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.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Don't be fooled, the Q-Ray isn't useless!
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
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
Friday, October 1, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
It's no surprise that I (people like me) know more about your religion than you do
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.
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.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Larry Moran on Naturopathy
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.
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.
Friday, September 24, 2010
More Mark Crislip
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Ear Candling: Is it illegal?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)