Skeptico

Jon Stewart Epic FAIL

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart is generally a very good interviewer, often asking his political guests some of the more difficult questions while remaining courteous and without making up straw man positions. He often asks the questions (and follow up questions) that many real journalists should be asking, and he clearly demonstrates intelligence and the ability to think on his feet and react to what his interviewees are saying. After watching him interview someone called Marilynne Robinson on The Daily Show Thursday (interview starts at 14.33 in) I have to say that in future he should stick to politics and leave science and/or religion alone.

Robinson apparently has a Ph.D. in English and a Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and has just released a book called Absence of Mind.  According to Amazon’s product description:

Absence of Mind challenges postmodern atheists who crusade against religion under the banner of science. In Robinson’s view, scientific reasoning does not denote a sense of logical infallibility, as thinkers like Richard Dawkins might suggest.

Already you know you are hearing from someone who doesn’t understand even the basics of that which she seeks to criticize, since science does not claim anything even close to “logical infallibility,” it merely claims to be the most reliable method of investigating reality.  (Once the word “infallibility” is used by someone criticizing science, you know straight off that they will try to conflate science and religion. Only religion claims infallibility.) Of course, that’s just flap copy, but after listening to Robinson’s dopey arguments on Thursday I would suggest that in future she stick to writing fiction and leave any expose of the faults with science to someone who knows what they are talking about.

Robinson starts off the interview with an unsupported assertion (all transcriptions by me from the teevee):

ROBINSON: …people on one side of the argument have claimed the authority of science but they have not construed an argument that actually satisfies the standards of science.

A bold claim. One you might expect her to justify using (say) an argument that actually satisfies the standards of science. Let’s see how she does:

ROBINSON: I don’t think frankly that it’s scientific to proceed from the study of ants to a conclusion about the nature of the cosmos.

And a million scientists went, “huh?”  At this point, Stewart should have asked her WTF she was talking about (he actually just nodded and said “Right”), because I had no clue.  Robinson never explained what she meant either. Proceeding “from the study of ants to a conclusion about the nature of the cosmos”?  If anyone reading this has any idea what she was babbling about, please let me know in the comments.

STEWART: Who do you think is more afraid: do you think science fears religion more than religion fears science, or is there equal mistrust to go around?

The correct answer is that religion fears science – because science, bit by bit, has proved the various claims of religion to be totally wrong. Of course scientists sometimes fear the political power of the religious to muzzle science, to prevent the teaching of science where it conflicts with religious ideas. But science certainly doesn’t fear religion itself.

That would have been the correct answer. Not Robinson’s answer though, which was:

ROBINSON: I’m really not sure about the nature of the controversy because I know lots of religious people that [sic] love science and I know lots of scientists who seem to be completely at ease with religion. It’s the quality of science and the quality of religion that determines the nature of the conversation.

(Sigh.) It is disappointing to hear from supposedly intelligent people, arguments that have been refuted again and again. And for someone who is claiming to challenge postmodern atheists (whoever they are), you would think she could have first spend ten minutes reading a couple of atheist blogs where this question has been patiently answered again and again. I’ll try one more time. Yes, we know that some scientists can be religious. That is because human beings are very good at rationalizing incompatible information. It does not alter the fact that science has proven many of the claims of numerous religions to be completely wrong, which means that science and religion are in many instances, incompatible. Why is that so hard to understand?

Here’s where Stewart goes off the rails:

STEWART: I’ve always been fascinated that the more you delve into science, the more it appears to rely on faith. They start to speak about the universe as if, well there’s “most of the universe is anti matter [sic],” oh really, where’s that? “Well, you can’t see it.”  Well, where is it? “It’s there.” Well, can you measure it?  “We’re working on it.”

It’s a very similar argument to someone who would say God created everything.  Well where is he? “Well, he’s there.” And I’m always struck by the similarity of the arguments at their core.

Wrong Jon, just wrong. The arguments may appear similar superficially, but at their core they are fundamentally different.  (I’m assuming Stewart meant dark matter, not anti matter since “most of the universe” is actually dark matter and dark energy, not anti matter.)

Superficially, it may appear that “God exists” is similar to “dark matter exists” – superficially in that you can’t see either. But is that really the standard we should be applying when evaluating scientific claims? We can’t see something, so it’s faith? I guess Stewart's show must be based on faith too then, since I can’t see the radio waves hitting my satellite dish either.

Examining this less superficially, “at their core,” why do scientists say that dark matter exists? Well, dark matter was initially hypothesized to explain why the rotational speed of galaxies was faster than expected, given the mass of visible matter in the galaxies. Then, having hypothesized dark matter, additional ways of testing this hypothesis were devised – for example, gravitational lensing.  Dark Matter Exists. Dark matter has been tested, and so far it has passed the tests. Furthermore, if some different scientists in the future find evidence that contradicts dark matter, or if they come up with a better explanation for the observations than dark matter, the new explanation will be adopted and dark matter abandoned.

Those are the differences between science and faith, differences that Stewart has apparently not noticed in his extensive delving into science. Science is based on observation of the real universe, confirmed or dis confirmed by experiment, and always subject to revision when better data comes along. Religion is based on the authority of old texts, is resistant to dis-confirmation, and in many cases stubbornly refuses to change even when proven to be completely wrong. But yeah, both God and dark matter are invisible so they both rely on faith. Good insight there Jon.

STEWART: Is it that the human mind has created these two disciplines, each one sort of equally at the mercy of our limitations?

No, the problem is that one discipline is based on reality while the other is not, and yet the one not based on reality is given undeserved respect and freedom from criticism.

ROBINSON: I think it’s also true that until quite recently many great scientists such as Isaac Newton and so on were profoundly religious people.

Again – yes we know. This doesn’t mean that science and religion are compatible. Newton was an alchemist as well. He was wrong about that too.

ROBINSON: …we need the best insights from science and the best insights from religion.

What insights can we get from religion?  Name one – name one insight that we couldn’t get without religion.

ROBINSON: The gladiators from both sides are I think inferior representatives of both sides, and that’s where the conflict comes from.

No, the conflict comes from the fact that many religious claims have been proven by science to be totally wrong, and yet many religious people refuse to accept this fact, insisting that their religious fantasies be given equal (or even superior) credence to science.  Although I do agree that Stewart and Robinson are both inferior representatives in this subject.  “Absence of Mind” – a good description of how both Stewart and Robinson arrived at their arguments. Robinson comes over as a profoundly stupid person – one who has examined this subject superficially and thinks she has something profound to say, but who in reality is merely parroting arguments that would be ripped apart in minutes in the comments section of any one of a thousand atheist blogs.

One more point – I don’t buy the argument that Stewart is just a comedian and so shouldn’t be held to account. He clearly can be a tough interviewer when it suits him: just see his interviews with Bill Kristol, Ron Paul or any number of right wing politicians.  He wasn’t joking when he said “the more you delve into science, the more it appears to rely on faith,” he was making a serious point.

Iran - 2,000 Years Behind

An mother of two has been found guilty of adultery in an Iranian court. Adultery is a crime? Yes, apparently it is in Iran. Sharia law.  We know she’s guilty though because she confessed after being subjected to 99 lashes. Want to know the best part? Her sentence is death by stoning.

Actually no, that’s not the best part. As CNN report in Iranian mother of two to be stoned to death, she’ll be buried up to her chest first:

Ashtiani, 42, will be buried up to her chest, according to an Amnesty International report citing the Iranian penal code. The stones that will be hurled at her will be large enough to cause pain but not so large as to kill her immediately.

Actually The Guardian reports that if the convicted person manages to free themselves from the hole, the death sentence is commuted. Well that's OK then. Although they also say the victim is buried up to her neck, not chest. (Men only get buried up to their waists.)

In a masterpiece of understatement, the US Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley apparently said:

"From the United States' standpoint, we don't think putting women to death for adultery is an appropriate punishment."

Really? You “don’t think”? Not “appropriate”? Christ, what’s wrong with you? How about this is totally wrong on any level no matter what the crime? And according to Amnesty International, there are several other women in Iran waiting the same punishment.

Amnesty International is trying to pressurize Iran to commute these death sentences. One would hope that the State Department could also muster a somewhat stronger response that that of the lame P.J. Crowley.

Doctor's Data Sues Quackwatch

Here we go again. Another purveyor of a questionable medical therapy, when criticized, rather than refute the criticisms with evidence, attempts to silence its critic with legal action. Via Orac, read how Doctor’s Data ignored Stephen Barrett’s explanation of How the "Urine Toxic Metals" Test Is Used to Defraud Patients, and is suing him to have the criticisms removed.

Doctor’s Data’s test, aims to show that a patient has elevated levels of mercury that need to be lowered with chelation. Chelation that is then provided by the practitioner who ordered the test. Unfortunately, the test itself involves first giving the patient a chelating agent that provokes an increased mercury reading. Since this chelating agent is designed to bind with mercury and excrete it in the urine, it is hardly surprising that urine, tested after administering the chelating agent, has higher than normal levels of mercury.  As Barrett pointed out, the reference range that is used to show mercury levels are too high, is based on non-provoked tests.

Of course, Doctor’s Data’s lawsuit is just an attempt at intimidation. We know that because Barrett replied to Doctor’s Data, asking them to identify exactly what Barrett got wrong in his write up, with explanations as to why he had been wrong. Doctor’s Data’s lawyers ignored this request and instead replied only with more threatening bluster. On June 18, Doctor's Data filed suit against Barrett and his related websites, claiming $10 million in damages. They’re also asking the court to instruct Barrett to remove immediately all criticism of Doctor’s Data pending the completion of their lawsuit (which could take years). As Barrett writes:

Very few people provide the type of information I do. One reason for this is the fear of being sued. Knowledgeable observers believe that Doctor's Data is trying to intimidate me and perhaps to discourage others from making similar criticisms. However, I have a right to express well-reasoned opinions and will continue to do so. If you would like to help with the cost of my defense, please follow the instructions on our donations page.

Barrett’s Quackwatch is a valuable source of information about dubious medical practices.  He doesn’t deserve this sleazy treatment from Doctor’s Data. If you are able, please consider donating to Dr. Barrett’s expenses.

The Vatican - Still Doesn't Get It

First some positive news. It seems the authorities in one country have decided that accusations of raping children deserve a proper investigation. Belgian prosecutors this week raided the headquarters of the Belgian Catholic Church as part of their investigation into child sex abuse claims, as reported by the BBC in Belgian Catholic offices raided in sex abuse probe:

Brussels prosecutors were looking for material relating to allegations of sex abuse, a spokesman for the prosecutors' office said.

"This is a case that the Brussels prosecutors' office received recently, containing a statement of facts in relation to alleged sexual abuse of minors by a number of people within the Church," said Jean-Marc Meilleur.

"The object of the searches is to verify the declaration and eventually gather evidence about these declarations."

Finally, the prosecution body of one country at least has decided that professing belief in a magic invisible sky fairy doesn’t mean that you can rape children without the possibility of being prosecuted. Better late than never. Let’s hope that other countries now follow suit.

Regular criminals, when investigated, usually profess innocence at this point, as they are entitled to do.  The Vatican though, sings a different tune. They are shocked, shocked I tell you, that the authorities dare to treat the church as though they didn’t have a special exemption to the rules that affect everyone else.  You just knew this was coming: Vatican 'indignant' over Belgium police raids

The Vatican has expressed shock at raids, including the "violation" of a cathedral crypt, by Belgian police investigating alleged child sex abuse.

Get that? the Vatican is shocked, not that its priests would rape children, but that the authorities would dare to investigate such alleged crimes. Shocked, not that children were violated, but that a bleeding crypt if you please was violated. It gets better:

The Vatican has summoned the Belgian ambassador to the Holy See to voice anger over Thursday's raids.

I hope the Belgian ambassador told them to go to hell.

And just when you thought they couldn’t get any more hyperbolic, one of their men in dresses tells us Belgium raids 'worse than Communist era'

The Vatican has stepped up its criticism of raids by Belgian police investigating alleged child sex abuse, calling the detention of priests "serious and unbelievable".

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, said "there are no precedents, not even under the old communist regimes".

He goes on to claim that the priests were held for nine hours without food or drink, which if true would be wrong. The accused deserve to be treated according to the law, which should include the rights to food and drink, not to mention a lawyer. But there are “no precedents” for this? “Not even under the old communist regimes”? Doubtful. I think what he means is that there are “no precedents” for treating the Catholic Church just like any other body that is accused of breaking the law. Which may well be true. And it’s about time such a precedent was set.

Allison Dubois Reads Newspaper, Tells Police

On April 8, 2009, eight year old Tori Stafford of Ontario was abducted and murdered.  Her body was found in a field by a police investigator, just over three months later on July 21st.  A sad and too common story.  But not too sad for the vultures to use it for their own ends.

The vulture in question is (yet again) Allison Dubois.  Eager to gain publicity from this tragedy, she is claiming she helped the police working on the case, as reported in Medium depicted Tori's fate to cops:

“It was amazing — Tori had been missing about three weeks, and I was standing, facing her school, noticing things like the senior’s building next to the school and it was at that moment ... that I told the police officer she had met someone whom she had met before, through her mother, and that she had been lured to her death.”

Dubois recalled she described the terrain where they would find the girl’s body and that two people were involved, including a woman who had been used as the lure.

“That’s the only reason Tori went with her, because she was familiar with her,” she said.

[My bold.]

Dubois’s story wasn’t that far off.  Two people – a man and a woman – were later arrested for the alleged murder of the little girl, and are currently facing trial.  No wonder Dubois is talking about it.

Funny thing though.  On April 22, 2009 (for those playing at home, that would be two weeks after the little girl had gone missing and therefore a full week before Dubois supposedly gave her information to the police) - police released a sketch of a woman who was suspected of having been involved in the little girl’s abduction:

This composite image of a woman sought in the abduction of eight-year-old Tori Stafford, based on the unidentified woman seen in a surveillance video leading Stafford by the hand shortly after she went missing.

The father of an Ontario girl who vanished more than two weeks ago said he “strongly believes” he knows the person in a composite sketch of a woman caught on surveillance video with his daughter, but the girl’s mother says she doesn’t recognize the woman.

So a week before Dubois reportedly told police that a woman (possibly known to the little girl) was involved in the abduction, the local papers reported that a woman (possibly known to the little girl) was involved in the abduction.  Hey, you don’t supposed Dubois saw the picture of the alleged abductor in the press, and simply regurgitated the information to the police, do you?  Nah, couldn’t be.  She must have used her awesome psychic powers.  Because only someone with psychic powers could have known that a woman might have been involved.  Well, either that or someone who had, you know, read the local paper the previous week.

Another funny thing, given Allison’s awesome psychic ability, is that it isn’t all that clear that the abductor was “someone whom [the little girl] had met before,” as Allison claimed.  For example, read this report from CTV Toronto:

Although the suspects know Victoria's parents, police don't believe they knew who their daughter was at the time she was kidnapped, sources say.

Admittedly it's not totally clear, but it does appear that the little girl didn’t know her abductors, and so it seems unlikely that “the only reason” the little girl went with the woman was “because she was familiar with her,” as Dubois claimed.  Also, it doesn’t appear that Allison was much help in finding the body, as she implied.  From the National Post:

Stafford's remains were found Sunday by a veteran police investigator searching on his own in a rural field about 500 metres off Concession No. 6, just east of Mount Forest, Ont., about 130 kilometres northwest of Toronto.

The detective, acting on a hunch, found the bones down a lonely dirt track in a secluded, heavily bushed area across the road from a grey, brick house surrounded by rolling, green farmland.

Just regular police work then.  I guess Allison, despite her undoubted psychic abilities, was no help at all to the police.  Just as Allison Dubois was no help in catching the Baseline killer either.  Well, you can’t say she’s not consistent.

Considering this happened a year ago, I wondered why we are only just in the last few days, hearing about Allison's invaluable help in not catching the perpetrators or finding the body.  So I checked and – funny story - I discovered that this story broke just before Dubois is due to visit Canada for a series of speaking engagements starting Monday May 17th - Toronto, ON - buy tickets VIP almost Sold Out!  $150 a pop (“No one attending the event is guaranteed a reading.”)  Obviously a coincidence.  Interestingly, if you Google "tori stafford" "allison dubois" you get four pages of stories, most of which include the line “come face to face with the image of Tori Stafford” – ie it’s all the exact same story reprinted by different media.  A cynic might almost think that Allison’s publicist had done an excellent job with this non story.  In reality, the only remarkable thing about this is how unremarkable Dubois’s supposed psychic predictions actually were.

Thanks to reader Dean for the original link.

More on Allison's awesome psychic abilities

Skeptico on Allison Dubois:

Medium guesses about serial killer

Allison Dubois no help in catching killer

A walking, camera-strutting, fake-ghost-talking joke

Secretary to the dead

Burden of proof

The Two Percent Company on Allison Dubois

Allison Dubois Week

Allison DuBois - Even More of a Hypocrite Than Previously Thought

Polar Opposites

James Van Praagh Missed Barbara Walters' Heart Valve Disease

Pretend-psychic James Van Praagh is claiming success in predicting Barbara Walters’ recent medical problems.  Get a load of this:

Two years ago, psychic James Van Praagh privately warned Barbara Walters about her health, only to be called out later on the TV icon’s daytime talk show, “The View” – and now, with Barbara headed for heart surgery, he has come forward to Access Hollywood to explain what happened.

“I felt very, very bad for her as anyone would,” James told Access’ Tony Potts of Monday’s announcement that Barbara would undergo heart surgery for a faulty valve. “A horrible thing to happen to anybody.”

However, he explained that he felt the news was “a validation of what I got for her at that time.”

[…]

“I tuned into her and I said, ‘Something is bad with your blood,’” James said of their backstage discussion. “It’s not moving correctly… you have to watch it. It might not be right now, it could be in the future.”

He also told her he sensed issues with her white blood cells and her back.

[…]

“She owes me an apology,” he continued.

Let’s review the facts.  Van Praagh predicts that a 78 year old woman has something other than perfect health – specifically “something is bad with your blood.”  Note: her blood.  She immediately had medical tests done that showed there was no problem with her blood – so Van Praagh was wrong.  Here is Walters from two years ago, explaining exactly why Van Praagh was wrong:

Two years later, doctors tell her that she needs surgery for a faulty heart valve.  Note: heart valve.  Something different.  Van Praagh claims success.  This wouldn’t have been an especially impressive guess even if he’d correctly predicted that a 78 year old had problems with a heart valve.  But he didn’t even guess that.  Check out this list of Blood Diseases and Disorders from the National Heart Lung and Blood institute – nothing about heart valve problems.  And you wouldn’t expect to.  Heart valve problems are not caused by bad blood:

There are a number of possible causes of heart valve disease. These include:

• rheumatic fever during childhood - this disease is no longer common in the UK but still affects people in developing countries
• a congenital deformity which means you were born with a defective valve
• ardiomyopathy - if your heart muscle becomes thickened or dilated, it can obstruct blood flow
• age - as you get older, your valves become less flexible, and more stretched or torn

Van Praagh was wrong.

What we have here is the typical situation where the “psychic” retroactively tries to fit his prediction to what actually transpired.  In Van Praagh’s opinion, he was close enough to claim a hit because (presumably) the heart pumps blood and he saw problems with the blood.  He’s also revising what he originally said – see how he now claims that he said “It’s not moving correctly…”  Check out any source from two years ago and there is no reference to the blood “not moving correctly.”  It’s all “problems with blood” and “an abnormality with her white cell count.” 

Now Van Praagh claims Walters owes him an apology.  Really?  An apology?  Let’s review what Van Praagh actually said about Walters two years ago:

"You don't have to be a psychic to know why Star [Jones] and Rosie [O'Donnell] left the show!

Meow.  Nor do you need to be psychic to predict that a 78 year old woman might have some health problems.  Although I do give him credit this time at least for not scoring a hit on Psychic Bingo – a rare occurrence for Van Praagh, to be sure.

Vatican Excuse Bingo

The excuses the Vatican and its supporters have now come up with to justify its systematic cover up of the rape of children have now officially exceeded the numbers required for a 5x5 bingo card.  Consequently, I give you Vatican Excuse Bingo.  Play it when Bill Donohue is on (if you can bear watching that disgusting slime bag) and you will be finished in no time. 

Explanations:

In the unlikely event that you’re not familiar with any of the excuses summarized on the card, I give a slightly more detailed explanation for each, below.

Long Time Ago

It all happened a long time ago and the church has changed.  No fair to keep bringing it up.

Secular Society

It’s the fault of The secularization of society.  If only everyone was a good catholic and kept his mouth shut, things would be just fine.

Women’s Ordination / Abortion / Gay Marriage

The only agenda of the church’s critics is women's ordination, abortion and gay marriage.

Pornography

With so much invasion of eroticism, sometimes it's not easy to stay celibate or to respect children.  Not easy!

Jews / Liberal Media / The Internet / Satan

The Jews are always behind everything as is The liberal media (ie The New York Times).  Oh and Satan.  Yes he exists.

Like the Persecution of Jews

Criticizing the Catholic Church is just like persecution of the Jews because pointing out that the church systematically covered up the rape of children for decades is exactly like murdering six million Jews. 

(Yes we know this conflicts with the previous point.  We hope you won’t notice.)

Hatred of Christianity

What motivates the church’s critics most of all is a pathological hatred of Christianity. 

Homosexuals

Of course, the real problem is homosexuality not pedophilia.  You see, there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.  That is true.  That is the problem.

Masons

It’s both the fault of freemasonic organizations that portray pedophilia as normal, and also a conspiracy by masonic lodges and big business to undermine the church.  Simultaneously.

Post Pubescent

It wasn’t pedophilia because the kids (most of them anyway) were post-pubescent.  And they wore sexy short shorts.  (OK I made the last bit up.)

Boy Scouts / Schoolteachers

Employers from every walk of life – schoolteachers, boy scouts – all molest kids.  For example, just this month, Rabbi Baruch Lebovits was found guilty on eight counts of sexually abusing a Brooklyn boy.  (Hey, it’s fault of the Jews again.)

Petty Gossip

It really is.  Petty gossip about raping children and systematically covering it up for years.  So annoying.

Therapy

The priests were not reported to the police because they were being put in therapy instead.  It was the zeitgeist of the day you see.  Everyone did it.

Catholic Standards

At least the Catholic Church has the standard that rape is wrong (even if it falls short of that standard), unlike atheists.

You Didn’t Object

Victims didn’t object - most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn’t allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?”

Gold Diggers

These so-called victims are just gold diggers – just out to make a buck off the poor honest church.

Radical Lawyers

The liberal media has teamed up with Radical Lawyers to persecute the church.

Parents

Parents and psychologists are to blame for not reporting the sex abuse in a timely fashion.  Because if they had reported the abuse promptly the church would have acted immediately.

No Smoking Gun

Cardinal Joey Ratzinger knew nooothing about it.  Nooothing, I tell you.  Move along now.

Did I miss any?

(Post Script: If you liked Vatican Excuse Bingo, then you’ll love Cold Reader Bingo and Creationist Bingo.)

Frontline - Jenny McCarthy Changes her Story Again

I watched PBS’s Frontline on vaccines last week, and thought it overall pretty good.  Not perfect (what is?) but the numerous howls of protest from the crank Age of Autism blog (I lost count of the number of their posts) and on the Huff Post, should be enough to tell you it hit the right marks.  Orac has a detailed review, The Vaccine War: Telling it (mostly) like it is about the anti-vaccine movement, so I really don’t need to review it in detail.

There is just one thing I want to highlight, though.  It wasn’t on the actual TV program, but on PBS’s full online Jenny McCarthy interview.  It was this:

[Questioner:] How long after the MMR was that first seizure?

[Jenny McCarthy:] You know, a lot of people think, and probably from me saying in some interviews, that it was after the MMR I noticed changes.

I don't think it was just the MMR shot that caused any kind of trigger with autism. I think it was a compilation of so many shots to a kid that obviously had some autoimmune disorders. So I would say maybe a couple of months, a month or so after the MMR, I started to notice some physical ailments such as constipation, rashes, eczema. That was like the first little sign. And then the train just kind of descended from there.  [My bold.]

Jenny is saying that her son’s autism didn’t start immediately after just one shot (the MMR), but that “some physical ailments” of autism appeared over “a couple of months.”  This was just “the first little sign.”  (Note, just a “little” sign at that point.)  But, here’s the thing, as I wrote in The Two J.B. Handleys, Jenny had, only three years ago, stated quite clearly and unambiguously something very different:

"Right before his MMR shot, I said to the doctor, 'I have a very bad feeling about this shot. This is the autism shot, isn't it?' And he said, 'No, that is ridiculous. It is a mother's desperate attempt to blame something,' and he swore at me, and then the nurse gave [Evan] the shot," she says. "And I remember going, 'Oh, God, I hope he's right.' And soon thereafter -- boom -- the soul's gone from his eyes.  [My bold.] 

Note, not “some physical ailments” or just a “little sign” – back then it was “the soul's gone from his eyes” which, I think you’ll agree, is completely different.  Also not over “a couple of months,” but “boom.”  Different story.

Why does this matter?  Well, Jenny, Handley and the rest have been telling us for years that the reason they know vaccines cause autism is that their kids got autism “boom” right after the vaccine was given.  (With Handley it was after a shot containing Thimerosal, while with Jenny it was MMR which never had Thimerosal, but we’ll gloss over that for now.)  Now that Wakefield’s MMR hypothesis has been discredited, and numerous epidemiological studies have failed to find a link with Thimerosal, the only way to keep their vaccines-cause-autism  claims alive is to move the goalposts.  And you see that in the Frontline program – Jenny says it’s not MMR, or Thimerosal, or too many vaccines at once – it’s “all of the above.”  She actually says she doesn’t know what it is that’s causing autism, but she knows it’s the vaccines, somehow.  But the thing is, if they’re now saying the signs of autism appeared gradually over several months, on what basis are they saying vaccines cause autism?  If autism appeared gradually, and not “boom” after one shot, then they don’t even have the correlation (vaccine immediately followed by autism) to rely on. 

And what’s more, they know they’ve changed their story and they know they’ve moved the goalposts.  Why do I say that?  Well, when I wrote The Two J.B. Handleys less than ten weeks ago, I included a link to the interview with the Jenny “boom” quote on Jenny’s own Generation Rescue site, Jenny: Evan's Story.  Check that link now.  Search Generation Rescue for any part of that interview.  It’s gone.  Disappeared.  Never happened.  Not part of the official anti-vaccine history any more.  (And I know Handley read that post and saw the link because he appeared in the comments four days after I wrote it in an attempt to defend himself.)  If you needed any more proof of the dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy of Generation Rescue and the anti-vaccine kooks, there it is.  Fortunately for us, there is one thing that George Orwell didn’t imagine when he wrote his famous 1984 novel, and that’s the Wayback Machine – the cache that never lets anyone completely disappear inconvenient facts they want you to forget.  Courtesy of the internet, here again is what Jenny said in 2007, Jenny: Evan's Story – “and soon thereafter -- boom -- the soul's gone from his eyes.”  

The hallmark of the pseudo-scientist and the kook, is they they won’t change their beliefs no matter what the evidence, instead they devise ad hoc explanations and move goalposts to accommodate contradictory evidence.  Jenny and Handley have been caught, again, doing just that.  Rather than re-evaluate their beliefs, they just change their previous story so that it fits the currently known facts.  And they try to cover their tracks by deleting the now embarrassing things they said before.  Rather strangely, they fail to notice that, with their new story, there is no longer any reason to link vaccines to autism.  Either autism occurred “boom” just after the shot (and so they can point to correlation), or it didn’t.  Which is it?  They want it both ways.

Funnily enough, there was one thing in that PBS interview with Jenny, that I though she got right.  It was this:

…that night went on Google and typed in "autism." And on the corner of the screen, in the sponsored links, it said, "Generation Rescue." And I decided to click on it, because right underneath it, it said, "Autism is reversible." And I thought to myself, well, this must be a load of crap, because if it was true, why didn't the best neurologist in the world tell me there's something I could do to reverse autism?

Precisely.  And if she’s only stopped right there she could have avoided making a complete fool of herself.

Nailed It

Nailed it so well, I hope Jesus and Mo’s creators won’t mind me reproducing the whole thing:

Fine Tuning Arguments

Suppose someone is rolling a set of two dice.  He rolls a double six – something with a one in 36 chance of happening.  Which is more likely, that the person rolled a set of regular dice and just got lucky, or that he rolled a special set where both dice have just sixes on all faces?  (Let’s assume you can’t see any but the sides that are on the top.)  You might think that since a regular set would produce a double six in only one out of 36 attempts, he is more likely to have rolled the trick dice with just sixes.  But after a moment’s thought you would probably realize that was wrong.  With just one roll of the dice, you would have no way of knowing.  The person might have been rolling the dice all day, and you just happened to come along at the exact time that he rolled the double six.  Of course, you could stay and see if he rolled the dice again, and if he kept getting double sixes then you would suspect there was something fishy going on.  But with just one roll, there is no way you could tell.  You wouldn’t have enough information.

The same would be true if the guy rolled three dice and got three sixes, or four dice and got four sixes, or five dice… etc etc.  If he only called you over to look when he’d got all sixes, you wouldn’t know if his roll had been especially lucky, or if he had spent hours rolling other combinations, and only called you to look when the result was all sixes.  No matter how many dice he rolled at once, or how high the apparent odds against it happening by chance, you wouldn’t know he was cheating just by looking at the result of one roll.  You also wouldn’t know how many other people are rolling dice at the same time, but who are keeping quiet about it because they rolled uninteresting combinations.  At the very least, you would need to see a few consecutive rolls from this one guy before you could form any conclusions.

It seems to me that fine tuning arguments are similar to the dice rolling guy.  The fine tuning argument is this: the odds of “rolling the dice” to get, by chance, a universe where life can exist, are so low that the universe must have been designed.  But the objections to this are the same as with the dice rolling guy: unless we know how many universes there are, and how many big bangs there have been, we can’t know if our particular universe is very unlikely to have occurred by chance or not.  There might be millions of universes.  And if there are a very large number of universes, then the odds of getting one tuned for life, are very good.  And in that case, there are good odds that in at least one of the universes tuned for life, there evolved intelligent people like us who remark that this universe looks fine tuned for life.

Now, you may say, we don’t have proof that additional universes exist, or that there have been several big bangs.  And I say that’s not my problem, it’s the problem of those making the fine tuning argument.  If fine tuners are claiming that the odds of getting a universe suitable for life are extremely low, then it’s up to them to show that this is the only universe that exists or has ever existed.  Their calculations that show the incredibly low probabilities of a universe suitable for life, assume there is and has only ever been one universe.  Why is this?  Because to get the probability of getting any universe tuned for life, they have to multiply their probability of getting one universe tuned for life by the total number of universes.  They never do this – which means they are implicitly multiplying by one universe.  So, before we accept their claim, they first have to demonstrate that there really is only one universe.  It’s their claim, remember?  They have to justify all parts of it, not just the bits they like.   So as part of their own calculation, they must demonstrate that there is only one universe.  As far as I know, no one has ever done this.

I have heard some say that multiple universes violate Occam’s Razor – one universe is “simpler,” they say.  But this argument misinterprets Occam’s Razor.  Occam’s Razor doesn’t say choose the simplest – if it did then “Goddidit” would be the answer to anything, because Goddidit is simple.  Occam’s Razor actually says don’t make up unnecessary assumptions.  We know that universes exist because we live in one.  Unless there is a solid reason to think that there are no other universes apart from the one we see, it would be an additional assumption to insist without evidence that this is the only one.  To be most generous to fine tuners, the best they can claim is that the assumption of many universes is an equal assumption to the claim that there can only be one, and so Occam’s Razor is a wash – you can’t use it to choose one way or the other.  The burden of proof is therefore still upon the ones making the fine tuning claim.

Of course, we don’t need multiple universes to reject fine tuning arguments.  We don’t actually know enough to be able to calculate meaningful probabilities of getting, by chance, the so-called fine tuned constants of this universe.  We can only examine one universe, and can’t really say for sure what would happen if the conditions were different.  Fine tuning arguments are really just god of the gaps arguments – we don’t know why the constants look fine tuned, so we’re going to use god to explain the gap in our knowledge.  Never a very productive way of trying to learn the truth about anything.  Also, we don’t know what kind of life would have evolved if the universe was very different from this one.  Life as we know it might not exist, but that wouldn’t mean that completely different life forms couldn’t evolve.  Again fine tuning arguments say more about the lack of imagination in the people making the arguments than about the truth of the conclusions they are claiming. 

But even if we ignore these flaws, the burden of proof is still with the fine tuners to demonstrate that this is the only universe that exists or has even existed (or at least, that there is only a small number).  Until they do this, fine tuners are like the person pointing to the guy who just told you he rolled several dice and got all sixes, while failing to investigate all the other people in the world and throughout history, who have rolled dice but didn’t tell you the results. 

Additional Reading

Physicist Victor Stenger has many other arguments against fine tuning, including simulated universes with very different values for the so-called “fine tuning” constants.  He also states that multiverses are suggested by modern cosmological models.

Chaotic Inflation, proposed by physicist Andrei Linde, models our universe as one of many that grew as part of a multiverse… – he hypothesizes that the expanding cloud of billions of galaxies that we call the big bang may be just one fragment of a much larger universe in which big bangs go off all the time, each one with different values for the fundamental constants.

Note: this post was initially inspired by this comment by regular commenter AvalonXQ. 

SkeptiCal 2010

SkeptiCal 2010, the Northern California Science & Skepticism Conference, is being held next Saturday April 24 in Berkeley California.  Speakers include the NCSE’s Eugenie Scott, The Skepbitch Karen Stollznow, Denialism Blog’s Chris Hoofnagle, Science Based Medicine’s Wally Sampson and others.  Here is the schedule for the day: Tickets (just $40) are still available but it looks like registration closes at 6.00am on Tuesday.  If interested, book your tickets here, but don’t wait too long.

Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of H1N1?

Mike Adams thinks it does.  In fact, he’s sure of it.  And boy, is he excited.  Check out his recent column, and compare that with what the actual study says.  First, Adams, with Seasonal flu vaccines increase risk of pandemic H1N1 flu, stunned scientists discover:

The CDC and health authorities were pushing a double-barreled vaccine strategy that demanded people get both a seasonal flu shot as well as an H1N1 pandemic flu shot. Those who questioned the sensibility of vaccines for fighting the flu were attacked as "baby killers" for not kow-towing to the vaccine mythology that drives Big Pharma's profits to record profits nearly every flu season.

[…]

Care to guess what the study found? In short, it found that people who received the seasonal flu vaccine shot in 2008 were up to 274% more likely to be infected by H1N1 swine flu than those who skipped the season flu shots.

[Bold in original.]

Note that the CDC recommended getting both the seasonal and H1N1 vaccines.  Also note that 274% figure that Adams quotes.

What did this study do, and what does it say?  The study is titled Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus?  First, you’ll note it starts “Does..” and ends with a question mark.  Compare that with Adams’s “…vaccines increase risk…” and no question about it.  Adams seems to be a lot more sure than the people who published the actual study.  What did they do in this study?  Well, they took patients who presented with influenza-like illness at  a network of Canadian doctors, and tested them for H1N1 and seasonal influenza.  They also determined if the patients had been vaccinated against the seasonal flu.  They used this information to compare vaccination status among influenza-positive (both seasonal and H1N1) patients with influenza-negative controls.  What did they find?

… receipt of [the seasonal flu vaccine] in the previous season (autumn 2008) appeared to increase the risk of pH1N1 illness by 1.03- to 2.74-fold, even after adjustment for comorbidities, age, and geography [4]. The investigators were prudent and conducted multiple sensitivity analyses to attempt to explain their perplexing findings. Importantly, [the seasonal flu vaccine] remained protective against seasonal influenza viruses circulating in April through May 2009, with an effectiveness estimated at 56% (41%–67%)  [My bold.]

Note, they reported that the increased risk was 1.03 to 2.74 fold. Now, I suppose Adams is technically correct in saying the increased risk was “up to 274%” as high, since the phrase “up to” includes the figure zero.  Technically correct, but intellectually dishonest.  (I guess "more than 1.03 times the risk" wouldn't have sounded so scary.)  Also, note that the seasonal vaccine was 56% effective against the seasonal flu – a tidbit that Adams somehow managed to overlook.  More importantly, note that the study did not show the merits of getting both a seasonal flu shot as well as an H1N1 pandemic flu shot (compared with no vaccine at all) as Adams himself admits was the CDC’s recommendation.  (Presumably they didn’t do this because the H1N1 vaccine wasn’t widely available at the time.)

Still, this did seem (as far as I can tell) to be a decent study, and its results certainly warrant further investigation into this phenomenon.  Does this study prove that the seasonal flu vaccine increases the risk of getting H1N1, as Adams thinks?  Well, not really.  From the report, again:

Given the uncertainty associated with observational studies, we believe it would be premature to conclude that TIV increased the risk of 2009 pandemic illness, especially in light of six other contemporaneous observational studies in civilian populations that have produced highly conflicting results (see Table 1 for details on study design, population sampled, and results) [10]–[15]. We note the large spread of vaccine effectiveness estimates in those studies; indeed, four of the studies set in the US and Australia did not show any association [12]–[15], whereas two Mexican studies suggested a protective effect of 35%–73% [10],[11]. The most recent Canadian study in this issue of PLoS Medicine [4] is clearly at odds with these results, with an estimated average negative effectiveness of −68% based on their Sentinel system. Only one study, set in the US military population, potentially corroborated the findings of the Canadian study [16].

[My bold.]

So there are numerous other studies, many of which show no difference, and two that actually show the seasonal vaccine reduces the risk of getting H1N1. Nothing wrong with that – real world studies are not always as clear cut as we would like, which is why science requires replication, especially where the results are hard to explain or surprising, based on current knowledge.  Strange that Adams didn’t notice that bit, though.  Well, it did come nearer the end of the paper - perhaps Adams got so excited by the first part that he didn’t finish reading.

To summarize Adam’s technique, he:

1. Cherry picks a study that has results he likes, and ignores at least six other studies (that were even reported in the actual paper he cited) that report different results
2. Exaggerates the risk - “1.03 to to 2.74” increased risk becomes “up to 274%”
3. Ignores the fact that the seasonal vaccine is 56% effective against seasonal flu anyway
4. Ignores the fact that the CDC recommendation is to get both the seasonal and the H1N1 vaccine – something that was not covered by this study.  (And presumably the H1N1 will be included in next season’s seasonal fu vaccine.)
5. Jumps from all of this to state that therefore “vaccines are a medical scam, folks! A Big Pharma hoax,” and that the real solution to protect you against the flu is vitamin D.  Seriously.

Adams will quote a scientific study if it supports his point of view (even if it doesn’t, really), but then he rails against the rest of science that doesn’t.  That’s what makes him a crank.  The truth is, this is an interesting but inconclusive study that should probably be investigated further.  Possibly there is some reason that the seasonal vaccine could make people more susceptible to the H1N1 virus.  If so, real scientists would like to find out what it is - although it is almost certainly not that the flu vaccine "weakens the immune system" as Adams claims, but some other reason.  More likely (given the numerous confounding studies), there is no real effect here.  Either way, it will be real scientists doing real science, not cranks like Mike Adams, who will come up with the actual answer.  And you are almost certainly going to be better off getting both seasonal and H1N1 vaccines, than getting neither.

Update

Effect Measure has a good post on this subject this morning, Did getting vaccinated for seasonal flu up the risk of pandemic flu infection?  They conclude, like me, maybe, but you’re still better off getting the flu vaccine especially as H1N1 will be a component of the next seasonal vaccine strain.

Bill Donohue - even more vile than previously thought

I wasn’t planning to write any more about the vile Bill Donohue and his defense of priests raping small children while the Catholic church covered it up.  I really wasn’t.  I thought I had covered Donohue’s disgusting views in enough detail two weeks ago.  But Donohue has surprised me – really surprised me this time – with an even lower even more morally bankrupt defense of pedophile priests.  Donohue actually said on Larry King Tuesday night that when priests rape children, this is not pedophilia because (wait for it) most of the children were over about 13 years of age.  Oh and the problem is really homosexuality, because “that’s what homosexuals do.” 

I found it hard to believe that even Donohue would say such a thing, that these words had been taken out of context or something.  Check out the transcript from CNN (with my added bold):

DONOHUE: It's not pedophelia. Most of the victims are post- pubescent. You have to get your facts straight. I'm sorry. If I'm the only one who is dealing with facts tonight, that's it. The vast majority of the victims are post-pubescent. That's not pedophelia, buddy. That's homosexuality.

ROBERTS: Bill, I don't think, as a person of faith, that you really know what you're talking about when it comes to --

DONOHUE: If the study of criminal justice -- it's not my opinion. Take a look at the social science data. I never said they're homosexuals in that way.

ROBERTS: They said they cut down on --
(CROSSTALK)

KING: Sinead, quickly.

O'CONNOR: Can I just ask very quickly with that gentleman -- sorry, I don't know your name, sir. I'm not quite sure what post- pubescent means. Would you mind explaining that to me

DONOHUE: Explain what?

O'CONNOR: Post-pubescent.

DONOHUE: Post-pubescent means beyond puberty. In other words, you're adolescent. That's what homosexuals do, and of the molesters have been homosexuals in the Catholic church.

ROBERTS: So the boys deserved it because they're post-pubescent.

DONOHUE: If you want to take that conclusion, I think that's scurrilous. I never said that. Why would you say that about homosexuals?

O'CONNOR: Larry, what age does somebody become, you know, become post-pubescent in America, as a matter of interest?

KING: What is the age?

ROBERTS: I don't know. Let's ask Bill. He seems to know.

KING: Well, folks --

DONOHUE: Twelve, thirteen years of age.

Yeah, try that defense in court – “but, your honor, she was over 13” – see how far it gets you.

It’s hard to know what to say after that.  Mind-blowing.  Even the Catholic church has not to my knowledge used such a defense.  All I can really think of to say is, isn’t it time to stop asking Bill Donohue his opinions, to stop having him on network TV as though his opinions were in any way valid or relevant?  He should really be finished as a pundit after this.  Why would any serious news media ever quote this disgusting moron’s views on anything, ever again?

Would Deepak Chopra exist if no one looked at him?

Michael Shermer and Sam Harris recently debated uber woo Deepak Chopra and someone called Jean Houston – the subject being “Does God Have a Future?”  I haven’t seen that debate yet (click the link for a video), but I have read Shermer’s brief description and his account of an exchange (between Shermer and Chopra) that took place afterwards.  Read Shermer’s initial blog post My Debate Date with Deepak (and friends), which includes this:

During the debate Deepak claimed that the moon is nothing more than a soup of teeming quantum uncertainty. No. Subatomic particles may be altered when they are observed, but the moon is there even if no one looks at it.

Deepak apparently read this and replied.  Shermer posts Chopra’s replies in Does the moon exist if there are no sentient beings to look at it?  See if you can spot the equivocation / moving of goalposts:

[Quoting Chopra] When you see an object, the moon being the example you chose, your eyes are not really “seeing” the moon. Your eyes are responding to photons that follow all the rules of wave-particle duality.  […]  There was no moon till it was an experience in your consciousness.

Chopra just can’t be honest.  In the first paragraph, he is claiming the the Moon literally isn’t there (it’s just “a soup of teeming quantum uncertainty”) if no one looks at it.  Shermer calls him on this nonsense.  Chopra, slyly moves the goalposts and replies that now it’s the photons that enter your eyes that exhibit the quantum uncertainty.  He hopes you won’t notice the switch – that he is now talking about photons hitting your eyes (and creating the image of the Moon), and not the Moon itself that is subject to quantum uncertainty.  He has, effectively, conceded that the Moon is still there (and of course it must be – otherwise, where would the photons have been reflected from in the first place?), although he hopes you won’t notice that he actually just disproved his own point. 

Of course, even if we are just referring to photons following all the rules of wave-particle duality, there is still no reason to suppose that consciousness is necessary.  Chopra has a longer piece up on the huff Post - Which Is Real, the Moon or God?, where he makes this claim (if you can be bothered to wade through over 2,000 words some of of the most dense woo I have ever read).  According to Chopra, everything is quantum, which means everything is consciousness, therefore god exists, or something:

The basic understanding of the collapse of the wave function is called the Copenhagen Interpretation,

No, the Copenhagen Interpretation is just one way of looking at the situation.  It may represent reality, it may not, but it is not the “basic understanding” of QM.

in which a non-material observer is involved in quantum measurement.

Except for the “non-material” wording, that is (rather trivially) correct.  Clearly something (could be a human; could be a measuring instrument) has to “measure” something.  There is no evidence that that thing has to be “non-material.” 

John von Neumann demonstrated that an understanding of the collapse of the wave function requires consciousness.

No he didn’t.  As I wrote in my review of What the Bleep Do We Know, the theory of quantum mechanics doesn’t say this. Chopra is confusing the theory of quantum mechanics with an interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is an explanation to help understand what might be going on, but it is not part of the theory because it is not falsifiable: it cannot be tested in such a way that, if it were false, it would fail the test (without falsifying the whole of quantum mechanics, and therefore all the other interpretations too).

To falsify this interpretation you would have to see what would happen without a conscious observer monitoring the experiment. But that’s Catch-22: you need a conscious observer monitoring the experiment to see what happens. You can’t look at the experiment without looking at it so no one can ever know if this interpretation is true.  So although von Neumann may have believed such a thing, he never demonstrated it.

Without an observer, there is no collapse, no particle, no matter, no measurement.

Maybe, but the “observer” can be something non material – a scientific instrument, say.  There is no reason to suppose that consciousness is required.

Alternative quantum theories such as transactional interpretation and many-worlds theory try to get around the need of consciousness or an observer, but fail in the end. Essentially they don't fulfill the requirements of quantum physics because any quantum measuring device still must be physical and ultimately exist as quantum wave probabilities. One set of measuring waves superimposed on other waves to be measured, only leaves more waves, not particles, not a quantified measurement. And as Niels Bohr makes clear, in quantum mechanics, if it isn't measureable it isn't real. So in spite of these newer quantum speculations, no one has been able to successfully dispense with a non-material observer.

Well, of course no one has been able to dispense with an observer.  But it does not have to be a “non-material observer” as Chopra claims.  In fact, Chopra has not even demonstrated that such a thing as a “non-material observer” even exists.  Someone, ultimately, has to look at the measuring instrument to see what the result was.  Obviously.  Someone has to open the box and look at the cat.  But until that person does that , there is no way to know what the result was without consciousness, and so there is no justification for saying that consciousness is necessary.  Sorry Deepak, you don’t understand what you’re talking about.

(Sigh.)  Anyway, back to the original question raised in the post title - if we all ignored Deepak Chopra, would he cease to exist, would he disappear in a soup of teaming teeming quantum uncertainty?  Although we might perhaps wish this to be true, I have to say that, no, even if we all ignored him, Chopra would still exist to spew out more quantum drivel tomorrow, the next day, and the next day ad infinitum.  At least it gives me something to blog about. 

Bill Donohue - Vile and Immoral

Bill Donohue, self appointed cheerleader for the Roman Catholic church, has declared that the problem with the recent child abuse scandal in the church is not the abuse – the problem, according to Donohue, is that people are criticizing the church for the abuse.  Seriously.  Find it hard to believe that anyone could make such a case with a straight face?  Read his article, Criticism of Catholic Church is unfair (oh, boo hoo), which starts:

The rash of stories about priestly sexual abuse in Europe, especially in Ireland and Germany, has put many Catholics on the defensive. They should not be. While sexual molestation of any kind is always indefensible, the politics surrounding this story is also indefensible.

Note the words “While sexual molestation of any kind is always indefensible…” – and consider that is the only indication Donohue gives in the entire 650 word article that sexual molestation of children is bad.  Go on, read the whole thing.  There is nothing else in the whole piece – nothing – that indicates that raping children is wrong, it’s all about how everyone is being mean to the Catholic church.  Incredible.

Donohue starts with the old false equivalence trick:

Employers from every walk of life, in both the U.S. and Europe, have long handled cases of alleged sex abuse by employees as an internal matter. Rarely have employers called the cops, and none was required to do so.

He’s comparing rape of children to “alleged sex abuse by employees.”  Is he saying that companies in the US and Europe have been aware of their employees raping children as a part of their work?  Well, it’s hard to know for sure what’s in the mind of this old idiot, but somehow I don’t think even he is saying this.  What he is trying to get away with is equating workplace sexual harassment – the boss groping his secretary, say – with raping children.  And while it is certainly true that, say 30 or 40 years ago, sexist bosses could get away with things they would likely be sued and/or fired for now (watch Mad Men), this is nothing like what the church is accused of covering up.  Not even close.

Anyone who maintains that in North America or Europe it was common practice for employers outside the Catholic Church to file a police report about suspected wrongdoing by their employees needs to put up or shut up: Where is the evidence?

No one is saying that employers had to file a police report about any suspected wrongdoing by their employees.  That would be ridiculous.  I think most people would suggest that if an employer knew one of his employees had committed rape of a child while doing his job, then the employer should certainly report it.  And most probably would.  And the duty to report would be even greater if the employee’s job was to supervise the child that he had raped.  A job such as, for example, a schoolteacher, scout leader or a bleeding Roman Catholic priest.

Beyond that issue, the focus on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is far out of proportion to the attention given by the media to the sexual molestation of minors when committed by non-Catholic clergymen. According to a report by the New York Times in October, the Brooklyn district attorney's office had filed charges in 26 cases of sexual abuse involving members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.

Donohue just has to bring the Jews into it.  Hey, some Jews in Brooklyn abused children, so we can too.  Sorry, not an excuse.  If a Jewish religious community has been abusing children then that is just as bad, and the guilty people should be jailed.  If that didn't receive as much publicity as the Catholic church’s abuses, it’s because the Catholic church has a wider congregation, and the abuse affected many more children.

The reason the church is rightly getting all the criticism is that they claim to be god’s representatives on Earth, and they routinely preach their morality to the rest of us, including those of us who don’t believe their particular fairly story.  They demand obedience from their followers.  They (the priests) as part of their jobs are in positions of authority over small children.  They should be above reproach, but they have been shown to be unworthy of the trust placed upon them.  Most Catholics know this.  Even the pope seems to recognize it (belatedly).  But Donohue, while paying lip service to the “indefensible” nature of such abuse, thinks that the real problem here is with people criticizing the church for the abuse.  He actually says that this criticism – just the criticism mind you – is “immoral.”  If anything is immoral it is Donohue and this vile article.

Celebrities Say the Darndest Things

But “psychics” say even dumber ones.

If you don’t know who Heidi Montag is then (1) you haven't missed much and (2) you obviously don’t watch E channel’s The Soup as much as I do.  Anyway, she’s apparently some sort of reality TV star who has has numerous cosmetic surgeries (see picture).  A couple of weeks ago she hired a “psychic” to be her manager, as MSNBC reported in Heidi dumps Spencer as manager for a psychic:

After the incredible experiences I have had healing my life and truly connecting to my dreams with healer intuitive Aiden Chase, I have officially asked him to become my manager," Montag says. "Having an intuitive psychic leading my team gives me an edge no one else has.

Wow, a celebrity doing something dumb – dog bites man, in the parlance.  Funny thing though – two days ago, she fired him:

A week after hiring Malibu psychic Aiden Chase to replace Spencer Pratt as her business manger, Heidi Montag announced she'll go it alone.

"I have decided to part ways with Mr. Chase both as a manager and as a psychic…

Celebrity shows (albeit temporarily), some sense – that’s man bites dog!

Hum – the psychic got fired after one week.  I decided to check out the website of the psychic, Aiden Chase, and he claims:

my psychic gifts include clairvoyance

Clairvoyance.  And in this interview with Chase, he explains further what this means::

4. He Can See the Future:
"First and foremost I'm intuitive. I'm using that gut instinct, that third eye that we all have. I just have a heightened sense of intuition."

He can see the future.  (You know where this is going.)  But not only did this psychic douche bag not see his imminent firing, he still even now (that’s after the event, for those playing at home) doesn’t believe it’s happened:

"At this time, I am not aware of any change in my business relationship with Heidi Montag"

I guess he can see the future but not the past.

Look into my eyes and repeat after me, I have not been fired!

RFK Jr. - Still Clueless

Robert F. Kennedy Junior has learned nothing in the last five years.  Back in June 2005, Kennedy wrote a scare piece linking Thimerosal to autism, stating that scientists at a CDC meeting had spent days covering up this supposed link. I blogged then about how Kennedy’s article was totally dishonest, and followed up with a post about how Kennedy had quote mined the minutes of an Institute of Medicine meeting to make it appear that scientists were trying to cover up this same supposed link, although as I proved at the time, they were doing the opposite.  (If you don’t want to read that whole post, just scroll down to the “Walt wants” section – the sleaziest piece of all of Kennedy’s sleazy quote mining, and worth a re-read in my totally unbiased opinion.)

Well, he’s back, and as nuts as ever.  Last week he wrote Central Figure in CDC Vaccine Cover-Up Absconds With $2M – a headline that just by itself contains two falsehoods and an unproven assertion.  Here’s what Kennedy is saying, in summary:

1. Danish scientist Poul Thorsen was the central scientist behind studies showing that autism is not linked to Thimerosal or MMR
2. These studies (by Thorsen) are the key studies the CDC relies on to disprove a link between vaccines and autism
3. Thorsen has stolen a large amount of money
4. Point 3 above means that the studies referred to in 1 and 2 above, are no longer valid.

Unfortunately for Kennedy, points 1, 2 and 4 above are demonstrably false:

• Thorsen was not a leading figure, but a junior author on the papers in question
• There are numerous other studies, apart from the Danish ones, that support there being no link between vaccines and autism.  (In addition, Thimerosal was removed from vaccines in the US in 2002 and yet reported autism continues to rise.)
• The alleged fraud has no bearing on the studies anyway. Even if Thorsen stole money, and even if he were the lead author on the studies (which he wasn’t, but even if he were) this would not suddenly alter the studies so they now point to a different conclusion.  (It’s a basic ad hominem fallacy.)

Also, point 3 is just an allegation.  It may be true, but right now we really can’t say.  Kennedy is talking nonsense.

It says a lot about the anti-vaccine crowd that when a leading figure in the MMR causes autism world (Andrew Wakefield), whose study really was the only one (the original, and not replicated) that supposedly implicated MMR – when that person is actually found guilty of medical misconduct in the actual study they are associated with – in that case the response of the anti-vax nuts is of course to support the proven unethical Wakefield.  In that case, the guy clearly must be innocent and his studies must still be valid and good.  However, when a relatively insignificant junior author of one paper among many replicated studies around the world is accused (just accused mind you – not proven yet like Wakefield) of dishonesty in a matter totally unrelated to the study in question – in that case, this puts the conclusions of all such studies into doubt.  You have to wonder at the cognitive dissonance these people must suffer.  Although that would at least explain the hysterical tone of Kennedy’s latest piece.  While his 2005 article did at least give the impression it was written by an adult (albeit a dishonest one), Kennedy’s latest offering is astonishing in its lack of any attempt at a measured or even lawyerly tone.  The falsehoods start in Kennedy’s first sentence:

A central figure behind the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) claims disputing the link between vaccines and autism and other neurological disorders has disappeared after officials discovered massive fraud involving the theft of millions in taxpayer dollars. Danish police are investigating Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has vanished along with almost $2 million that he had supposedly spent on research.

This is, of course, pure hyperbole (to be polite).  The truth is that Aarhus University has recently detected a significant shortfall in their CDC grant money, and Thorsen is suspected of being to blame.  Apparently, authorities are investigating the shortfall, but it’s a little early to be calling it a “massive fraud.”  Right now, we just don’t know.  And Thorsen has “disappeared”?  Actually, no, he has just been unavailable for comment. (Hardly surprising.)  But Kennedy won’t let this lack of a real scandal prevent his lawyerly mind from making this a prosecution.  Watch how he runs with it:

Thorsen was a leading member of a Danish research group that wrote several key studies supporting CDC's claims that the MMR vaccine and mercury-laden vaccines were safe for children. Thorsen's 2003 Danish study reported a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after that country banned mercury based preservatives in its vaccines. His study concluded that mercury could therefore not be the culprit behind the autism epidemic.

Er, no, Thorsen was the sixth named author of one study relating to MMR and the fourth named author of a study on Thimerosal.  I’m not sure what your definition of “leading” would be, but for me it wouldn’t be sixth out of a team of eight.

Also note Kennedy’s hysterical “mercury-laden” wording.  No, they weren’t “mercury-laden,” they contained Thimerosal - a preservative that metabolizes to (amongst other things) ethyl mercury, an organic derivative of mercury.  Kennedy writes like a 12 year old.

His study has long been criticized as fraudulent since it failed to disclose that the increase was an artifact of new mandates requiring, for the first time, that autism cases be reported on the national registry. This new law and the opening of a clinic dedicated to autism treatment in Copenhagen accounted for the sudden rise in reported cases rather than, as Thorsen seemed to suggest, the removal of mercury from vaccines.

This is wrong on many levels. 

First, “Thorsen” didn’t suggest anything – he was a junior author of the paper, remember?  Funny how, according to Kennedy, “Thorsen” is now the author, the one suggesting things.  The others (including lead author Madsen) haven’t been accused of a crime, so they don’t count, I guess.

Second, the authors of the study did not fail to disclose the new way of counting.  What Kennedy is talking about is that in 1995, the Danish registry added "Outpatient Clinics" to their count of autism cases – and since outpatient cases are supposedly where 93% of Danish children are diagnosed with autism, that would inflate the reported number of cases after 1995.  But, the authors wrote in the “Results” section of their study (that I’ll link to, although Kennedy doesn’t):

In additional analyses we examined data using inpatients only. This was done to elucidate the contribution of the outpatient registration to the change in incidence.

So they didn’t fail to disclose this factor (as Kennedy claims), they actually specifically mentioned it.  They also attempted to allow for it by doing a separate analysis that excluded the increase due to the outpatients.  And even with this analysis, they still found an increase in autism.

As it happens, reported autism was increasing before 1995 anyway.  Kennedy just hopes you won’t read the study that he didn’t link to (and see that graph), so you won’t notice this.

(As an aside, I find it ironic and hypocritical that Kennedy says the Danish increases in autism don’t count because they’re the result of diagnostic changes and increased availability of services, and not a real increase in autism.  When skeptics give the same reasons (increased diagnosis) for reported autism rising in the US, Kennedy writes (in his 2005 article) that this is “a theory that seems questionable at best.”  Consistency was never one of Kennedy’s flaws.)

Third, the authors never suggested that the increase in autism was “accounted for” by the removal of Thimerosal, as Kennedy claimed.  What they actually concluded was:

Our ecological data do not support a correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism.

I guess that’s a bit too “sciencey” for Kennedy to understand.

Despite this obvious chicanery, CDC has long touted the study as the principal proof that mercury-laced vaccines are safe for infants and young children.

Again er, no.  The CDC has not “long touted” the study (or even short touted it, for that matter) as its “principal proof” as Kennedy puts it.  The Danish studies are just one of many.  For example, here are some more peer reviewed studies from around the world:

USA

USA

USA

Canada

UK

Australia

USA

And one more from Denmark.

Of course, none of these studies has Thorsen as an author so I suppose they don’t count either.

Mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, has relied on this study

This is a good one.  Kennedy must hope that his readers won’t click that link because it takes you to a New York Times page that does not discuss Thorsen, Denmark, or anything related to that story at all.  The link is actually to a story about Andrew Wakefield and the Lancet’s retraction of his terrible paper.  Go figure.

as the basis for its public assurances that it is safe to inject young children with mercury -- a potent neurotoxin -- at concentrations hundreds of times over the U.S. safety limits.

Clearly not, or it wouldn’t be allowed now would it? 

Thorsen, who was a psychiatrist and not a research scientist or toxicologist,

Unlike Kennedy, who is a fully qualified medical doctor and toxicologist.  Oh wait, no he’s not.

parlayed that study into a long-term relationship with CDC. He built a research empire called the North Atlantic Epidemiology Alliances (NANEA) that advertised its close association with the CDC autism team, a relationship that had the agency paying Thorsen and his research staff millions of dollars to churn out research papers, many of them assuring the public on the issue of vaccine safety.

Wow, the CDC paid them to do some work for them.  What a scandal.

Of course, we all know that lawyers work for free.  As did Andrew Wakefield.

The discovery of Thorsen's fraud

Correction: alleged fraud.  Come on Bobby – I know the science is a bit complicated for you to grasp, but you should know the lawyerey bits at least. 

And even if the fraud accusation were true, it would still bare no relation to the study Kennedy is talking about.

[Repetitive accusations snipped]

Thorsen's partner Kreesten Madsen recently came under fierce criticism after damning e-mails surfaced showing Madsen in cahoots with CDC officials intent on fraudulently cherry picking facts to prove vaccine safety.

Kennedy gets even more sleazy here.  Note that the lead author on the papers where Thorsen was a junior author, is now “Thorsen's partner.”  From this very thin connection, Kennedy seeks to connect this story to some supposedly damning emails from Madsen.  But even here, Kennedy can’t be transparent.  The link Kennedy provides is to an article describing numerous things, the Madsen emails being only one.  You have to read the whole article to find the link to the actual email within the article (strangely, linked twice, as though there were two sets of emails, not just one).  To save you the time, I’ll link direct to the email in question.  I’ll also save a copy on this blog too, just in case.  Now, if you read the actual email (as I encourage you to do), you’ll be hard pressed to find what’s “damning” about them.  As I read it, it’s just a CDC researcher asking Madsen for data on autism rates in Denmark (“did the rates increase dramatically from the late 1980’s into the 1990s”), and Madsen replying that no, they did not increase in the 1980s.  Madsen goes on to say that they did increase after 1993 but that the aforementioned change in registration procedures could account for it.  To repeat, this was something they reported on and attempted to control for in their paper anyway so it’s not at all “damning” except in Kennedy’s fevered imagination.

Leading independent scientists have accused CDC of concealing the clear link between the dramatic increases in mercury-laced child vaccinations beginning in 1989 and the epidemic of autism, neurological disorders and other illnesses affecting every generation of American children since.

Which leading independent scientists and what clear link?  Surprise - Kennedy doesn’t say.

Also, note the pejorative “mercury-laced” wording.  This is one of Kennedy’s favorite phrases.  Of course the word “laced” has connotations of adulteration – secretly adding something improper. I guess it would be too much for Kennedy just to say “vaccines containing Thimerosal.”

Questions about Thorsens's [sic] scientific integrity may finally force CDC to rethink the vaccine protocols since most of the other key pro vaccine studies cited by CDC rely on the findings of Thorsen's research group.

As I showed above, no they don’t.

These include oft referenced research articles published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New England Journal of Medicine and others. The validity of all these studies is now in question.

Nonsense.  The validity of  these studies is not in question.

There have been numerous other posts from the anti vax world (eg this post at the crank Age of Autism blog) crowing about this, but Kennedy’s piece is the most absurd (and that’s saying something) of them all.  Of course, Orac wrote an excellent post on this yesterday - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Poul Thorsen: The fine art of distraction from inconvenient facts, that you should read.  Journalist Brian Deer left a comment that is better than anything I could write to summarize Kennedy’s juvenile style, so I’ll just finish with it:

What struck me about the Kennedy article was the poor calibre of the person who wrote it. I'd naturally assume that someone with those family connections would have some sense of measure in their language, and a general demeanour of intelligence and professionalism. I believe he may have been to law school, also, and have some sense of the difference between, say, a falsehood and a lie, or between "missing" and "couldn't be contacted". Little things, which you find, for example, in the Philadelphia Inquirer report, which was, plainly, the work of an intelligent professional.

But there was none of that. It was like it was written by a college sophomore. Oozing malice and prejudicial, unsupported assertions, it was just of such poor quality. Like you, I've no idea about this Thorsen guy, who is plainly not a major player in the relevant research, but I was shocked by the hysterical tone of this man Kennedy's contribution. It's plain that neither Olmsted nor Kirby are professional journalists, but I'm just left wondering why the heroes of vaccine-autism believers are all of such meagre talent. It's kind of sad really.

Chopra - as bad as ever

Deepak Chopra doesn’t seem capable of expressing anything in a simple, straightforward manner.  And after reading (and trying to unravel) his latest piece of drivel, Only Spirituality Can Solve The Problems Of The World, I think I know why – it’s only with excessive flowery verbosity that he can hope to disguise the fact that he has absolutely nothing of value to say.  See if you can fathom what he’s getting at here:

Before addressing the importance of spirituality in modern times, we should first define it. Spirituality is the experience of that domain of awareness where we experience our universality.

Unfortunately, he doesn’t define universality, so his definition of spirituality is pretty empty.  I’ll have a go.  Merriam-Webster defines universality as “the quality of being universal” – the quality of occurring everywhere (among several definitions of “universal” – see if you can find a better one.)  Which rather begs the question – since Chopra hasn’t shown that we are everywhere.  In fact, I’m pretty sure we’re not.

He does wax more on the “domain of awareness” bit though:

This domain of awareness is a core consciousness that is beyond our mind, intellect, and ego.

Really?  Where is it then?  And, again, does it even exist?  (And how does Chopra know?)  But OK, I’ll play: the domain of awareness is a core consciousness.  And the core consciousness:

In religious traditions this core consciousness is referred to as the soul which is part of a collective soul or collective consciousness, which in turn is part of a more universal domain of consciousness referred to in religions as God.

Jesus, why didn’t he just say that at the start?  Let’s break down what (I think – but who really knows?) he’s saying:

1. Spirituality is the experience of that domain of awareness where we experience our universality
2. The domain of awareness is a core consciousness.
3. So spirituality is the experience of a core consciousness.
4. This core consciousness is referred to as […] God.
5. So spirituality is the experience of God.

As Chopra apparently had to put it:

Spirituality is the experience of that domain of awareness where we experience our universality. This domain of awareness is a core consciousness that is beyond our mind, intellect, and ego. In religious traditions this core consciousness is referred to as the soul which is part of a collective soul or collective consciousness, which in turn is part of a more universal domain of consciousness referred to in religions as God.

Which breaks down to “spirituality is the experience of God.”  Six words.  It took Chopra 70.

When we have even a partial glimpse of this level of awareness we experience joy, insight, intuition, creativity, and freedom of choice. In addition, there is the awakening of love, kindness, compassion, happiness at the success of others, and equanimity. As the turbulence of our mind settles down, our body also begins to heal itself because it also quiets down. The body's self-repair mechanisms are activated when the mind is at peace because the mind and body are at the deepest level inseparably one.

Pure assertion backed up by nothing.  Even by Chopra’s standards, this is weak.  I have to say, I think he’s phoning it in.  Probably PZ had the right idea – he asked Chopra one question: how?

Just to name a few problems of the world: overpopulation, famine, resource depletion, water scarcity, war, and disease. Deepak Chopra, quick, 30 seconds: how will you solve any one of those problems with spirituality?

But if he even knew (and of course, he doesn’t), would he be able to explain it?  Clearly not.  Why does anyone still think this bozo has anything of value to add? 

The Two J.B. Handleys

Seems there are several people with the same name all promoting the notion that vaccines cause autism.  A couple of weeks ago I wrote that there were at least two people with the name “David Kirby” – one from 2005 who thought that decreasing autism rates meant that autism was caused by vaccines, and another in 2010 who believes that increasing autism rates meant that autism was caused by vaccines.  Now it looks like there are two J.B. Handleys too.  For example, read what someone called J.B. Handley from last week, wrote about how autism is first noticed by parents:

It is exceptionally rare that I hear the story, “my son was 100% fine, and at 2 years old after one vaccine appointment he lost everything.” I have heard that story, but very rarely.

A rarely heard story.  Fair enough, but then I found this story from 2005, entitled A child's return from autism Couple eager to share their conviction that mercury poisoning was the culprit:

Jamie Handley was a happy, healthy baby who reached all his developmental milestones until he turned 18 months, his parents said. Then, he started spinning in circles and standing on his toes and no longer responded to his name. They were eventually told he was autistic

[My bold.]

Hum.  An autistic child called Jamie Handley?  Handley?  Surely not the son of J.B. Handley?  Nah – couldn’t be.  Until I clicked on the more images link and got this picture:

 

Caption: J.B. Handley plays with his son, Jamie, who is receiving chelation therapy to reduce mercury in his body and treat his autism.

J.B. Handley?  Oh I get it - this is a different J.B. Handley.  This J.B. Handley’s son met all his developmental milestones until he turned 18 months – then he started spinning in circles, etc.  Clearly, as with David Kirby 2005, this is a different J.B. Handley from 2005, who (unlike J.B. Handley from 2010) doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.  You see, as J.B. Handley 2010 knows, children just don’t regress all at one time just after a vaccination like the parents of this Jamie Handley from 2005 said.  What douche bags they must be, this J.B. Handley from 2005 and his wife:

But the Handleys and other parents say they noticed symptoms in their children after they got booster shots

And it’s not just J.B. Handley from 2005 who’s got this wrong.  Jenny McCarthy didn’t get the script either.  For example, from Jenny: Evan's Story

[Note: Since writing this post, Generation Rescue have obviously realized that Jenny's previous story conflicts with the version they now want you to read, with the goalposts in their new location, and so they have removed the above link to the story.  Unfortunately for Generation Rescue's attempts to re-write history, you can still read it using the Wayback Machine to Jenny: Evan's Story.]

Jenny says even before Evan received his vaccines, she tried to talk to her pediatrician about it. "Right before his MMR shot, I said to the doctor, 'I have a very bad feeling about this shot. This is the autism shot, isn't it?' And he said, 'No, that is ridiculous. It is a mother's desperate attempt to blame something,' and he swore at me, and then the nurse gave [Evan] the shot," she says. "And I remember going, 'Oh, God, I hope he's right.' And soon thereafter -- boom -- the soul's gone from his eyes.

[My bold.]

So, right after the MMR shot (which to me sounds like “one vaccine appointment”) - “boom.”  I don’t know how you interpret that, but to me “boom” means something happening pretty quickly – all in one go.  And that quote was on the Generation Rescue web site.  Generation Rescue.  The organization founded by J.B. and Lisa Handley.  I guess that website must have been set up by the J.B. Handley from 2005, not the one from 2010.

So let’s recap.  J.B. Handley from 2005 thinks autism occurs quickly – you have a happy, healthy baby who reached all his developmental milestones right up until the point where he starts spinning in circles, etc.  You see, that’s how J.B. Handley 2005 knows the vaccines caused his son’s autism – the child was fine up until the point where he suddenly shows autistic tendencies after being vaccinated.  Also, that J.B. Handley (the one from 2005), reports on his organization’s website about someone called Jenny McCarthy who knows her son’s autism was caused by the MMR shot.  And she knows her son’s autism was caused by the MMR shot because “boom” he became autistic right after the MMR shot.  So J.B. Handley 2005 knows that autism is caused by vaccines because the autism starts right after the child gets the vaccine. 

Then we have the other J.B. Handley (the one from 2010), who knows that autism doesn’t suddenly appear “after one vaccine appointment” (or at least, very rarely does), but rather is a chronic slide over a period of time, and so he knows that vaccines cause autism because…  er wait a minute, if autism doesn’t occur just after the vaccinations are given, why exactly does J.B. Handley 2010 thinks vaccines cause autism? 

One more thing just occurred to me.  J.B. Handley 2005 thinks autism is a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning, and is chelating his son to remove the mercury, while Jenny McCarthy thinks the live MMR vaccine, that never had any mercury in it, is what gave her son autism.  So which is it – is it mercury or is it MMR?  Because they’re different things.  Hey, you don’t suppose there are really three J.B. Handleys do you?  Because, you know, that would be weird.

Andreas Moritz Cancer Cures Quack

Here we go again.  Another quack responds to criticism by threatening legal action.  And yet again, a craven ISP (Wordpress) caves and suspends a blogger’s account.  This time, the quack is someone called Andreas Moritz.  Check out his website.  He thinks cancer doesn’t kill people, rather it’s the patient’s “conflicts, guilt and shame” that “paralyze the body’s most basic functions” and allow the tumors to grow.  That’s right – it’s the patient’s fault for allowing the cancer to grow.  So obvious.

But not to fear, because Moritz has the cures.  Or rather, he can sell you the cures.  Seriously.  Just check out the woo he has for sale.  My favorite?  A tough choice, but high on the list would have to be the Mongolian Holy Stones:

Mongolian Holy Stones are proactive healing stones that are mined in Inner Mongolia where most of the world's Rare Earth compounds are mined. The locals call it "holy" because it heals on contact. Years of testing by six recognized International Research Institutes provides us with the information on how the Mongolian Holy Stone produces its miracles. Some of this information is included later in this section.

Here’s a picture of them - $40 for one 4” x 3” stone:

And what of the “Years of testing by six [six!] recognized International Research Institutes” that will be “included later in this section”?  Clearly, he must have details of these years of tests, as he claims?  Well, not so much.  All we actually have, is this:

What is "Holy"?

Infrared energy at .98(+/-) microns is "holy." It is invisible and it heals.

Well, that’s OK then.  It’s invisible and it heals.  Phew, I’m glad we’re not dealing with just some inert stone that does absolutely nothing.

Not convinced by holy stones?  Want to try something more tangible?  Something that will produce a definite measurable result?  Well, you’re in luck because Moritz also sells The Colema Boards Home Enema Kit – just $278 (plus $45 shipping) to “simplify self-administration of an enema in the privacy of your own home.”  Here’s a picture of what you get (toilet, chair and bucket not included):

But that’s not the best part.  If you want a really good laugh, click on the enema board “how to” video for how to set up and use it.  Seriously.  Funniest thing I’ve seen all week.  Trust me - the sound effects are especially hilarious.

I think that’ll do.  If you still think Moritz has something worthwhile to offer, you’re probably beyond help.  Read Orac’s post Andreas Moritz and trying to shut down valid scientific criticism: A sine qua non of a quack for the detailed explanation of all that is wrong with Moritz’s numerous claims.  Also in that post you’ll read the full text of Moritz’s threatening email to the original blogger – the threat that includes this gem:

My investigations show me where you live and where you study (Augusta, Amine)...

Because, “I know where you live” has always been a compelling scientific argument.

Additional Information

Here are some links to additional articles about Andreas Moritz:

Orac on Andreas Moritz, Cancer Cures Quack.

Steven Novella on Christopher Maloney naturopath quack and Andreas Moritz, Cancer Cures Quack.

PZ on Andreas Moritz, Cancer Cures Quack.

Orac’s earlier post on Andreas Moritz, Cancer Cures Quack.

And from the original threatened blogger himself (on what is apparently a different blog that has not been pulled), Michael Hawkins on Andreas Moritz, Cancer Cures Quack.

Oh, and if I had my blog with Wordpress, right now I’d be doing all I could to move it elsewhere, pronto.