In the past, I have criticized Oprah Winfrey for her promotion of Doctor Mehmet Oz due to his support for pseudoscience and quackery. Keep in mind, I don’t like to criticize Oprah. She comes across as a very generous person who cares about people very much. She built a school in South Africa, gives people free cars and home makeovers, and sometimes does a lot of good by shining the spotlight on things that need attention. The problem I have with her is her promotion of pseudoscience. In addition to Doctor Oz, she has promoted psychic detectives, past life regression, many kinds of alternative medicine, “The Secret,” and many others forms of woo-woo. I’m sure in her mind she genuinely believes in these things and thinks they are wonderful. I just wish she would stop to consider the enormous harm that these beliefs can cause. But now, she has done something that has crossed the line. I am speaking of Oprah’s decision to give anti-vaccination advocate Jenny McCarthy her own show.
This is a public health hazard, it is irresponsible and dangerous. Thanks to vaccinations, children are now safe from many horrible deadly diseases that were common just a couple of generations ago. If enough people listen to Jenny McCarthy, children will die. It has already happened in the United Kingdom where a discredited study wrongly linked MMR vaccine with Autism. Consequently, there have been outbreaks of the measles in that country. Ms. McCarthy is now claiming that she is not anti-vaccine, but I don’t believe her. If she was not against vaccines, she would not be out there spreading misinformation about them. She is now claiming that the vaccines are full of toxins, but her assertion is based on a lack of understanding that a high school chemistry class would easily cure. Contrary to what she says, vaccines do not contain ether, anti-freeze, or aborted human fetal tissue. Even though her claims have been debunked over and over, she still keeps repeating them. And she has stated herself in a recent interview with Time Magazine that “I do believe sadly it’s going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their f***ing fault that the diseases are coming back. They’re making a product that’s s***. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism.” There it is, she actually acknowledges that these diseases are going to come back. I wonder if she and Oprah Winfrey have really thought about what that means: the death of children.
Maybe to them those deaths are just statistics. I wonder if putting a human face on this travesty might help. You see, anti-vaccine propaganda in Australia has recently claimed the life of a four week old baby. Little Dana McCaffery was going to be vaccinated, but she was still too young. Her parents were unaware that the community they were living in had lost herd-immunity due to low vaccination rates for whooping cough. I want Jenny and Oprah to go to her website, read what happened, look at her picture and realize that she is not just a statistic. She was a person who spent her very short life suffering and gasping for air until she died. I myself saw this video on Phil Plait’s blog, and it has haunted me ever since. The anti-vaccination cranks in Australia actually sent them hate mail. What kind of a sick people send hate mail to a couple whose baby just died? Words fail me, they really do. Pseudoscience kills. For the sake of public health I really hope Oprah reconsiders her decision.
I love this great video explaining what it really means to be open minded and why skeptics who think scientificaly are more open minded that people who believe in the supernatural.
As you have probably heard, the FDA has warned people not to use Hydroxycut products after several users of the product developed serious liver problems. Surprise, surprise, an an unregulated, untested, unapproved supplement is causing people harm. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), any company or quack can come up with any bullshit product and sell it to the public without having to prove its safety or efficacy to anyone. As long as the claim it’s a supplement and it “is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease” they can sell you snake oil, which is what most of these products are. They might as well sell them out of a wagon like they did in the old west. Most people think products like this are perfectly safe because the are “just supplements, not drugs” or because they are “herbal” or “all natural.” Wrong! Herbal supplements, all natural or not, are DRUGS. I always hear people criticizing the pharmaceutical companies for various reasons, but at least the pharmaceutical industry is practicing science. They have the burden of having to prove that the drugs they develop are safe and effective before the FDA will let them sell them. This process is not always perfect, but it’s better than nothing. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if a company or person wants to make a medical claim about an herb or natural remedy they should have to prove that their product can do what they say it can do. And by proving it I do not mean a couple of clowns from their company giving the item to five people and asking them how they feel. I mean a real, double blind, placebo controlled clinical trial that is repeated by others and then submitted to the FDA. Billions of dollars a year are being wasted on useless products that at best just cost you some money, and at worst might take something much more valuable like oh, I don’t know…your liver! I again call on congress to take action and put the burden of scientific proof on everyone by repealing Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Let’s make the snake oil salesmen pack up their wagons and leave town.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
-Voltaire
The quote above is in my opinion one of the wisest things ever said. When people find out that I do not believe in the paranormal and am a vocal critic of such beliefs, I am often asked “Well, even if it (insert supernatural belief here) isn’t real, what is the harm in believing?” The answers to that question are varied depending on the specific nonsense under discussion, but today I came across one of the worst examples of how paranormal belief can cause suffering on a massive scale. It is particularly disturbing because it is happening against a group that is least able to defend themselves against it–children.
Imagine this scenario: A local religious leader tells you that your child is a witch who is possessed by Satan. They come into your house and for a steep fee that is usually more than you make in a year, begin a “deliverance ceremony.” The terrified child is then shaken violently, has “potions” poured into their eyes, and is dragged around the room. All of this while you the parent look on, praying that the ritual will work. If it does not, your child is then either killed, or thrown out of the house into the street to fend for themselves. Sounds like something out of 14th century medieval times right? Nope, this is happening right now in Nigeria, where a blend Christianity and local tribal beliefs have created widespread fear of witchcraft. Many of the children are held captive in churches, chained up without food until they confess to being a witch. Just the thought of something even a fraction as terrible as this happening to my children makes me wince in horror.
Please read the article if you are one of those who think that beliefs in the paranormal are harmless. It goes without saying that if the people in these villages were not brainwashed by this nonsense, there is no way that they would allow this abuse of their children to happen, much less pay someone to do it. There are simply not enough words in the English language to describe how horrible these atrocities are, and what makes it even worse, is that all this abuse is FOR NOTHING. Nothing because witchcraft and Satan do not exist and never have. Think about it again: parents are paying people torture and kill their children due to a belief in something that can’t even be proved to exist.
If this is not sickening enough for you, or if you think that this is only an exception to the rule and that most supernatural, superstitious, paranormal, or pseudoscientific beliefs do no harm, please visit whatstheharm.net where you can see examples of how pretty much any of these beliefs can cause harm on a massive scale. And also keep in mind that I am writing this on the anniversary of another of the most graphic examples of how a lack of critical thinking can kill. It was thirty years ago today that 909 people, many of them children who had no choice in the matter, commited mass suicide in the cult community of Jonestown after being brainwashed into it by their cult leader, Jim Jones.
Tuesday November 4th, 2008 was a milestone day in America. A day which saw us elect into office a new administration which promises to fix the mistakes and reverse the policies of the past eight years. That night I went to bed with a sense of optimism and hope about the next four years knowing that Barack Obama will be our new president. I am of course especially excited to have a president that is not going to be hostile to scientific inquiry. However, my optimism about my country was tempered the next morning by my disappointment with my home state of California. Wednesday morning I got the news that Proposition 8 (”Prop Hate”), a ballot initiative to ban marriages between homosexual couples, had passed by a narrow margin. I know this blog is about science and skepticism, and I usually try to steer clear of politics because it mostly involves value judgments and ideology rather than evidence. However I think it does apply here because Prop Hate was sponsored and motivated, as usual, by believers in the supernatural, in this case by religion.
The initiative was backed by money from evangelical Christians, the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and Islamic groups. It is appalling to me how these religious groups, who have historically hated each other, can seem to only find common ground on one thing, more hatred. In this case it is their shared disdain for homosexuality. This insane preoccupation about what other people do while they are naked seems to be a common theme in all faiths. Why should I, a straight man, care so much about the rights of a group I don’t even belong to? I just can’t stand discrimination and I think it is time we ended it once and for all. Our society (most of it anyway) has slowly but surely been moving away from that stupid, outdated, and medieval concept. After all, we just elected our first African American president, and that is something to be proud of. Unfortunately, however, a large portion of our society seems to think that there are still some groups that are okay to discriminate against. Two of these groups are the non-religious and homosexuals. I am a member of the former and feel a kinship with the latter. We are both viewed by the religious majority as evil and immoral, gays because of the way they have sex, and secular people because we don’t believe in an invisible man in the sky. We are also both not immediately visible as a member of each group. We have to “come out of the closet” in order for people to know what we are. This can mean the risk of being ostracized by family, friends, or coworkers. And in some places it can even even lead to threats, physical violence, or loss of employment.
While this is a temporary setback for human rights, I think that eventually it will be overturned. The reason is that it goes against the highest law in the land, the United States Constitution. Allow me to quote from the first amendment of that great document:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
I think there is a reason that James Madison chose to make that the first line of the first amendment, even before our precious freedom of speech. He knew that if you let religion get control of the government and pass laws based on their beliefs, all of the other rights would be gone. Indeed this is what we do see every time in every theocracy around the world. To date, I have never heard an argument against homosexuality or homosexual marriage that isn’t either a logical fallacy or based entirely on religion. Because the denial of rights to a group of people is based on a religious belief, it violates the first amendment and is thus unconstitutional and illegal in the United States. Someday this will end up before the United States Supreme Court and should be struck down. The reason why we have a constitutional republic is because the founding fathers knew that sometimes the majority in a democracy can be as bad as a tyrannical dictator.
Separation of church and state is so important because it not only keeps those of us who do not believe free from religious dogma in our government, but it allows those who do believe to worship as they please without government intervention. Having the state recognize gay marriage does not mean that their churches will have to perform ceremonies for them or change their beliefs about homosexuals. They can all go on thinking what they do about them based on that line in Leviticus (I’ve often wondered why they are not trying to pass laws banning the consumption of shellfish, which is also prohibited in the bible) that they revere so fervently. All it means is that same sex couples will be able to get a piece of paper from the state that grants them the same legal rights associated with marriage as everyone else.
Even though there are always setbacks, such as this proposition and the administration we have had in Washington for the last eight years, the overall trend is society has always been unmistakeably progressive. 150 years ago slavery was considered okay by most people, today it is considered as vile and reprehensible a thing as you can get. 100 years ago, women did not have the right to vote and there were many who did not want to grant it to them, today that would be unthinkable. And just 40 years ago in many places interracial marriage was still illegal (again because of religious beliefs), but now we are free to marry whomever we wish and the majority of people are fine with it. Back then, most were against it and used many of the same ludicrous arguments against it. The sign of the times moves on.
Even though I am not gay, I can sympathize with them because I can imagine how I would feel if people were to tell me that I could not marry the person I loved because of an old book that was written by primitive bronze age goat herders. So to the gay community I say keep fighting. Don’t ever give up until you have equal rights under the law. It may come slowly, but society will change and the type of thinking that led to the passing of this horrible proposition will be relegated to the scrap heap of history.
A while back I had created a category called “Cranks and Nut jobs” in which to put people who could be classified as nothing but wacky. I had not written anything for that category yet and it seems fitting that the first person who gets the honor is Jack Thompson. Thompson, the Florida attorney who has made it his mission to blame everything that is wrong with the world on video games, has been recommended for enhanced disbarment by the Florida Bar. If this goes through he will be prohibited from applying to practice law again for 10 years. I say so long and good riddance.
Let me reveal my bias here right from the get go. I love video games. I have been an avid gamer since the very first time I dropped a quarter into an Asteroids game machine at a pizza place in the early 1980’s. I have owned most game consoles over the years and lots of PC games. Currently I play a lot of World of Warcraft when I get the chance. So I really take exception when this ambulance chaser runs around the county saying that violent crime is being caused by violent video games with absolutely no evidence to back up his claims. I would accuse him of confusing correlation with causation, but there simply is no correlation between violent video games and real world violence.
Thompson walked out of the June 4th hearing on the matter after the judge refused to let him read a statement of objection he had prepared. This “statement” does not sound like something written by a professional attorney, but rather like the rambling manifesto of a nut job living in a shack in the woods. Since his claims never had any merit I just wanted to say welcome to my blog Jack, you sir are a crank.
A podcast, a web site, a book, a television pilot, and now a movie, is there anything Brian Dunning doesn’t do? On this blog, I most often write negative things about nutty people with crazy beliefs. It sure is nice to write an entry where I get to say nice things about someone. Brian’s free movie “Here Be Dragons: An Introduction to Critical Thinking” is now available for download and it is wonderful. He teaches critical thinking with the same great humor he always has on his podcast. I highly recommend this video to anyone who enjoys learning about science, critical thinking, and skepticism. You can watch it at www.herebedragonsmovie.com. I plan on spreading it around to everyone I can think of who needs a good slap of reality. Thanks again Brian, and keep up the good work.
I think it’s a little ironic that the category of woo that I used to be least interested in is the one I seem to be writing about most, so called “complimentary and alternative medicine” or CAM. Oh wait, let’s add supplements to that so we get a more suitable acronym: SCAM. Much better. Anyway, it has recently come to my attention that Dr. Mehmet Oz, a favorite on the Oprah Winfrey show, is going to get his own show. From what I have seen of him so far, I think this is a bad idea. Normally with out and out promoters of nonsense this is where I would start the name calling. However, I am going to stop short (barely) of calling Dr. Oz a quack. I am sure he is a fine cardiothoracic surgeon and serves his patients well. My problem with Dr. Oz is that in addition to real medicine, he is a big promoter of non scientific medicine that is based on, well, crap.
I have seen Dr. Oz on the Oprah Winfrey show a couple of times and both times he made statements that were misleading and potentially harmful. On one episode a member of the audience asked him about having their feet massaged to relieve stress. Nothing wrong with that, it would have been fine for him to recommend a foot massage as a method of relaxation. However, instead of just telling the person to get a foot massage, he recommended a method of deep tissue massage known as Rolfing. A Google search of Rolfing quickly reveals tons of pseudo-scientific gibberish about how it is supposed to “align the human body with gravity” and can “restore energy flow.” It also leads people to other non evidence based “energy healing” modalities such as Reiki and Reflexology. So what is the problem with this? Nothing if all you want is a massage because it feels good, but many practitioners of these techniques claim that they can use them to actually cure serious diseases. If a person who is seriously ill avoids real medical treatment for one of these methods it can lead to their condition becoming worse or even to their death. By having a real doctor point a largely uncritical audience to these methods, it gives them an air of legitimacy that they don’t deserve.
On another episode, Dr. Oz recommended acupuncture to a woman who had pain in her shoulder. He sends her backstage for a treatment with an acupuncturist and (surprise surprise) when she comes back, she feels better. Many people watching this view it as a test that shows that acupuncture works. In order to test something like this properly, you would need a large group of people with similar symptoms. You would then need to divide them into two groups at random. One group would get so called “real” acupuncture where the practitioner inserts the needles where they should be inserted (acupuncturists believe there are what they call meridian points in the body) and another group would get sham acupuncture where the needles are inserted anywhere or are not inserted far enough. What is most important is that the study must be blinded so each group does not know what they are getting. Better yet, the test should be double blind so that neither the participants nor the person administering the test know which is which. Granted, this would be difficult to do with acupuncture, but some methods have been devised, such as having the needles inside of a sheath so the practitioner and patient don’t know if the needle is going in fully or not. These controls are important to filter out bias, the placebo effect, etc. Many studies have been done on acupuncture and other “energy healing” techniques and the all follow a similar pattern: The better designed the study is, the less of an effect there is and the best designed studies show no effect at all. Again, if all you are looking for is pain relief and you get a placebo effect from it there is nothing wrong with it. But right there on the show the acupuncturist, while giving Oprah herself a “wellness” treatment, claims that “Acupuncture treats any condition from allergies to, obviously, pain to gastrointestinal issues—a wide range of chronic diseases.” Telling people that sticking little needles into their skin can treat “any condition” and “a wide range of chronic diseases” is egregious, irresponsible, and dangerous.
Dr. Oz himself chimed in on the “science” of acupuncture and alternative medicine. The following quotes are taken directly from Oprah’s website:
“Here’s the irony—acupuncture has been around for 2,500 years in China,” Dr. Oz says. “There are a billion people in another part of the world who use these therapies.”
Here Dr. Oz makes logical fallacy of an appeal to ancient knowledge. Just because something has been around for 2,500 years does not necessarily make it valid. Just over a century ago in the west, before medicine became scientific, if you went to the doctor they would do something like try to bleed you with leeches in an effort to “balance your bodily humors.” I wouldn’t want 150 year old unscientific medicine performed on me, much less unscientific medicine from 2,500 years ago. When he states that a billion people use it, that is another fallacy known as argumentum ad populum or an appeal to popularity. How popular something is has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is true or not. Even if every person on the planet thought that one plus one equaled three, that would not make it true, one plus one would still equal two. It wouldn’t make any difference if six billion people liked acupuncture (or something else) and used it, that is not a criteria to judge its efficacy.
“But let’s broaden the discussion, because it’s not just about acupuncture,” Dr. Oz says. “The reason I’m so excited and passionate about alternative medicine is … [because it is] the globalization of medicine.”
Dr. Oz talks about his passion for alternative medicine, saying that it’s the “globalization of medicine,” presumably bringing together east and west. I don’t really like the term western medicine. It implies that where a particular treatment originated it what makes it real or better. The terms western medicine, Chinese medicine, Indian medicine, holistic medicine, alternative medicine, etc, are quite meaningless. This is not about one country or culture being better than the other. This is about whether or not the methods and treatments in question work, no matter where they come from. There is only scientific medicine which is based on evidence, and unscientific medicine which is based on superstition. There are plenty of unscientific medical methods that were made up in the west. Some examples are Homeopathy (Germany), Chiropractic (United States), and Iridology (Hungary). If any of these were to be scientifically proven, they would cease to be alternative and just be part of regular medicine.
Alternative medicines, Dr. Oz says, deal with the body’s energy—something that traditional Western medicine generally does not. “We’re beginning now to understand things that we know in our hearts are true but we could never measure,” he says. “As we get better at understanding how little we know about the body, we begin to realize that the next big frontier … in medicine is energy medicine. It’s not the mechanistic part of the joints moving. It’s not the chemistry of our body. It’s understanding for the first time how energy influences how we feel.”
I keep having to remind myself that this guy is a actually a medical doctor. Statements like that make me wonder if he ever cracked a science book in all those years of medical school. People who practice or promote unscientific healing techniques seem to think that energy is a substance. Their ideas center around “restoring the flow of energy”or “unblocking energy.” In this context the word energy is completely and utterly meaningless. Energy is not some kind of substance that can be manipulated to promote healing. Energy is a measurement of the capacity of something to perform work. In other words it is the potential or actual ability to move things. If Dr. Oz could prove or “measure” things like Chi, Prana, Auras, or any of the types of mystical “Life Force Energy” claimed in these practices, he would win the Nobel Prize for physics. Did he? Did I miss that news story? Of course not, it would major news because it would change everything we know about reality. Keep in mind here that energy is not something you measure, energy is itself a measurement of work. Sorry Dr. Oz but the next frontier in medicine is not “energy medicine” as you claim. Here’s a news flash for you: Metaphysical concepts such as vitalism were abandoned by medical science in the 19th century. You are over a century behind the times on that one.
In an ideal world, people like Dr. Steven Barrett, Dr. Steven Novella, or Dr. Mark Crislip would get their own television shows about the wonderful scientific medicine we have that has doubled our life expectancy in just the last century. As for Oz, just like in the movie, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the magic he is pushing is not what it’s cracked up to be.
A couple of days ago I came across this story. Every time I see a headline involving cryptozoology (Bigfoot, etc) I always hold out some hope that someone has finally found some shred of compelling evidence of one of these creatures. But it’s usually the same old hokey blurry videos of blurry blobs or anecdotal reports. In this case there was absolutely nothing, not even anecdotal evidence. The story is about a dead dog. Really, I’m not kidding, that’s it. Somebody’s dog died in Argentina and of course it gets blamed on a chupacabra. Man, if it isn’t one logical fallacy it’s always another. Here we have an argument from ignorance: My dog died, I don’t know how my dog died, therefore it must be a chupacabra! They are now attacking dogs instead of goats! Do we need to rename it the Chupaperro?
It’s really too bad. One of my favorite questions to ask my fellow skeptics (for fun) is if they could pick a paranormal belief and make it true which one would they pick. I’d personally like it if I could meet someone or something from another planet or if I could have superpowers of some kind. Now those things and most paranormal phenomena are pretty far fetched. But cryptozoology does not require as much of a stretch, it would simply be an animal we have not discovered yet. Let me be clear, I don’t believe in chupacabras, yetis, or lake monsters because there is no evidence. But if they were really out there and someone actually proved they existed (meaning they actually captured one) I’d be first in line at the zoo to see it, and I would be happy to be proven wrong because I would get to see such a fascinating creature. Unfortunately we get stories like this. A dead dog, whoop-de-doo.