http://www.randi.org/jr/200511/111805setback.html[*QUOTE*]
November 18, 2005
Want more? View past issues of
Swift, and Randi’s opinions. Click
here.
Help support the JREF through grants,
donations, gifts and memberships.
Click here to learn more.
Subscribe to Randi's email "Info
List." For details, email to
JREFInfo-help@ssr.com.
To be removed from the list, email
jrefinfo-unsubscribe@ssr.com.
Or try our RSS feed!
A Set-Back for Homeopathy, Florida – A
State of Ignorance?, In the Spirit of Jonathan
Swift, An Honest Juror Thwarted, Welcome
Response, Faith Poll in Britain, Interesting
Observations, and The Omnitron Is Still With
Us….
Table of Contents:
A Set-Back for Homeopathy
Florida – A State of Ignorance?
In the Spirit of Jonathan Swift
An Honest Juror Thwarted
Welcome Response
Faith Poll in Britain
Interesting Observations
The Omnitron is Still With Us
In Closing...
A SET-BACK FOR HOMEOPATHY
Our good friend Dr. Martin Mahner, Ph.D., with the GWUP skeptics group in Rossdorf, Germany, has contributed this good news:
In 2003 a group of pharmacologists of the University of Leipzig claimed to have proven the efficacy of high-potency homeopathic Belladonna solutions (D32, D60 and D100). The authors, Franziska Schmidt, Prof. Karen Nieber and Prof. Wolfgang Suess had done in-vitro-experiments with tissue from the rat intestine. Even before the publication of their positive results… the homeopathic community was so enthusiastic about this new proof of homeopathy that in 2003 the three authors were awarded the "Heinrich-Reckeweg-Preis" (worth 10.000 Euros) of the International Society of Homotoxicology (
www.uni-leipzig.de/presse2003/homoeopathie.html).
Skeptics soon pointed out that the study was seriously flawed (
www.xy44.de/belladonna) and complained with the dean of the faculty where the results were produced. Nothing happened for quite a while, but now the German Pharmacists Journal (Deutsche Apothekerzeitung) reports in its latest issue (2005, vol. 145, no. 44, pp. 24f.) that the authors have now admitted that their study was flawed; and that, as a consequence, the publication has been withdrawn from the journal Biologische Medizin and the Reckeweg Prize has been returned. Indeed, the award notice was removed without comment from Niebers homepage in the night from November 8 to 9, 2005.
Randi comments: How different this is from the situation in the USA with Dr. Bruce Flamm and the Journal of Reproductive Medicine which we discussed at
www.randi.org/jr/200510/101405same.html#13. There’s a lesson for U.S. science journals here, I believe… Dr. Mahner continues:
This is the third blow in a row for homeopaths in the second half of 2005. After the influential Lancet meta-analysis in August, which was a disaster for homeopathy, in early September the most renowned consumer protection agency in Germany, the Stiftung Warentest in Berlin, published the new edition of its alternative medicine handbook (Die Andere Medizin), evaluating a number of alternative therapies. The authors of the handbook, the contents of which were reviewed by Edzard Ernst, state that most of the alternative therapies evaluated are useless, if not noxious; only one third of all examined applications of all the alternative therapies listed in the book showed some positive effect. That is, much less than one third of these alternative therapies are effective, because not all therapies have been tested for all indications.
Moreover, and unsurprisingly, most of the positive results were obtained in the case of various relaxation techniques such as autogenic training, yoga, meditation, hypnosis, and so on.
The negative evaluation of homeopathy in this handbook resulted in an outcry among German homeopaths. We now look forward to the reaction on the withdrawal of the Leipzig studies.
Thank you, Dr. Mahner. I think we can expect the usual objections that these objections are not objective… But, we’ll see.
Along with this research comes an article in the Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Association. It’s titled, “Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy,” authored by researchers at the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
Beginning by saying that “…specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible,” the paper
suggests that bias might have entered into the conduct and the reporting of trials of homeopathy. To investigate this
possibility, the authors considered placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy identified by a comprehensive search of the
available literature covering nineteen electronic databases, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacts with experts.
They randomly selected trials in conventional medicine matched to homoeopathy trials, and extracted data from reported
outcomes that indicated benefit. Appropriately, they assigned greater strength to trials that were performed double-blind and
with adequate randomization.
Analyzing 110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials, they found that the smaller trials and those
of lower quality indicated more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. They concluded that
experimental biases were present in placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and of conventional medicine. Allowing for
that bias, what remained was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific
effects of conventional interventions. This finding, they concluded, is compatible with the probability that the clinical effects
of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
To the ramparts, homeopaths! The forces of reason are closing in!
FLORIDA – A STATE OF IGNORANCE?
Taken from information in an article by David Park Musella, of the Skeptical Inquirer staff. If you’re not
subscribed, you should be. See
www.csicop.org/si:
In Florida, as in other locations worldwide, citrus canker disease is a serious threat to citrus crops. It’s caused by a
bacterium which causes brown, crusted lesions with yellow halos to appear on the leaves and the skin of fruit, reducing
photosynthetic capacity, stunting the growth, and preventing the maturation of the fruit. The standard treatment is draconic:
The diseased trees are simply cut down and burned. And, as we might imagine, Florida state government officials are
regularly offered new supposed cures and preventatives. Florida's citrus crop contributes billions of dollars to the state's
economy, so when that industry is threatened, anything that might help is of course considered.
Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State back in 2001, was quite enchanted with a miracle product named,
“Celestial Drops” – which name should have been enough of a warning in itself. Ms. Harris, rightly
concerned about the fact that citrus canker was blighting the Florida crop, considered this “alternative”
treatment, which was supposed to work by principles of “improved fractal design,” “infinite levels of
order,” and “high energy and low entropy.” Not at all slowed by the fact that she had no notion of what
those terms meant, and without first calling in scientific advisors, Secretary Harris ordered a formal study in which
researchers worked with a rabbi and a cardiologist – obviously the appropriate experts for such an investigation
– to test the drops. That official study determined that the product tested was simply water that had been blessed
according to the principles of Kabbalist mysticism, "chang[ing] its molecular structure and imbu[ing] it with supernatural
healing powers." Right!
Then the Celestial Drops notion was scientifically tested. As a result, Wayne Dixon, the head of Florida's Bureau of
Entomology, Nematology, and Plant Pathology, reported that the
…product is a hoax and not based on any credible known science…. I wish to maintain our standing in the
scientific community and not allow [the developers of Celestial Drops] to use our hard-earned credibility to promote their
product.
We’ve learned that Ms. Katherine Harris has moved up to greater heights of power; she is now a member of the U.S.
House of Representatives….
IN THE SPIRIT OF JONATHAN SWIFT
Peck in people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet and sit back for a chuckle. MIT students Ali Rahimi, Ben Recht, Jason Taylor,
and Noah Vawter, have written up a scientific paper that would warm the cockles – that means,
“wrinkles” – of the heart of Jonathan Swift, if those heart wrinkles were still warmable. It is a perfect
parallel to the scores of pseudoscientific papers that are published every month in serious journals. Reader Ted Vriezen
assures us, after reading this publication:
I am already well protected by the aluminium cans I place around me in my home and office. The aliens told me that works
better. I haven't heard much from them since.
Now I'm wondering if there isn't an alien conspiracy with aluminium cans. Are they deflecting mind control waves or
focusing them? Think about it. Aluminium cans have that concave (parabolic antenna?) shape at the bottom which gets
pointed skyward as you empty the last drops into your mouth, leaving an amplifying resonance cavity with an opening
pointed right at your brain. And that little tab might be a transmitting antenna (powered by pressurized carbonation) which
sends out an activating signal to a hovering alien space craft as you open the can. Who knows what a hovering alien space
ship might be beaming down into our brains. It all makes sense now. Maybe the aliens and the government are in on it
together. Maybe the aliens are controlling the government. I better put together a presentation for TAM4 while there's still
time. I'm sure you'll give me priority over all the other speakers. I hope the aliens are not reading my mind. I will continue to
"act" and "think" skeptical to throw them off.
Note that I’ve allowed the “aluminium” spelling. This is either the result of Ted leaving his helmet off,
or being unduly influenced by the English, who think they invented the language…
AN HONEST JUROR THWARTED
Reader Charles Miller of Austin, Texas, ….
As I was reading this weeks commentary (as I do every week) and read the section about the state-run asylum not allowing
books on critical thinking I was reminded of an experience I had some years ago when I lived in Maricopa County, Phoenix.
I was called to jury duty. I reported and was led to a large room filled with potential jurors. After a time, I was called with a
group of about 40 people to fill a jury for a civil trial. The suit was a "slip-and-fall" injury/liability action.
I'm sure you know how it works: each juror was questioned by the attorneys for each side. Such as – "Juror #1, do
you ever shop at BlahBlahMart?" Juror #2, do you ever shop at BlahBlahMart?" If the juror answered in such a way as to
indicate that they could not act impartially, they were told to return to the main jury pool to possibly serve on a jury for a
different trial.
I was Juror #23.
One of the attorneys asked "Juror #1, have you ever just fallen down for no reason?" Juror #1 replied, "Yes." Then,
"Juror #2, have you ever just fallen down for no reason?" "Yes." And so on, until they got to me.
"Juror #23, have you ever just fallen down for no reason?" "No." "OK, Juror #24, hey wait a minute #23, you've never just
fallen down for no reason?"
"No sir, never. I've tripped on shoelaces, missed a stair, been falling down drunk, I've jumped out of perfectly good
airplanes, and this morning I tripped on a Labrador puppy, but every time I fell down, there was a reason."
Here's where it gets scary – both attorneys looked at each other, approached and met in the middle of the courtroom.
They conferred for a moment and then walked back to talk to the judge. After a minute the judge said to me "Juror #23, you
are excused. You are not to return to the jury pool. Gather your belongings and leave the building. Do not speak with anyone
in the jury pool. Just get out. Now. Do not return tomorrow, your service is completed. Go! Now!"
All I did was listen to the questions and think before responding! Now, I could understand that one side or the other might
want to have blindly stupid jurors on their case. In this case not only the attorneys for both sides but the judge too wanted
nothing to do with a juror who would actually pay attention and think about the case.
Maybe if I had said "Jesus tripped me"?
Mr. Miller assures me that he was quite willing and prepared to perform his jury duty, if selected; he was not attempting to
evade this obligation, and only spoke sooth because he recognized it as such.
I had a much-better-informed judge, on one of my jury-duty calls here in Broward County, Florida. Spotting me in the
assembled pool awaiting the voir-dire process, he called the attention of both lawyers to my presence, and then reminded
them that I was not the sort of person likely to make anything but a decision based on the presented facts. He asked them
whether it was correct that they preferred jurors who could be swayed by rhetoric; both lawyers mumbled, hummed and
hawed for a moment, and were – I felt – somewhat relieved when the magistrate announced that I was
dismissed from jury duty on this occasion.
WELCOME RESPONSE
Reader Chris Palmer – see
www.randi.org/jr/200511/111105derek.html#i14 – received a very adequate
and refreshingly responsible answer from Dan Hogan, editor of the ScienceDaily Internet site. Chris had complained
about the inclusion of horoscopes on that otherwise useful venue:
I hear you – and the dozens of others who have written to me about this recently – and I'll remove the astrology
items from ScienceDaily immediately.
What happened was that we recently licensed a commercial newsfeed from UPI [United Press International] – not just
their science news, but everything – general news, science, business, sports, entertainment, you name it. I thought that
would be OK to offer our readers, even if not all of the content was necessarily science-related. However, I didn't realize
that the "Quirks" feed in particular included horoscopes.
Having said that, I realize that astrology is particularly offensive to a large number of our readers, and so I'll work to
explicitly exclude anything to do with astrology in the scripts we use to display the UPI feeds on ScienceDaily.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Let me know if you have any questions.
As you see, dear reader, your letters can bring action. I hope you’ll remember Chris’ prompt and effective
action the next time you see something that demands this kind of attention…. Asking Mr. Hogan’s permission to
use the above item on this web site, I was happy to receive the following additional information from him:
On another note, I'm not sure if you've covered this before, but I've noticed a growing trend of creationists targeting
science-related web sites (such as ours) that rely on contextual ad services for their revenue. These services are generally
pretty good, because they are simple to use and automatically serve ads to web pages based on the content. However, it turns
out that creationism/intelligent design groups are buying text ads for keywords such as "evolution" that link to anti-evolution
web sites.
Fortunately, most of these text link ad services allow publishers to block specific advertisers, but it's a reactive process: you
can only ban specific advertisers if you see their ads appear. So far, I've managed to filter out ads from dozens of these
crackpots – and not just creationists, but total nuts who want to push their own "theories of everything" and whatnot.
Still, a few of these ads occasionally slip through, and each time I get inundated with emails from angry readers who object
to the ads – and for good reason.
Anyway, I'd really like to get the word out that (1) readers need to realize that sometimes the publishers of web sites don't
have total control over the ads that appear on their sites and (2) publishers should band together and put pressure on the ad
agencies to do a better job of reviewing potential advertisers and to give publishers the option to ban entire categories of
advertisers that have religious/political agendas. Just my two cents!
Thanks for all you're doing, by the way. I'm a great admirer of your work. Keep up the good fight!
Thank you, Editor Dan Hogan!
FAITH POLL IN BRITAIN
Reader Matthew Kleckner directs our attention to
newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=310&edition=1&ttl=20051114172724&#paginator. He tells us:
The BBC website has long solicited reader views on different issues. Previously their editorial staff would review reader
submissions and post to the website those that seemed sufficiently lucid. Now, the BBC posts all reader submissions, and
allows the readership to rank those considered "recommended." I was surprised and delighted to read the "Reader
Recommended" comments to this week's poll: “Is faith important in British society?” Here are some quick
snippets from the top eight responses, as recommended by the BBC's online readership, as of the time I write this email:
1. Now that people are educated, they can see that there is no real need to be religious... Coming from a country that
was once fundamentalist, and that is becoming secular, I can tell you that religion has been a great force of oppression
and misery for Irish people.
2. No religion comes close to being meaningful to an adult in this era, any more than the belief in Santa Claus or
Sponge Bob.
3. Religion is like an imaginary friend. Nice and useful when you're a child but when you grow up you move on to the
real world.
4. Organized religion has consistently held society and the sciences back over the years, and is still doing so today.
5. There is no rational reason why any individual should consider religious belief as being something which should
influence their life.
6. I have no faith and to be honest all the world's conflicts appear to be caused by various religions.
7. As Mark Twain said, “Faith is believing what you know ain't so.” I can see no virtue in
“faith” – what is needed is rational thought, and healthy skepticism.
8. I look forward to the time when we as humans are no longer ruled by our superstitions.
INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS
Reader Paul Walker-Bright, of Chicago, Illinois, offers us some follow-up on two items in last week's Commentary:
1. Regarding NASA's recent detection of light from some of the earliest stars in the universe
[www.randi.org/jr/200511/111105derek.html#i11] a great comment made by one of the scientists is this: "But he cautions
that 'even a minor blunder' in removing the other sources of infrared light – such as other galaxies or even dust in our
own solar system – 'might lead to a spurious result' and suggests other teams analyze Spitzer data using independent
methods to verify the result."
Here we see once again that most true scientists, unlike I.D.'ers, many (but by no means all) parapsychologists, Christian
Scientists, etc., are more than willing to admit that they might be wrong, and encourage others to verify their results. Well
done, NASA! I'll bet Pat Robertson (who just condemned the whole town of Dover, PA for voting out the school board that
approved ID) never admits to a "minor blunder" that "might lead to a spurious result."
2. In response to Mr. Cooper's outrage over not being allowed to give his friend in the Memphis Mental Health Institute
books by Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer [www.randi.org/jr/200511/111105derek.html#i10] there is an explanation which
certainly does not excuse the ignorance exhibited by the staff, but does cast it in a slightly more benign form. The desk
attendant may simply have decided that the books were inappropriate based solely on the titles of the two books (The
Demon-Haunted World and Why People Believe Weird Things). The references to "Demons" and "Weird Things" may have
been enough to spook the attendant. My guess would be that the attendant knew not a thing about the contents or the authors.
That might explain why the Palahniuk and Hawking books made it through (although why references to violent activities like
choking and fighting in clubs would be deemed appropriate is a bit of a mystery).
THE OMNITRON IS STILL WITH US
In 1987, dowser Dell Winders and I met on a Fort Lauderdale beach to test his “Omnitron” device –
a $3,495 wired-up dowsing rod setup that he was selling. I recently came upon the videotape of that session, which is
truncated at just over the 13-minute point, just before the actual test took place.
Mr. Winders, who advertises at
www.omnitron.net, claimed he could locate some gold coins he’d brought along, if
they – as a set – were to be randomly placed in one of ten holes on the beach. He came equipped with his
locator device, the dowsing rods, and the coins. He was also well-supplied with the trusty alibis with which dowsers
always prepare a shield against their inevitable failure. I’ll list those up ahead.
Now, I would certainly recall any dowser who had been successful. However, Winders now claims that in the test, he found
the coins eight out of twelve times, which would have been statistically very significant for that particular test protocol. He
also claims that I’ve denied that the test ever took place; no, I’ve said that no successful test of his device
took place, and though I quite possibly could not identify Winders by name among the literally hundreds of dowsers
I’ve tested, all over the world, I know for sure that none of them has ever succeeded. Surely, Mr. Winders would
have at least one person who can verify his version of that test, and I’ve invited him to provide us with that
information…
Winders also claims that the test was videoed by a television station, which may be correct, though I’ve no memory
of such involvement, at all. True, there was a crew recording the event, and I think that data I’ve recovered after
physically searching through two massive folders of papers under “dowsing,” may have the answer to that
situation. In late 1985, I find that I was corresponding with a chap who proposed doing a documentary to be titled,
“The Short End of the Stick: the Dowsers’ Dilemma.” The film was never made. Dell Winders was
mentioned in that correspondence, though I’ve found no specific mention there of the video session of which we have
a truncated tape. The would-be producer is now searching to find the original footage for me. That will establish the facts,
and I’ll let you know right here on the site.
Understand, this was before the JREF existed, and the prize I personally offered at that time was $10,000.
In any case, I don't see why Mr. Winders wouldn't want to apply again – this time for the million bucks. So, I wrote to
him via e-mail:
Mr. Winders: Back in 1987, when we met in Fort Lauderdale, the prize I offered for a successful performance of your
Omnitron device was only $10,000. Presently, that prize amounts to one million dollars, and the same rules apply. Since you
are still selling the Omnitron, it appears to be still working as you advertise, and you or anyone else – your
customers? – can win the million simply by doing a 30-minute test. Are you interested?
I ask you to examine this photo of the “amplifier” unit of Winders’ “Omnitron.” As
you see, there are six materials the user can be looking for: copper, silver, gold, lead, tin, and diamond. Note that my
Omnitron is set at the “diamond” position; I wouldn’t want to miss a stray diamond, now, would I?
Users choose the substance they want to home in on by dialing it up, then start waving their sticks about. Those metal sticks
are plugged into a small pocket unit that has a battery inside connected to a red LED. This circuit consists of a push-button
switch and a jack into which the sticks are plugged. Pressing the switch lights the LED, as does contacting the metal rods
with one another. Simply glued to the circuit board is a very weak composition magnet. No electrical connection, folks,
it’s just glued in there. Faith-based, I guess. Duh. The “amplifier” unit is located nearby, and somehow
there’s supposed to be a mystical connection between that unit and the rods. It’s all quite esoteric –
though the wiring inside looks as if an orangutan put it together with a glue-gun.
But the best part is the set of seven caveats that Winders offered us at that beach 18 years ago. Here they are, as promised:
1. While he was digging the holes in the sand with a huge auger: “They’re trying to wear me out!”
This is dropped in so that failure can be attributed to fatigue.
2. Looking at his watch: “We’re starting late in the day. I hope we don’t get interference!” A
standard. One variety of “interference” among many, starting late can doom any success for the Omnitron.
3. Asked about how deep the holes should be, for optimum Omnitron conditions: “I take them as they come. If it
works, it works. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work.” A general, all-purpose alibi.
4. Casually thrown in: “Only in Florida, we get interference. What causes it, I don’t know. Last time, it was
sun spots.” Mr. Winders lives in Haines City, Florida. Does that mean he always has these problems when he
operates the Omnitron? Or does it work better for him in New York? If and when we get to test him, we’ll go
wherever he wants to, of course.
5. Asked about optimal size of the substance sample: “I can’t differentiate between a speck and a ton!”
Oh-oh. Since there are bound to be “specks” of many substances around, that almost says that the Omnitron
will be spinning constantly….
6. What could result in failure? “If there are any problems, it will be me, not the equipment.” I see. Again, that
seems to say that if Dell isn’t up to scratch, and the test fails, the Omnitron is still an effective device.
7. We had plates placed over the holes to conceal whether the gold coins were in there, or not. “It could be the plates
that interfere.” Damn plates!
Well into the performance, my notes tell me, Dell Winders commented, “This morning, the conditions seemed to be
working alright, but now we’re getting interference.” You see, that’s the big problem with testing
dowsers: there so many things that can “interfere” with finding the target being sought. The list is endless.
Temperature, humidity, altitude or attitude, noises, atmospheric pressure, breezes, indigestion, footwear, radios or cell phones nearby, clouds, too much or too little sunlight, any sort of variance from the ideal situation – whatever that might be – is brought up as an excuse for failure.
In short, dowsing seems to be a fickle talent. In my opinion, it doesn’t exist at all. But the JREF has a million dollars ready to give Dell Winders – or anyone else! – who can make this dowsing rod – or any dowsing device – work as advertised. Anyone out there?
Hark! No, that was just someone tapping, someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door….
IN CLOSING….
Reader Jay Kiessling put up a Randi-bent-and-broken spoon on Ebay, and it fetched $76 from a buyer in Nottingham, Nottinghamshire! That’s more than 44 times what Geller’s spoon got! There were 13 bids, as opposed to only one for the Geller cutlery, too!
I gotta bend more spoons. It appears that there’s money in it!
Home | Commentary | Lectures | $1 Million Paranormal Challenge | Swift | Library | Donations | Contact | Internet Audio
Show
Join Now | Books & Videos for Sale | About the JREF | Randi's Calendar | Scholarships and Awards | Learning Resources |
Press Center
© 2005 James Randi Educational Foundation
Typos? Format Problems? Please contact the Webmaster
[*/QUOTE*]
