic Flu Prophylaxis". What is amazing about Homeopathic Flu Protection, as Amanda states it, is that it "has been proposed as safe and effective way to protect against childhood and other epidemic diseases including influenza." Seriously! She is claiming that a non-existent amount of the flu virus contained in a highly-dilute liquid can protect against more than just the flu!

"This remedy is a homeopathic preparation of the flu virus. It is produced by Dolisos Pharmacy, using the flu virus strain recommended by the World Health Organization vaccine production." (Interestingly, the World Health Organization doesn't produce vaccines.)

She then claims "the remedies used for homeopathic protection are prepared according to safe homeopathic principles. They are free of harmful components... " (Hmmm, it contains the ACTUAL flu virus (which vaccines don't, by the way) and thus the statement is not true or it doesn't contain the flu virus and the former statement isn't true.) It continues "...and capable of stimulating a strong protective response from the body, increasing its resistance to disease." Really? You have the nerve to state that when there isn't a single scientific study to support your claims?

Here's my favourite part... "Homeopathic flu protection is safe for all ages. It can be used with babies through to the elderly and even during pregnancy. There are no adverse reactions or side effects associated with these vaccines." Right. Except if the person who is simply using the Homeopathic protection actually encounters the virus it is supposed to protect against. The fact of the matter is this: If there is no potential for harm from ingesting a "medicine", there can be NO method of action therefore it is not possible for it to provide any benefit. (Misusing real medicine doesn't have the same effect.)

If you didn't read the article I referenced above, I suggest that you read it now.

The End Goal Isn't Acceptance of Evolution

2010-11-01T13:07:00.000-04:00

First of all, the "accommodationists" that suggest we need to work with the religious who accept evolution fail to realize that the "evolution" they accept is not evolution as it occurs. (Most fail to accept common ancestry!)

On to the point of this entry.

I've blogged, in the past, about many of the "flock" not knowing what their official church doctrines are - they don't. Surveys and studies often show that many Catholics do not know that the official stance of the church is acceptance of evolution - and though that is on the topic of this entry, I don't suggest it is the only spot where followers are unaware of official doctrine.

So we need to get more Catholics to accept the official church doctrine, right? Wrong.

Many "accommodationists" will suggest to others that they will have a better chance of convincing others to accept evolution if they can point to other believers who also accept evolution. Many argue that you can keep your faith and accept evolution - "Look at Francis Collins" or "Take Kenneth Miller for example" or "Even the Catholic church officially recognizes evolution".

The first point I want to make is that we're appealing to authority - ie. you are to throw out that dogmatic belief because someone in a higher position in the church has done so OR someone seemingly smarter than you says you should/can OR someone closer to "god" says you now should/can. Not only has it failed to work, it is the wrong approach. We want people to think, to follow the evidence and to accept things on their own validity - not to simply believe/accept things because others say it is okay to accept them. If the argument is not valid, it matters not who is making it.

The second point that needs to be made is that it isn't only the topic of evolution that we need to tackle - people who don't think for themselves and don't demand adequate evidence before accepting a life-affecting (their life or the lives of others) proposition have not moved much further ahead if they simply accept evolution as a scientific fact. (As an aside, evolution is occuring (fact) and the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is one of the most tested and supported theories in science.) We need people to consider the evidence and understand what is necessary for a "theory" to be generally accepted - it has to account for all of the evidence, it needs to make predictions and it needs to be falsifiable.

I'm not going to argue that we should all take the confrontational approach or that people are wrong for trying to partner with believers to keep evolution in the school curriculum (NCSE, etc.). That is an important temporary measure but the need goes away when we get people to respect science and trust the scientific process. Sadly, many accommodationists are willing to sacrifice what is "true" to achieve a single (and short-sighted) goal.

Though I realize different people respond to different methods of criticism or argument, don't sacrifice the truth. Use a different approach, sure, but keep in mind that we should be arguing against appeals to authority (or arguments from authority) and other methods of coercion. We're arguing for a skeptical and scientific evaluation of the evidence before accepting a proposition. Saying "well, Mr. Famous accepts it so you should too" is the wrong direction. And sacrificing honesty with the goal of getting (keeping) evolution in the science curriculum also does not help achieve the real objective.

Emile Varsava's Letter to the Editor - Sarnia Observer

2010-10-27T14:32:00.000-04:00

In a recent edition of The Sarnia Observer, Emile Varsava writes:

Sir: After Adam and Eve were put out from the Garden of Eden, the Bible states that they had two sons, Cain and Abel (they had other children also), Jealousy developed between Cain and Abel, because Cain's sacrifice to God was not accepted like Abel's was. In anger, Cain killed his brother. God called to Cain, and asked, "where is your brother Abel?" Cain answered, am I my brother's keeper? The Bible does not state if God answered Abel.

Centuries later, in Luke's Gospel, Jesus gave the answer to Cain's question, am I my brother's keeper.

Lawyer asked Jesus, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus asked him what is written in the law, he answered, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with thy soul, with thy mind, and love thy neighbour as thyself. Jesus said thou hast answered correctly. The lawyer asked, who is my neighbour? Jesus told him the Good Samaritan story. How a certain Samaritan stopped to help a man who had been beaten, robbed, and left for dead.

The Samaritan poured wine and oil on the victim's wounds, put him on his own steed, took him to an Inn, paid the innkeeper to look after the victim until the Samaritan returned. Jesus told the lawyer, "go and do likewise." What Jesus said to the lawyer, Jesus is saying to all of us, go and help those in need.

John's Gospel tells us to love one another. Our live must be active, we must all be Good Samaritans. The doctrine of feeding the hungry was introduced by the Prophet Isaiah, who lived 750 years before Christ. Isiah said feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, help those in need. This is the foundation of Christian faith.

-- Emile Varsava Sarnia

If that were all that the Christian Faith was all about, I can't see many people being against it. However, I think the foundation of the Christian faith is dogmatic acceptance of unbelievable (literally) doctrines.

As an aside, when one reads a letter like Emile's they should be driven to ask "Is that why Christians spend billions and billions annually on their massive houses of worship?" but I digress.

Without getting into whether or not Jesus or Isaiah existed, the reality is that the idea of taking care of others pre-dates Christianity by many many years. Humanity has existed for a couple hundred thousand years and it is clear that co-operation is what enabled our species to thrive. It didn't take some sky-fairy to tell us that murdering was bad for us to realize that permitting murder wasn't in our best interest.

Since all of us (but the truly wacky) realize that Adam and Eve (Cain and Abel, etc.) did not exist, the premise of Emile's first paragraph is no stronger than referring to a Berenstain Bears story or one from another children's book. (Though I think the Berenstain Bears probably make the points better without getting into a jealous papa bear that kills off thousands of his "children" for owning something like a stuffed teddy bear.)

Emile goes on to relate her reading of Luke when she speaks about the lawyer asking Jesus how he is to gain eternal life (which almost certainly does not exist). The "law" states that you must first love "god" (what a jealous bugger he is!) and then love thy neighbour. The concept of mutual respect, again, predates Christianity and can be derived from a naturalistic set of morals based simply on the goal of reducing human suffering (and likely was arrived at that way in the beginning).

In other words, (and using Emile's), "the foundation of the Christian faith" is copied from earlier myths and societies. That's not much to base your beliefs on!

Though the bible does suggest some pretty good things, we can't forget the other doctrines of many faiths that are based on the very same book (not to consider the many things that were justified/supported for years by the bible - slavery and other horrific ideas like an eye-for-an-eye or stoning people to death for not believing).

Many people use the bible, today, to support the restriction of human/equal rights for women, homosexuals and others. It also interferes with science education, medical research and other attempts on reducing human suffering (ie. population/birth control, contraceptives, vaccinations and others). It leads people to hold irrational beliefs about the destruction of our planet and how we should treat it - the idea that only "god" can destroy what he has created.

So, Emile, let's agree that we should work together to alleviate the suffering of others. Let's give credit where credit is due, however - to humanity. The golden rule was a man-made construct as your letter suggests (Isaiah wasn't "god") - we need not believe in any "gods" to accept it and we need not give credit to anyone or anything else.

And keep that in mind the next time something "amazing" happens - like when miners are rescued from a collapsed mine by technology and humans - thank those who are like you and I - the people who want nothing more than for the human condition to be improved. It is no time to be thanking a "god" - it is time to be amazed and intrigued by human ingenuity, the search for "truth" and the continuing advancement of technology. The world, as it is, is amazing enough - we don't need to make crap up.

You say my car is crap but you don't even have a car yourself?

2010-10-24T14:08:00.001-04:00

I was recently at an auction and standing beside a grey truck waiting for some people to clear out before we left. The conversation that followed actually happened:
Man standing beside me: (Him) "Is that your truck?"
Me: "No, sorry." (I thought he was going to ask me to move it.)
Him: "Good, Chevy makes a horrible truck. I wouldn't drive a Chevy if someone gave it to me."
Me: "Oh, what kind of a truck do you recommend? Or should I ask what kind of a truck do you drive?"
Him: "I don't own a truck but I'd definitely buy a Ford if I got one."
Me: "Oh? What kind of a car do you own?"
Him: "Well, I don't have one at the moment."
Me: "So you'd probably drive a Chevy if someone gave you one?"
Him: "Yeah, if someone gave me one."
Me: "That's what I thought."

Stupid.

I had a giggle at his expense and I hoped that he learned how silly his argument was. He probably didn't.

It reminds me of people who are Intelligent Design advocates. They're knocking a theory, that does everything that it needs to, simply because the theory they don't have but wish they had would be better than evolution. Intelligent Design advocates have yet to postulate a theory to replace the theory they vehemently oppose.

Stupid squared.

Back to Basics: Debating the uninformed

2010-10-21T09:39:00.001-04:00

Sometimes I'm just stuck for what to blog about. Many arguments against religion, alt medicine, anti-vaccination are so basic and have been used for so long that I wonder what it is going to take to get people to start thinking.

The recent Pew study that showed that atheists and agnostics have a greater knowledge about religion than the religious is pretty telling of what I should be blogging about - the basic arguments. It is often clear in my daily discussions that many "believers" haven't even thought about some of the main concepts and doctrines of their own religion so when they are faced with a rebuttal to a new-age-ish philosophical argument their faith is unchanged. I think the same can be said for alt-med acceptance and other odd beliefs.

Maybe it is truly time to get back to the basics. Maybe a simple understanding or explanation of the elementary aspects is what we really need to be doing. Maybe I've missed out on opportunities to get someone to think simply by making an argument that is far more complicated than anything they think they'll ever spend the time/energy to comprehend (nothing against that, there are times when I wish I didn't feel the need to understand the justification for things - ask my wife, sometimes she'll lose me for hours as I try to find out WHY it is that something might be true or WHY it is that something works).

The Pew Study is a great place to start - and to expand on some of the questions. Here are some simple arguments (or ideas) that I think we often skip right past and they're ones that might just be ones people haven't thought about. (This list is obviously not exhaustive.)

When discussing evolution with a Catholic who doesn't accept evolution, maybe a simple reminder (it turns out that maybe it isn't a reminder) that the Catholic church accepts evolution. They also accept that the earth is billions of years old. (That leads to Adam & Eve not existing - what does that mean for original sin? The creation of the earth in 7 days? World-wide flood?)

For people who suggest that the universe needed a creator and that creator was "god", ask them what created god? If god, himself, didn't need a creator, then why must the universe have needed one? You are forced with the ultimate regression (what created god? what created that? what created that?) - at some point something would have had to come to being without a creator. To postulate a god is to complicate things unnecessarily.

Questions relating to god's ability to do anything and the idea that prayer works: Why doesn't god heal amputees? If other species are able to do it (as George Hrab said - You can cut off a starfish's limb and not only will it grow back but that fucker will never mouth off to you again.) why couldn't humans?

Many are not aware that the stories about Christ were not written by eyewitnesses - it wasn't even written by people who were alive at the time that the events supposedly happened.

Speaking of the Christian bible, I often am discussing it with people who don't even realize that it wasn't compiled until hundreds of years later. Depending on your faith, the bible contains a varying number of books too - if it is the word of god, do you think he's pissed that people are leaving out some of his books (or including books that aren't his word)?

The bible doesn't state that Adam ate an apple. It doesn't even specify the fruit - many Christians are surprised to learn that (especially after claiming that they've read the bible many times).

There is no supporting evidence outside of the bible of Jesus' existence. There wasn't a census around the time of Jesus' birth and, even if there was, it'd be no reason for Joseph to have headed "home" - Jesus wasn't from Joseph's bloodline (immaculate conception) and, if he was, the logic fails as to why you would be counted where your ancestors (many generations removed) lived.

Jesus wasn't born on December 25 (if he even ever existed, that is) - Christmas was moved to that date to coincide (take over?) the pagan holidays of the time. The bible clearly (ha!) states when Jesus was born and it wasn't December 25!

Simple bits of information can be provided to dismantle other beliefs as well:

Have a belief in homeopathy? Do you know that many homeopathic "medicines" are so dilute that they can't simply contain a single molecule of the supposed active ingredient?

Ionic Foot Cleanse? When you go for your foot cleanse, don't put your feet in and the water will change colour just as it does if you put your feet in.

Ear Candling? Burn the candle without putting it in an ear - the same "debris" and "wax" will result.

I can't explain it, but it worked for me!

2010-10-17T17:57:00.004-04:00

To begin let me assure you that I am not picking on Jeffrey Needham anymore than, say, doctors are picking on a section of skin when they are attempting to remove a patch of skin cancer. There is little in chiropractic that has been proven to offer benefit but, given that there is some areas where it MAY be helpful, I do not think that chiropractic is worthless. Much of what Jeffrey Needham "pushes" is bullshit. Chiropractic does not cure colds, asthma, bed wedding, ear infections, etc. Without reservation I would discourage a child from ever seeing a chiropractor unless under the specific direction and care of an orthopedist (which will seldom, if ever, happen).

A number of people have sent me emails or, in person, asked me questions about Chiropractic and many of the defenders of it say "I can't explain it, but it worked for me!" That is almost a standard line used by any "supporter" of alternative medicine. Most importantly, the question is "by work, what did it do?".

Many diseases are self-limiting - they follow a natural course and, ultimately, go away. The common cold, headaches and ear infections are examples of diseases that typically run their course on their own. It is often said that when you have a cold if you take some cold medicine, it goes away in 7 days whereas if you do not, it goes away in a week.

Muscle soreness, joint pain, back pain, etc., often follow cycles - periods where it isn't as bad compared to periods where it seems worse. Some people with chronic pain report periods of little (or no) irritation and periods of increased pain - with no apparent contributing causes (or changes in activities).

Before suggesting that chiropractic "worked", we must be sure that the explanation doesn't lie elsewhere. For chiropractic, it is often the case that the pain would have naturally diminished (or gone away) and, in some cases, would have done so sooner without chiropractic.

This fallacy that people fall victim to is the correlation not causation fallacy. Simply because some "thing" occurs after another "thing" does not mean that the first thing "caused" the second thing. (I've mentioned in an earlier blog that blaming autism on vaccination is like blaming vaccination for the child turning 1.) The fallacy is often called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (translates to "after this, therefore because of this").

An unexpected pregnancy is no time to take advantage of people

2010-10-12T08:51:00.000-04:00

Let me make this clear: You may agree or disagree with this blog entry solely on your preconceptions of abortion. This blog is not about whether or not abortion should be legal (it is in Canada. In Ontario it is a practice that is covered by OHIP) - it is about lying for Jesus.

I've recently noticed an advertisement for The Pregnancy Centre on a local website in Sarnia. I have discussed this "organization", in person, with a number of people and the discussion almost always seems to be trumped by the word "abortion". I'm not pro-abortion (I don't think anyone is) and I promised my mom that I'd never have one - a promise that I have kept and will keep. (My mom was proud to hear that I'd never consider an abortion but she was probably concerned I didn't realize that, as a boy, I couldn't get pregnant anyway.)

The Pregnancy Centre is a front for a religious attack and not only on the woman's right to choose - but (and most importantly) on a woman's right to make an INFORMED choice. They spend a lot of time advertising many of the services they offer - pregnancy tests, options counseling, support groups and material support. I applaud organizations for their willingness to fill gaps in services and I find it even more noble when they are able to offer the services at no charge to the client.

Though the services (or most of them) are offered "free" at The Pregnancy Centre, not all of them are - some come with pretty serious requirements. However, most of the services they offer are offered for free already. Pregnancy testing is even covered by OHIP! Counseling is also available (and from licensed professionals, none-the-less) as well as support groups. More importantly, the counseling available elsewhere (and government supported) is non-sectarian and is designed to be based on the best available knowledge not an ancient text.

The "Material Support" that is offered from the Centre is not quite free - yes, you can borrow clothing from them but in order to do so, you have to take part in their activities. To get "baby bucks" (as they call them) to "buy" stuff from them you have to take their courses.

The problem that we should all have with The Pregnancy Centre is that it is a front for religious instruction and indoctrination. The agency is not government funded (and it shouldn't be), it is funded by a couple dozen churches, is (or was) operated by the wife of a Baptist minister in Sarnia and the sales pitches that it makes to churches is FAR different from those that it makes to the general public. The Pregnancy Centre lies for Jesus.

The Pregnancy Centre's "options" counseling never includes a referral or true information on getting an abortion - they spend a substantial amount of time speaking with clients about belief and trust in "god" and discourage abortion with "horror stories" (yes, stories - some of which could be completely made up and others might be exaggerations). Vulnerable and confused women (often teenagers and young adults) are subjected to images and stories to discourage them from considering their options.

Whether or not you agree with abortion, lying about it is not a reasonable or humane way to "inform" a person - especially a person facing an enormous life-changing decision.

If you know someone (or are, yourself) in a situation where you need advice and information about the options available to you in situations like these - stay away from The Pregnancy Centre - misinformation, shame and Jesus are a dangerous mix.

(Options counseling, material support and support groups have a strong Christian/Jesus focused theme. Don't believe me? Let them tell you about it...)

Robbie Thomas Revisited

2010-10-08T09:54:00.001-04:00

As you may know, a number of months ago Robbie Thomas claimed that he was in the process of suing me. It comes with great surprise and regret that my opinion on psychic phenomenon took a direct hit when, this morning, I received a notice for a registered letter.

I picked up my registered letter and, guess what, it was my Nexus card. Yes, my Nexus card. No, it wasn't a letter from Robbie's lawyer. It was at that point that I realized that predictions I made had actually come true. My pretty firm belief in the non-existence of true psychic abilities was being put to the test.

A number of months ago, I predicted that, though many know me both as, well, me, and as "Sarnia Skeptic" Robbie Thomas would not be able to identify me (he isn't psychic after all) and, though I offered to identify myself to Robbie's supposed lawyer if there was a lawsuit to be filed against me, that Robbie was lying about a pending lawsuit. Both of my predictions were true. I had to question whether I, too, possessed psychic powers (I don't - nobody does).

I'm revisiting the "Robbie Thomas" crap on Small Town Skepticism (though http://www.stoprobbie.com/ would seem the more appropriate place for it) because 1.) it helps promote http://www.stoprobbie.com/ and 2.) his threats were to me specifically.

To reiterate something that we (myself and other skeptics as well as contributors to http://www.stoprobbie.com/) have said many times before - Robbie Thomas is not psychic and he has not solved a single missing persons or murder case using his claimed (but non-existent) psychic powers. And Robbie claims he has been doing this for over 20 years now. My apologies for the out-dated graphic on my blog - I leave it at 18 so that Robbie doesn't feel like the true failure that he is. I mean, it is bad enough not having a single success in 18 years, let alone 20!

Now to the meat of this entry. Robbie Thomas now claims to be a Psychic Criminal Profiler - which is almost self-contradictory in title alone. (I think http://www.stoprobbie.com/ really does the Psychic Criminal Profiling.)

A criminal profiler, as described on HubPages, is "an individual with appropriate Education, experience and skill to thoroughly examine available physical evidence, crime scene characteristics and associated behavioural evidence to infer offender characteristics and render a criminal profile."

Criminal profiling can be a useful tool that is often employed by police agencies. A profile, however, is not evidence. Many cases that have involved "profiling" have been, in hindsight, pretty accurate in their description of a criminal's patterns, activities, history, etc. They aren't, however, always accurate and in some cases have put focus on areas that distracted the case. Much of profiling is based on disciplines of science but the predictions that are made are often very speculative and can be entirely off-base.

Adding the term "Psychic" to the title of Criminal Profiler makes the information that much more suspect. At least in standard profiling, a person can review the deductions and inferences that were made to obtain the profile and, in the future, fine tune the process to provide more specific and accurate information. When "and magic happens" is added to any equation, the answers or results are often less valid and not worth considering. Since "psychic" phenomenon has never passed even the most basic of scientific investigations, the resulting products from a "Psychic Criminal Profiler" would not stand up to scrutiny.

Simply adding "Criminal Profiler" to "Psychic" almost infers, in itself, that psychic "skills" do not exist. If psychics were truly able to communicate with the dead and/or "remote view", why would they need to build a "profile", could they not simply ask the deceased individual who killed them or could they not see the exact location that a missing person is being kept?

A profile done in advance of catching the criminal - something that is often not admissible as evidence in court - is only 70% right 80% of the time (I couldn't find statistics but I am assured that it is better than 50% but not anywhere near 100% accurate) - combined with "psychic" (which many people will attribute psychic abilities to someone who has one hit in 10 guesses (10% accuracy!)). In other words, possibly useful information made completely useless because it is based 100% on something that does not exist.

To sum up:
Robbie has not been able to identify me using his psychic powers (do you think he could find a murderer or a missing person?)
Robbie lied about suing me.
Robbie has not solved a single missing persons or murder case using psychic powers.
Robbie Thomas is not listed as an expert witness for profiling in any publically available court documents.

As The Skeptic's Dictionary so aptly states:
Psychics don't rely on psychics to warn them of impending disasters. Psychics don't predict their own deaths or diseases. They go to the dentist like the rest of us. They're as surprised and disturbed as the rest of us when they have to call a plumber or an electrician to fix some defect at home. Their planes are delayed without their being able to anticipate the delays. If they want to know something about Abraham Lincoln, they go to the library; they don't try to talk to Abe's spirit. In short, psychics live by the known laws of nature except when they are playing the psychic game with people. Psychics aren't overly worried about other psychics reading their minds and revealing their innermost secrets to the world. No casino has ever banned psychics from the gaming room because there is no need.

Don't be fooled, the Q-Ray isn't useless!

2010-10-06T11:51:00.001-04:00

I was recently watching a late-night television show and during the commercial break, there were advertisements for “Q-Ray” bracelets. Forgive me for being blunt but stupidity has no limits.

The Q-Ray bracelet is nothing new – they company advertises that they’ve been selling them for 15 years. The problem is that the bracelets have only ever been credited with curing one ailment (more on that later). The bracelets have no plausible method of action and have been discredited time and time again by even the simplest of studies. During the commercials for the product I had to just shake my head in amazement.

Just this morning, however, I received a SPAM from a company advertising “hologram power bracelets” at huge discounts (“Normally sold in stores for $60” but available from them “for only 19.95$”). I didn’t follow the link (I didn’t want them to know I actually read their email) but I did a quick search and found countless varieties of this useless crap.

During my search, I came across an Australian newspaper article that mentions these “Power Balance” “powerbands” and their $60 pricetag. One can not help but be heartily amused by the ironic final sentence. A link on that page (“Science takes up challenge of wrist band”) is mildly ironic in itself – the idea that a chiropractor was going to actually perform clinical studies (my apologies to the strict minority of chiropractors who strive to be science based).

It turns out that “Power Balance” and the “Q-Ray” do both have the same effect – no matter what model you buy, they are both able to cure you of the not-so-common ailment of “thick wallet syndrome”. If you have too much money in your wallet, they both offer a quick and easy way to thin it out (depending on the model you buy, it can help to a greater or lesser degree – from a quick search, it appears that the double mesh necklace is the most effective).

For more information, check out CBC Marketplace “Buying Belief”
Also see Quackwatch

Protect Dissent Winner

2010-10-01T10:28:00.001-04:00

More at CFI's Campaign for Free Expression

Other videos...

It's no surprise that I (people like me) know more about your religion than you do

2010-09-28T11:54:00.001-04:00

A recent Pew study has been released that shows atheists/agnostics are more knowledgeable about religion than those who hold religious beliefs. That's not a surprise. The next news story is going to be "Water is wet", I bet!

I spent many years of my life as a Catholic of sorts. I went to a Catholic school, I attended a Catholic church, was baptized, received first communion, was confirmed, was an altar boy and basically did as most Catholics do - went through the motions and never really paid attention.

As we encounter social injustices, some of us look at them and consider how we can help make them right - correct them or even avert them in the future. When the social injustices are being caused by the very beliefs you have, you can look for reasons that you hold such beliefs - to justify why you do something or why you allow something. If you can't find support for those beliefs, you try to change them or drop them. My move from a "whatever" Catholic to an outspoken atheist came about as a result of that sort of process.

Since many atheists/agnostics were once religious - they've had to examine the doctrines of their faith and the claims made by their priests/pastors, etc. Many of us have read the literature, have tried to side with apologetics and have tried to justify our faith without resorting to "simply because that's what my faith demands".

For me, being surrounded by people who held beliefs in god and were very religious, it meant that I had to be fairly certain of my position and willing to defend it logically before I could finally toss out the bath water. I had to ask the questions of others that would be asked of me. The more that I looked for justification of my faith or redeeming qualities in the doctrines, the less I could bring myself to believe.

I've read the bible, I've participated in bible study (more in-depth as a non-believer) and I've had lengthy discussions with people who hold firm beliefs in a god and the bible. I know much about the history of the Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, Mother Teresa, the Pope, the Catholic Doctrine and countless other elements of Christian faith.

I, like most atheists, am an atheist because I have educated myself about the faith I was supposed to hold. We are not atheists because we didn't "know" our religion - we are atheists because we know and that knowledge is what made us non-believers.

It appears from the Pew study that people may simply hold their faith because they either don't know much about it (as the study shows) or that they have simply made up their own set of beliefs and have called them "Christian", "Jewish" or "Muslim". It makes me wonder if we'd have fewer religious people if they tried, first, to learn more about their religion.

The LA Times has an article on the study as well.

Update: Other blogs about this subject:
Friendly Atheist - How Ignorant About Religion Are Religious Americans?
PZ Myers - Want to know about religion? Go to your local atheist, not your priest.

Larry Moran on Naturopathy

2010-09-25T15:14:00.001-04:00

Larry Moran has his own blog, Sandwalk, and it is one that I often forget to glance at. Larry Moran is kind of like our very own (Canada's, I mean) PZ Myers. As a side note, PZ and Larry are friends - I actually got to spend some time with Larry and PZ during one of PZ's talks in Toronto that Larry helped organize. (I also shared a table with Larry at a CFI Conference in Washington, D.C. - so I am sure that his blog is not just a "persona" - it is the very real Larry Moran).

I was altered to Larry's blog when I checked my Twitter account (yeah, I'm on twitter - I thought it was for twits, so I signed up. It turns out that it is for tweets but how was I to know?). I don't often check Twitter so if you include me in one of your tweets, I apologize now for not quickly responding.

Naturopathy has received some press recently in Ontario (We went crazy stupid and allowed Naturopaths to do something they should never be allowed to do.) and it seemed fitting with my references in the past couple of days (ear candling, acupuncture) that Larry Moran would give his nice and gentle explanation of what Naturopathy is. I just wish Larry wouldn't hold back - he needs to call it as he sees it :)

Having read that, you might be interested in an article on CFI's site. Naturopathy, it seems, is like Chiropractic and god - as a commenter on this site pointed out - neither are sensible propositions and any clear definition is easily dismissed with simple argument.

More Mark Crislip

2010-09-24T14:13:00.000-04:00

If you have not YET started following http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/, you must take the leap today.

The title of the blog will be familiar to people who happen to follow any of Mark Crislip's sites/offerings. He is a podcaster (QuackCast, Gobbet o' Pus) and a blogger (at ScienceBasedMedicine.org, MedScape, etc.) among other things. He often states that the world needs more Mark Crislip (I tend to agree) and "More Mark Crislip" is the name of his main website (http://moremark.squarespace.com/).

He has a recent entry on SBM (ScienceBasedMedicine) that he calls "Short Attention Span SBM" that includes an update and some information on vitamin D, influenza and (as copied below) acupuncture:

Acupuncture

“Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to. –Mark Twain

Acupuncture is all placebo effect, what ever that is. This was re-confirmed in “A randomized controlled trial of acupuncture for osteoarthritis of the knee: Effects of patient-provider communication“.

In this trial, patients had real acupuncture or sham acupuncture (as if there is a difference) and they had neutral or enthusiastic acupuncturists.

Those that had an enthusiastic acupuncturist had a better decrease in reported pain, whether the acupuncture was real or sham.
TCA was not superior to sham acupuncture. However, acupuncturists’ styles had significant effects on pain reduction and satisfaction, suggesting that the analgesic benefits of acupuncture can be partially mediated through placebo effects related to the acupuncturist’s behavior.
This result is of no surprise. Expectations will often color peoples perceptions. More expensive wine is rated higher than the same vintage labeled as cheaper. An expensive placebo is more effective than an cheap placebo.

But does perception of reality mean reality was altered?

I play golf with my kids almost every night in the summer and towards the end of the season I get right elbow tendinitis. As I make my downswing the pain fibers fire and can mess up my swing if I am not focused on hitting through the pain. If I take 400 milligrams of ibuprofen before I play, I have less pain and my swing is unchanged. Not enough to beat my son, but that is another matter.

Decreasing pain leads to improved function when pain limits function. If you have a musculoskeletal problem, you usually have a reproducible limit to your function due to the pain. If the pain is decreased, the function should improve.

As I have discussed at length, I do not think there is really a placebo effect. Certainly for objective endpoints, there is no placebo effect. Buried in the acupuncture paper were two objective end points: range of motion and the Timed Up and Go Test. For objective endpoints there were no changes in any of the groups. So it makes me wonder just what improvement these patients ‘really’ had. Subjectively better, objectively no change.

Is the placebo effect no more than a patient convincing themselves they are better when in fact nothing has changed? That is my interpretation. If function is not improved, if they are still limited by pain, is the pain really gone? Is this response a milder example of the same cognitive processes that can lead to hysterical blindness or not seeing tumors the size of a large mushroom? Man is the only animal with the ability to convince themselves that the tangible is unreal or that the unreal is tangible.

Ear Candling: Is it illegal?

2010-09-22T17:24:00.000-04:00

I was alerted to a local site that advertises a whole bunch of woo-woo but I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw "Ear Candling" listed as a service they offered.

I thought "isn't ear candling illegal?" It was something I was almost certain I had researched before.

Sure enough, it is illegal.

A quick search showed local businesses advertising the service:

Treat Yourself Wellness Centre
Sarnia Holistic Healing Centre
Acupuncture and Natural Healing Centre

Health Canada (for those that didn't click on the link) clearly states:
The practice of ear candling has recently become popular as an alternative therapy. Some promoters say it is an ancient treatment that can cure a number of medical problems. Don't listen: ear candling is dangerous, and has no proven medical benefits.

A little further down the page:
Health Canada's Medical Devices Regulations state that certain types of medical devices, including ear candles, require a licence from Health Canada before anyone can sell them for therapeutic purposes.

Health Canada has not issued any licences for ear candles. Therefore, the sale of this product for therapeutic purposes in Canada is illegal. As well, both Canada and the United States have issued directives that ban the importing of ear candles.

For more information on ear candling, see CBC Marketplace's report or check out Quackwatch.

Whatever Hitler was, he wasn't an atheist

2010-09-17T12:11:00.001-04:00

So often people bring up the claim that Hitler was an atheist and he followed Darwin and, as a result... whatever. It's plain bullshit. Utter nonsense.

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]

PZ Myers has a recent post with quotes from Hitler and some "discussion". It's well worth reading... over at Pharyngula.

Update:
Wait a minute.. Jerry Coyne, at Why Evolution is True, has uncovered complete stupidity over at the Catholic League.

May "god" bless you

2010-09-15T11:20:00.000-04:00

First of all, if you listen to podcasts, add Geologic Podcast to your list of favourites. George Hrab is a witty and intelligent musician and podcaster and his insights are quite amusing. He mixes nifty production with a wacky and fun series of little segments ranging from "Not the Bible", "Ask George" to "Religious Moron of the Week".

During one of his recent podcasts he tells of a story about when he was younger and he was going to see (forgive me for butchering his story - I'm just recalling it because of a recent email I received) a baseball game on a particular day if it didn't rain. He remembers incessantly praying that it wouldn't rain so he could go see the game. It dawned on him, at some point, that, what if, somewhere else there was another young boy who was going to be forced to attend a family reunion was, like George, praying the opposite - that it would rain so he wouldn't have to attend the family reunion. At that point, George, points out, that he couldn't reconcile faith in the Judeo-Christian god.

The recent email that prompted my recalling of this story included a link to a local classified site that had the following ad:

Wanted: Need

Please Help. I am a single dad and don't have much money and need a Van and I need it for work so I humbly ask if anyone knows who has a Van sitting around still works and doesn't need it and just wants to get rid of it. With getting a safety and insured is going to hard enough for right now. I can do all minor things to fix it but all in all its got to work and road worthy medium or small car would be preferred good on gas.

Thank you so very much.

May God Bless you in the same way you have Blessed me.

The emailer suggested that maybe I'd take interest in this ad because of the final line - and I took it the same way they did. One could question why it is that "god" isn't blessing this single dad directly - if there is any value in "may god bless you" then it would make sense that the "god" could bless the dad. I'd argue that there is no such thing as a "blessing" from "god" as there is little (no?) reason to believe in the positive assertion that there actually is a "god" that exists.

It reminds me of times when I walk past people who are begging on the street who will say "god bless you" to passers-by. I can't help but think that if these people surely believe that "god" has "blessed" them, that I don't want to be "blessed" by that "god". (Clearly I'm not referring to your god.)

What would atheists do?

2010-09-15T09:15:00.001-04:00

Well, Anson Cameron covers it in "Book-Burning Shelved, It's Time to Commit Atheists To Flames"

The Texan pastor's moved on from the Koran to a pyre of The God Delusion.

IN SCENES of calm bemusement not seen in the lower United States since John Scopes taught innocent schoolchildren evolution, it was reported yesterday that Pastor Terry Jones had given up on his plans to burn 200 Korans and was instead planning to incite atheists by soaking a gross of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion in moonshine and putting a match to them.

Continue reading...

Jeffrey Needham - Chiropractor - Featured in a Book!

2010-09-14T10:49:00.000-04:00

One of Sarnia's very own, chiropractor Jeffrey Needham, is featured in a book!

Spin Doctors: The Chiropractic Industry Under Examination

Unfortunately for Jeffrey Needham, the information doesn't put him in a favourable light. Much of what Jeffrey Needham had on his website (http://www.needhamfamilychiro.com/) was blatantly false. To this day, there is still substantial amounts of "suspect" information.

Following the "Chiropractic Information" link, in the very first paragraph on Jeffrey's website you will come across:

People who suffered from migraine headaches profess "Chiropractic is for headaches". People with low back pain may tell you "chiropractic is for low back pain" The same applies for those who suffer from digestive problems, asthma, back and neck pain, sciatica, colds and colic.

Jeffrey is attempting to avoid further complaints about his false advertising. Jeffrey (and all chiropractors) can't claim that chiropractic is for colds, colic, asthma, digestive problems, migraines or the like - because it isn't. If the science supported such claims, Jeffrey wouldn't be making such veiled suggestions - he would be referring to the evidence to support the claim.

There are studies that show there is no evidence to support the use of chiropractic in the treatment of asthma, colic1, allergies, digestive problems and a myriad of other 'illnesses'.

Following the first paragraph, Jeffrey Needham quickly jumps to subluxations - something that a group of chiropractors could not consistently identify (because they don't exist?) but which has also been denounced by chiropractic organizations.

What is more troubling, however, is Jeffrey Needham's goal in treating children. The science doesn't support the activity and the potential harm is real.

Congratulations Jeffrey! We look forward to future books/articles about you. You make Sarnia proud.

1 You will have to register with the BMJ to get the full article. The clinical bottom line is stated as: The evidence suggests that chiropractic has no benefit over placebo in the treatment of infantile colic. However, there is good evidence that taking a colicky infant to a chiropractor will result in fewer reported hours of colic by the parents.

Learn to be Psychic in 10 easy lessons: Skeptic.com

2010-09-09T16:29:00.000-04:00

If you haven't been by Skeptic.com or are not a regular subscriber to their magazine, you may have missed this little gem.

From http://www.skeptic.com/ - (http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/10_Easy_Psychic_Lessons.pdf)

(Psychic powers almost certainly do not exist. Robbie Thomas is not psychic and we hope that you will support our effort to Stop Robbie Thomas.)

Francis Collins does not support your beliefs

2010-09-03T17:13:00.001-04:00

Yes, I've read Francis' book and yes, I've read George Cunningham's book (Decoding the Language of God) and no, Francis Collins does not agree with you. (You should read both books! George's book is well written and does a wonderful job of deconstructing Collins' arguments.)

This is not a review of Francis Collins' book, The Language of God. In short and simple terms, the book does not make a lucid argument for the belief in god. The god it describes is definitely not the Christian god of any Christian I know.

Almost every time that I discuss god belief with someone who _thinks_ they're prepared for the discussion, they refer to C.S. Lewis and Francis Collins (ie. "Francis Collins is a great scientist, he decoded the human genome and he believes in god... " - never mind the FACT that he didn't decode the human genome - he does have scientific credentials).

To be sure I don't miss the point:
If you believe any of the following...

that the earth is less than 10,000 (100,000 or 1,000,000 or 4,000,000,000) years old
humans were created in their present form
the theory of evolution by natural selection is false
that man and dinosaurs walked on earth at the same time
that you're not related to my petunia
the story of Noah is historical fact

... then do not suggest that I could be wrong because Francis Collins wrote a (hardly lucid) polemic about his reasons for belief in a creator god.

The usage of Francis' book in arguments is reminding me of people referring to another book to support their beliefs - the name of the book eludes me. It is blatantly clear to me that MOST people who refer to such books as being the definitive answer to all arguments against theism have never read the actual books.

Oh, right, the other book is the Bible. Read it before you argue on behalf of it. It doesn't say what many think it does. Now get back to shunning people who eat shrimp.

It doesn't work but I can tell you how it does!

2010-08-31T14:52:00.000-04:00

I have to confess that I don't know much about how homeopathy, acupuncture or "healing touch" works - I AM ignorant to "the facts" as commenters and emails suggest.

Let me be clear about my derision towards such "alternative" medicine modalities and why I think we should forcefully and continuously remind others that much of it is completely bogus.

You need not know how something works for it to work. For example, aspirin works regardless of whether or not you understand the mechanism.

Just as importantly (if not more importantly when it comes to absurd beliefs), it doesn't matter how something is supposed to work if it doesn't work. So, until there is scientifically valid evidence that something works, making crap up about how it is supposed to work isn't going to win me over.

To re-cap previous posts and to summarize many future ones:

Chiropractic does not treat ear infections, asthma or bed wetting. It is almost generally useless.
Homeopathy doesn't cure anything.
Acupuncture is no better than sham acupuncture (all of it is "sham", I guess)
Healing Touch doesn't cure anything nor does it involve touch (oddly!)
Reiki is bullshit
Reflexology does nothing more than a foot massage does
Astrology is made up crap
Psychic abilities have never been shown to exist
It's not a "secret", it's a "lie"

In other words, if it doesn't work, your silly reasons for believing how it works are that much less intelligent.

Michael Shoesmith is at it again (and by “it”, I don’t mean “thinking”)

2010-08-23T14:01:00.000-04:00

On August 17 in the Sarnia Observer, there was a letter to the editor from Michael Shoesmith entitled “Liberalism Creates Sense of Entitlement” as follows:

Sir:Regarding the Aug. 13 article concerning fines handed out to people for going through construction zones, it is evident to me that something needs to be done about this heinous tragedy. I am, of course, referring to the growing sense of personal entitlement people have in today's liberal climate.

My impression of the matter, as outlined in your article, is that the person proceeded into the construction zone, saw the officer and pretended to only be looking for directions from the officer. The reason I make this assessment is because if a person comes across an area which is off-limits, would that person not stop before entering the forbidden area and then proceed on foot to the law enforcement officer to ask for assistance or wave the officer over? That is the logical series of events that would transpire if the person was actually honest about it.

No, there is something more sinister going on in the minds of the masses these days. People are less and less aware of anything outside of a very small personal bubble. It's the mental disorder of liberalism.

Here's how the dictionary defines it: "a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties."

Allow me to focus your attention to the word "unrestricted." How dare that construction company restrict the movement of people? How dare that officer restrict my free ability to go to the salon?

Liberalism, in essence, is the belief that one set of rules applies to me and a completely different set of rules applies to everyone else. That, by any definition, is a mental disorder.

Liberals "feel" harassed when their philosophy is confronted with the aggressive use of force as is the way all productive, law-abiding societies thrive. We live in a world that is governed by the aggressive use of force and as Margaret Thatcher once said, "The facts of life are conservative."

The people who think they are entitled to go through a construction barrier are the same people who would be most likely to sue the construction company if they fell into a hole and damaged their vehicle.

The road closure at the intersection of Finch and Wellington has been an enormous burden to me and my family. I never cross it even though it would save me a several mile detour.

The old adage "rules were meant to be broken" does not and should not apply to grown-ups. Time to grow up, people -- Michael D. Shoesmith Sarnia

A few friends had forwarded this link to me but I didn’t feel any need to respond to his load of incredible stupid. However, someone else has written in to the paper with a response:

“Ignorance Displayed by Drivers ‘Symptoms of Human Nature’:

Sir: I am writing in regard to your Letter to the Editor of Aug. 17. Mr. Shoesmith feels that the creeping menace of Liberalism is to blame for the "heinous tragedy" of citizen illegally driving through the innumerable construction zones in this city.

He then proceeds to praise "aggressive use of force" and even resorts to a quote from conservative darling Maggy Thatcher. Only in a periodical published by Sun Media would such an ill-conceived rant see the light of day. We can blame Liberalism for universal health care, old-age pension, progressive taxation, and other institutions established to promote "unrestricted" human development. We can even blame Liberalism for the appearance of Mr. Shoesmith's laughable screed in print. The ignorance and selfishness displayed by a few wayward motorists are not tenets of liberal thought, they are symptoms of human nature.

Perhaps equating left-wing ideals with lawlessness and praising "aggressive use of force" (such as flying bombs into NYC?) are the true symptoms of "mental disorder."

-- Damien Neal Sarnia

Well said Damien, well said. Really, though, do you think that someone as dense as Michael Shoesmith can truly grasp the concept?

Prayfest! I can't wait!

2010-08-23T12:20:00.000-04:00

This past weekend was the annual Gospel By The Bay – a weekend long event that draws in thousands (maybe 2 thousand?) of incredulous people to enjoy music about (and performed by people who believe in) a mystical sky creature who supposedly (depending on who you talk to) created this earth 6,000, 10,000 or billions of years ago with humans (depending on who you talk to) having been created either in their current form or by means of evolution/natural selection.

Two local men are looking to expand Gospel By The Bay to something like Bayfest (http://www.sarniabayfest.com/) – with the goal of filling Centennial Park with attendees. I think this could be great news for Sarnia. To be sure, I do think that belief in a sky-deity is silly but let me say this: Unlike the “Christians” who complain about the “godless” Bayfest, I’m not going to suggest that we should protest against or ask the city to regulate who comes to Prayfest. The tourism benefit for our city (if they could draw in such large crowds) would be wonderful.

You can read more about their goals/wishes/wants on-line at:
http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2724222

Unfortunately for our economy, it isn’t likely that this expansion will take place but that is a good thing for those who don’t think that the past expansion of Christianity was “net positive”.

Robbie Thomas Update (He's still not psychic)

2010-08-19T16:07:00.000-04:00

I received an email from a Robbie Thomas supporter earlier today telling me that the information on this site is inaccurate.

She said, and I quote,:

The info you post on your Small TOwn site is no right
Robbie has working with police but their not allowed to talk about cases
robbie has been doing this for more then 20 yrs get your facts straight

As I have seen Robbie reference the 20 years as well, I will see about getting the counter updated on my site. 0 solved cases in 20 years, however, doesn't make Robbie look better than 0 solved cases in 18 years.

To reiterate, Robbie Thomas (self-proclaimed psychic in Sarnia) has solved 0 murder or missing persons cases using claimed psychic powers. For him to claim otherwise, one would have to assume he is either mentally ill or lying.

For more information on Robbie Thomas, visit http://www.stoprobbie.com/ or http://www.stoprobbiethomas.com/.

Robbie's New Event
If you haven't heard, Robbie is doing another event (he changes the name of the event every year), "canamaparafest" - and this time we're not going to miss it :)

In case you haven't checked out Robbie's new website (new again!), he has the new 'fest' advertised: (The stupid, it burns.)

In case you can't read the ad, here it is:

Yes, it does say "worlds most leading experts" and it does say "feild"!

Robbie's Book & Book Reviews
I've mentioned Robbie's book reviews on this site before but I thought I should update you. I've received emails from 2 people who posted a review of his book (one of the people ACTUALLY has it and is going to send it to me - the other person has read it but I promised I wouldn't explain anything more than that). Their reviews were removed from the Borders site because someone complained.

There are 6 reviews that remain on the Borders website - all positive, all 5 stars and all written with the same level of (il)literacy of Robbie Thomas (I'm not saying he wrote them all - just that the people who supposedly like his books have a limited grasp of the English language). Each of the 6 reviews are the ONLY reviews each reviewer has written and they are written on the same day they created an account on Borders.com.

You, too, can go to http://www.borders.com/ (Go straight to Robbie's crappy attempt at being an author), create an account today, log in, claim to be anyone you want from anywhere you want and post a review. Yes, it is that simple - you don't have to buy the book you're reviewing, even. I'm not suggesting that you stoop to the level that Robbie Thomas (who is not psychic) would go (ie. create a fake review) but if you want to log on to Borders to post a review that suggests that all the reviews are fake or if you want to report the current reviews as apparent fakes - that's up to you :)

Christopher Hitchens on wishing that 'God' existed

2010-08-11T13:39:00.000-04:00

I recently came across this quote from Christopher Hitchens - I thought you might be interested in it:

There are, after all, atheists who say that they wish the fable were true but are unable to suspend the requisite disbelief, or have relinquished belief only with regret. To this I reply: who wishes that there was a permanent, unalterable celestial depotism that subjected us to continual surveillance and could convict us of thought-crime, and who regarded us as its private property even after we died? How happy we ought to be, at the reflection that there exists not a shred of respectable evidence to support such a horrible hypothesis. And how grateful we should be to those of our predecessors who repudiated this utter negation of human freedom.

I don't fall in the group that wishes the stories were true - what about you?

Robbie Thomas is an author (and not psychic)

2010-08-03T10:49:00.000-04:00

Yes, Robbie Thomas claims to be an author - though many would argue that he redefines the word "author" when he suggests that he is one.

I've received a number of emails from people who suggest that I read Robbie Thomas' books - that they are horribly written, hardly edited and not printed on paper good enough to wipe your butt with (read: not worth anything). A follower to this blog recently sent me a link to a recent review on Chapters that suggests Robbie might not be honest either (Shocking!).

A poor example
I was intrigued by the title, but after reading into the book two chapters I knew that this book would be a disapointment. It is poorly written, gives no new information, and is possibly the worst book on the paranormal I have ever read. Feeling ripped off, I wanted to return the book, but found that I should contact the author and express my thoughts. In google I found Robbie Thomas, the author accused of many unlawful and unethical things. One web site in particular had information on him. stoprobbie.com is all you need to know.

The stories about this movie being made were totally made up according to the people involved. The movie was said to be shot in 2008 and 2009, yet has never been released. There are Youtube videos of the movie and that says it all. It is horrible and the book is the same way.

This book is horrible. I could not recommend it and I wouldn't suggest sending your hard earned money to a con man.

Of note, however, is that there are three other reviews on the site - all 4 reviewers have only reviewed Robbie Thomas' books and, it appears, became members of the site simply to review those books. One of the (positive) reviewers has a horrible writing style - just like Robbie Thomas!

It's nice to see the reference to stoprobbie.com (which is only referenced and not linked in the review).

"Bayfest - Who does it really help? K.M. Hayes"

2010-07-29T09:25:00.003-04:00

Recently (July 19) there was a letter to the editor from "K.M. Hayes" that asked "Who really benefits from Bayfest?". Here is the letter - I think you'll be able to pick out the absurdities without my help:

Sir:Where do all the flies go in the wintertime? That begs the question, where do the tens of thousands of people that come to Sarnia disappear to in the daytime? The stores and malls aren't crowded, parking lots are not full, there are no lineups at restaurants and fast food places, downtown is as empty as usual and we don't have to fight our way through hordes of people on the street.

I suspect many of them are sleeping off the effects of the booze and drugs the night before.

A survey last year said that non-locals spent very little in the community. After paying the exorbitant ticket prices, they probably do not have much left to spend.

Where is the estimated $4 million to $5 million supposed to come from and who really gets the benefit from it? Does any of this money end up in the coffers of city hall? Provide more health care? Cut the hospital debt? Fill the shelves at the food banks? Shelter the homeless? Families on welfare? The working poor on minimum wage (if they have a job)? Seniors on limited incomes? Bring in more doctors? The list of needs is endless.

An article in the Observer on April 30 stated that 96% of local residents thought that the event enhanced their quality of life and three-quarters thought it deserves government support. No way! What a load of bull. This is irresponsible and misleading reporting. Was a survey taken of everyone in Sarnia? I must have missed that one. I doubt if any of the people mentioned previously were asked either.

I think a few questions need to be asked. Who really does benefit? It may help hotels, some stores and food places, but not organizations and people who really need it.

-- K.M. Hayes Sarnia

Now, to address K.M's points and show how silly he/she is, we'll step through it.

Where do all the flies go in the wintertime? That begs the question, where do the tens of thousands of people that come to Sarnia disappear to in the daytime? The stores and malls aren't crowded, parking lots are not full, there are no lineups at restaurants and fast food places, downtown is as empty as usual and we don't have to fight our way through hordes of people on the street.

With an n=1, let me tell you about my experience in a local mall (Lambton Mall) shortly after Bayfest. The lady at the store I visited told me that the mall organizes a sidewalk sale during the Bayfest period to capitalize on the influx of traffic. I suspect that K.M. would suggest the "influx" is simply locals deciding that those two weekends are the best time to hit the local mall.

Let us forget for a second that Bayfest brings in substantially more people than our hotels can handle (heck, one of the scummiest/sleaziest/dirtiest - if not THE scummiest/sleaziest/dirtiest motels in town was charging $325/night for a room - their sign says $40/night!) and that many people stay in neighbouring cities (Port Huron, London, etc.).

People are eating at our restaurants, visiting our auto-mechanics, shopping at our stores and the benefit is for everyone in this community. (One could equally ask "who benefits from having Imperial Oil in Sarnia?" Equally as silly, mind you.)

I suspect many of them are sleeping off the effects of the booze and drugs the night before.

Wow, jump to the stereotypes. Anyone who likes live music must be a drunk or a user - that's a safe assumption to make - especially considering HALF of the Bayfest concert area is not licenced and beer sales would suggest that the average number of consumed beverages is far below what is necessary for intoxication. You're either lying or you're making stuff up - either way, you're wrong.

A survey last year said that non-locals spent very little in the community. After paying the exorbitant ticket prices, they probably do not have much left to spend.

I don't care for crowds and I'm not a music expert - my wife, however, is a fan of a couple of bands that have been to Bayfest. For both of those bands, we did watch the shows in Sarnia - and we had seen them just before (or just after) at other venues. The ticket prices in Sarnia are far (FAR) below what they are in most other venues. Failure to compare ticket prices does not make your wishful (but false) thinking any more accurate. If anything is exorbitant it is what other businesses charge to capitalize on Bayfest (room rates for a motel over $100, let alone over $300!).

I'm not sure that the survey said they spent very little in the community either - but I suspect making stuff up was not limited to earlier paragraphs of this letter.

Where is the estimated $4 million to $5 million supposed to come from and who really gets the benefit from it? Does any of this money end up in the coffers of city hall? Provide more health care? Cut the hospital debt? Fill the shelves at the food banks? Shelter the homeless? Families on welfare? The working poor on minimum wage (if they have a job)? Seniors on limited incomes? Bring in more doctors? The list of needs is endless.

The answers are, in order: everyone in our community, yep, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. The police get a crapload of money from Bayfest (the City benefits), taxes are collected that pay for health care and pay hospital debt. Local businesses benefit from the influx of visitors so they can afford to donate more to food banks, homeless shelters, families on welfare and the working poor. The increased tax intake reduces the need for taxes that would affect seniors on limited incomes as well. Oh, and doctors, yes, yes, yes. Having Sarnia known for something, having a reason for the young and educated return to Sarnia and removing negative stigmas from the area means better opportunities to attract doctors. Thanks, K.M., for pointing all of that out.

An article in the Observer on April 30 stated that 96% of local residents thought that the event enhanced their quality of life and three-quarters thought it deserves government support. No way! What a load of bull. This is irresponsible and misleading reporting. Was a survey taken of everyone in Sarnia? I must have missed that one. I doubt if any of the people mentioned previously were asked either.

Reporting does not become inaccurate simply because you disagree with it. Nor do the facts change. Look up the definition of survey and understand the application/use. I bet you've answered questions on a survey that I have not had the opportunity to also answer. That's reality. Data is extrapolated from a sample. Surveys can be flawed but not many are as flawed as your thinking. Get over it, it's good for the City (area) whether or not you like it - and, yes, it deserves government support. (Keep in mind that the government is spending millions and millions of dollars supporting other similar festivals not in our area - why shouldn't Sarnia be so lucky? Other festivals with similar entertainers and real dollars of government support: Ottawa Blues and Jazz festival - Millions. Montreal - Millions.)

Countless organizations (charities, non-profits and community groups) benefit substantially from the work that is performed at Bayfest. The organizers, staff and countless volunteers work tirelessly to put on a world-class show in our backyard and the best you can do is complain? For how much it has benefited you without you even recognizing it, leave town during Bayfest - it'd be for the benefit of everyone. I can assure you that your complaining has done nothing to fill the shelves at the Inn, or provide shelter for the homeless or attract a single doctor. Your high horse, it turns out, is a miniature one.

I think a few questions need to be asked. Who really does benefit? It may help hotels, some stores and food places, but not organizations and people who really need it.

I have to assume that the letter was written to the paper as a "tongue-in-cheek" type letter - surely K.M. Hayes knows that the festivals in Sarnia are possibly the greatest thing to happen to Sarnia in a long time. If it doesn't suit ones fancy, nobody is forcing anyone to go to it. I'm not a festival attending type of person but I can't help but want to support Bayfest for how much it has helped our community.