http://www.dbskeptic.com Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:54:54 +0000 en-us hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Digital Bits Skeptic brings skepticism and critical thinking to a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture. Andy Kaiser clean Andy Kaiser skeptic@dbskeptic.com skeptic@dbskeptic.com (Andy Kaiser) 2009 Skepticism and critical thinking in a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture skeptic, skepticism, critical thinking, new age, religion, pop culture, skeptical articles, critical thinking articles, philosophy http://www.dbskeptic.com/images/dbskeptic-logo-144.jpg http://www.dbskeptic.com/category/biology/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/06/facilitated-communication-and-rom-houben/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/06/facilitated-communication-and-rom-houben/#comments Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:57:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1683 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/06/facilitated-communication-and-rom-houben/feed/ 2 Sandra L Hubscher By Sandra L Hubscher Article ID: 1347 Editor’s note: The author submitted this article with the following private message. It’s important enough that, with the author’s permission, I’m posting it here: “I enjoyed writing this article in that I enjoy wr... By Sandra L Hubscher Article ID: 1347 Editor’s note: The author submitted this article with the following private message. It’s important enough that, with the author’s permission, I’m posting it here: “I enjoyed writing this article in that I enjoy writing, but other than that, really I hated it. The subject is so irredeemably sad, and filled with anguish for so many, that I wouldn't want to write something like this again anytime soon. It's hard to imagine facing these parents and telling them these things. I know they've probably all heard it before and none of them will likely take the time to read this, but even if they've been slapped a hundred times before by this information, the 101st isn't much lessened.” Update 03/02/2010: Months after the sensational news of Rom Houben’s ‘awakening’ via facilitated communication (FC) from a decades-long, traumatic brain injury-induced silence, there has come a retraction from his physician, Steven Laureys. After rigorous testing involving a number of facilitators and their clients, including Mr. Houben and his facilitator Linda Wouters, Dr. Laureys has declared: “We did not have all the facts before. To me, it's enough to say that this method [FC] doesn't work.” Three facilitators and their clients were involved in the testing, which was carried out by Dr. Laureys and others, including a Belgian skeptics group. In Mr. Houben’s case, he was shown or heard a list of 15 objects without his facilitator being present. When the facilitator was readmitted and Mr. Houben was asked to list the objects, there was not a single success. It is important to note, as Belgian Skeptics pointed out, that this was not a test of Mr. Houben, but rather of the method of communication others have imposed on him. Mr. Houben’s brain scans reveal activity very much like that of an uninjured brain and many, including Dr. Laureys, continue to have hope that they will find a method for him to reach out and ‘speak’ to the world. In November of 2009, a sensational story appeared out of Belgium: Rom Houben, a man who as a result of a catastrophic car accident had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than twenty years, was re-diagnosed as being fully conscious, indeed conscious for the whole twenty-plus years! Furthermore, he was now communicating to the world by typing on a large touch screen, giving words to the years of imprisonment in his own body. The story twinges our imagination wonderfully and terrifyingly - entrapment in plain sight, helplessness, rescue and reunion – hope to all of those in dire circumstances. Immediate to the story’s release, another narrative developed among skeptics – unwitting deceit and good intentions gone awry. While the diagnosis by Steven Laureys, Houben’s neurologist, is best left to fellow neurologists, the technique of facilitated communication, the method used on Houben to bring his ‘words’ out of him by typing, is a well-studied and understood phenomenon,  and is, unfortunately, a fraud. Facilitated communication, first developed in Australia in the 1970’s, has now spread worldwide and purportedly allows those with disorders like cerebral palsy, severe mental retardation, autism and others, to undertake the otherwise impossible task of communication. How does this work? A facilitator holds the hand or arm of the impaired person or client, supposedly giving the strength and steadiness necessary for the client to type with a single finger, one letter at a time. A video of Houben, including his facilitated communication, can be seen here: While it is possible that Houben’s facilitator is willfully perpetrating a heartless con, it is more likely in this case, and in all uses of facilitated communication, that the facilitator’s actions are attributable to the ideomotor effect. Familiar to anyone who’s seen a Ouija board in action, the ideomotor effect is defined as purposeful movement by a person not consciously aware of his movement. Andy Kaiser clean 8:59 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/#comments Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:20:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/feed/ 13 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1346 - I have just finished reading what is now one of my favorite books. At the time of this writing, it was published precisely 150 years ago. Ever since, it’s been a brilliant, revolutionary, and even dangerous work. By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1346 I have just finished reading what is now one of my favorite books. At the time of this writing, it was published precisely 150 years ago. Ever since, it’s been a brilliant, revolutionary, and even dangerous wo... Andy Kaiser clean 12:27 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/03/hidden-dangers-with-ibuprofin-motrin-and-flu-treatment/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/03/hidden-dangers-with-ibuprofin-motrin-and-flu-treatment/#comments Sun, 04 Oct 2009 02:46:08 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1548 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/03/hidden-dangers-with-ibuprofin-motrin-and-flu-treatment/feed/ 17 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1339 - Let me tell you about an adventure my family had a few weeks ago. I should also say that I'm not a doctor, and nothing you read here is official medical advice. This is my understanding of what happened in this specifi... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1339 Let me tell you about an adventure my family had a few weeks ago. I should also say that I'm not a doctor, and nothing you read here is official medical advice. This is my understanding of what happened in this specific case. I have to lead with this information because, while the story starts out fun, it ends in the hospital. My family went on vacation. Unfortunately, after just a few days, my daughter, Ally, got the flu. She's four years old, and this was a bad flu, the kind that really wipes you out. My wife and I had to take care of her full-time. We decided to ditch the vacation and come home, but not before stopping off at the local hospital to see if Ally was okay. And she was, the doctor told us. Just a standard flu. Keep her hydrated, wait it out, and she'll be fine soon. For controlling her fever, we also got a prescription for Motrin (that's a brand name ibuprofin used for fever and various aches and pains). On the ride home, I called Ally's pediatrician, and he agreed with the other doctor. But after five days, Ally was still wiped out. She hadn't eaten in that entire time. She couldn't eat anything without having to give it back within the hour. She could barely keep down water. The fever was gone. She just had continual nausea. While she was really weak, every once in a while she would move on her own. She'd burst into tears and say that her back hurt. She'd then flop around to change position, and that seemed to help. My wife and thought this was just because she'd been laying in that position for so long, her muscles were cramping up. I get backaches after sleeping the wrong way overnight - my daughter had been laying in the same position for almost a week. We brought Ally to her pediatrician's office, and were reassured that - again - it was just a regular flu. Then we found blood in Ally's urine. We drove to the emergency room. When we got to the E.R., the doctors, thankfully, were excellent. When we described all that had happened, one of the first things they said was, "We think she's having problems with her kidneys. Has she mentioned having any back pain?" That was one of those times where I felt like a complete failure as a parent. Yes, we said, she has complained of back pain. The doc was right: Ally was in the process of kidney failure. From there, they moved very quickly. I'll keep most of the details to myself because, well, I want them private. But here's one to give you an idea of what the parents and child had to go through: Ally went into surgery to have an IV inserted into her neck. Minutes after she woke up from the anesthesia, they started kidney dialysis. The neck IV was hooked up to a big machine that looked like a giant clothes washer. It took the blood out of her body, cleaned it, and put it back in. That was day nine. Nine days of no food, little water, bad sleep, the physical trauma of a bad flu and, as we found out, kidney failure. Luckily, that was the worst of it. Things turned around very shortly after the dialysis. It was just what her body needed, and having a machine clean her blood gave her kidneys a chance to recover. Things are fine now. The rest of the story is just recovery. After a week in the hospital's intensive care, we got to go home. Ally needed help walking again, but after a few wobbly trips to the hospital's children's activity room, she recovered with a speed I can only envy. We're now home and we're healthy. I told you the whole story so you can understand how we got to the point we did. I tell you this so you can prevent something similar from happening to someone you know. Remember earlier, when I mentioned that Ally was given Motrin for fever control? According to the kidney specialist, the Motrin was probably a contributing factor to Ally's kidney failure. Even if she had just one dose. Motrin, ibuprofin, asprin, and "NSAID" drugs Motrin, ibuprofin, asprin, Andy Kaiser clean 12:40 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/05/how-to-be-a-fakir/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/05/how-to-be-a-fakir/#comments Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:32:14 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1191 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/05/how-to-be-a-fakir/feed/ 3 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1329 - In a previous article, I covered "How to be a psychic", telling how to recreate common psychic supernatural abilities. But there are more important problems in the world. Not a politician's expense claims, but fakirs. By M Parrott Article ID: 1329 In a previous article, I covered "How to be a psychic", telling how to recreate common psychic supernatural abilities. But there are more important problems in the world. Not a politician's expense claims, but fakirs. Fakirs convert people to religions by performing supposed miracles that people assume would otherwise be dangerous or impossible. Before I begin: everything I describe here is dangerous and should not be attempted. If you hurt yourself or someone else with the techniques described here, it's not my fault, it's yours. I will describe how these things are done, and the science behind them, as much as I can. If you are so desperate to try these techniques, I can't stop you. But I did warn you. How to lay on a bed of nails As many of you know, this trick is where someone just lies on a bed, and the bed is made from hundreds or thousands of upturned, pointy, sharp and dangerous-looking nails. The performer takes a snooze, gets up, and is unpunctured. So the trick... actually, there is no trick. All that is needed is a real bed of nails. The nails must all be the same length. You need someone to lower you down so that your weight is evenly distributed over all the nails. You want your body to be pressing against as many nails as possible. Your weight being distributed means there is not enough pressure on any one nail to puncture the skin. When getting up from the bed of nails, make sure no extreme pressure is applied to any nail-covered area. There's a similar (and much safer) way to perform this trick with eggs instead of nails. You can lay out a bed of eggs so that the top of the eggs - the pointy part -  are all facing upwards. Then lay down carefully in the same manner as you would on a bed of nails. If you mess up, at least it's not painful. Just moist. How to perform snake flossing This is a trick where the fakir gets a snake, sucks it in through his nose and pulls it out of his mouth. How's it done? Well, you get a snake, suck it in through your nose and pull it out of your mouth. Any perceived "trick" is just due to human biology: right above your nostrils is the entrance to your nasal cavity. The nasal cavity connects to your throat near the same place your mouth connects to it. So the idea is you snort the snake in through your nose with sharp intakes of breath (I'd suggest tail first), grab it from deep inside your mouth and pull it through. Now obviously if you were stupid enough to not follow my earlier warning and are going to try this (which I thoroughly suggest you do not), don't start with a snake. A thread of 100% cotton (I emphasise cotton) is best. How to walk on broken glass In this trick, a bed of broken glass is laid out. The fakir walks across the bed of glass from one side to the other. At the end of the journey, the fakir shows his feet, and they're uncut by the shards of glass. This relies on a similar principle to the bed of nails - weight distribution. Your pressure is spread out over enough pieces of glass that you won't cut your feet. But there is another element to making sure this trick works. A lot of the glass shards will lay smooth side up - sharp edges will press against the ground, not against your foot - but this isn't always the case. So, when you put your foot down, you must move it slowly back and forth, helping the glass settle into the right distribution so that you can put your entire weight on that foot without getting hurt. Do not transfer pressure to that foot until you are absolutely certain you won't cut yourself. Then repeat the process. The idea is to take it slowly, for two reasons. One, you don't want to cut yourself. Two, the slower it is done the more pain the performer appears to be going through. In reality, any pain is caused by walking on the broken glass too fast. How to walk on hot coals - How to firewalk A bed of burning hot coals. A fakir in bare feet, Andy Kaiser clean 12:49 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/28/was-life-on-earth-an-alien-creation-a-critical-look-at-directed-panspermia/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/28/was-life-on-earth-an-alien-creation-a-critical-look-at-directed-panspermia/#comments Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:28:22 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1158 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/28/was-life-on-earth-an-alien-creation-a-critical-look-at-directed-panspermia/feed/ 0 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1328 - Life may have been the result of intelligent aliens sending bacterium to Earth. This theory is called "directed panspermia". It was proposed thirty-five years ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1328 Life may have been the result of intelligent aliens sending bacterium to Earth. This theory is called "directed panspermia". It was proposed thirty-five years ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, and Leslie Orgel, a highly respected British chemist. I found the original paper they published. Here I examine it and provide some comments[1]. A common objection to the theory that aliens brought life to Earth is the problem of infinite regress: If life on Earth was created by aliens, who created the aliens? And who created those creators? And so on. Crick and Orgel get around this problem by speculating that some planets may have chemical properties that make the origin of life much more probable than it is on Earth. Although it's not mentioned, I think it's possible that there are forms of life more likely to originate from non-living matter (and without the guidance of an intelligent designer). Citing the work of astronomer Carl Sagan, they conclude that life traveling on a meteor would probably be destroyed by radiation long before it would arrive at Earth. But what if an alien civilization designed a special radiation-proof microorganism-carrying ship? Then the "life-from-space" proposal would once again be plausible. In the paper, Crick and Orgel say, "[I]t is quite probable that planets not unlike the Earth existed as much as [6.5 billion years] before the formation of our own solar system." This allows life to originate, evolve and spread before Earth even existed. They go on with arguments supporting their theory: "Infective theories of the origins of terrestrial life could be taken more seriously if they explained aspects of biochemistry or biology that are otherwise difficult to understand. We do not have any strong arguments of this kind, but here are two weak facts that could be relevant. The chemical composition of living organisms must reflect to some extent the composition of the environment in which they evolved. Thus the presence in living organisms of elements that are extremely rare on the Earth might indicate that life is extraterrestrial in origin. Molybdenum is an essential trace element that plays an important role in many enzymatic reactions, while chromium and nickel are relatively unimportant in biochemistry. The abundance of chromium, nickel, and molybdenum on the Earth are 0.20%, 3.16%, and 0.02%, respectively. We cannot conclude anything from this single example, since molybdenum may be irreplaceable in some essential reaction - nitrogen fixation, for example. However, if it could be shown that the elements represented in terrestrial living organisms correlate closely with those that are abundant in some class of star - molybdenum stars, for example - we might look more sympathetically at 'infective' theories." Crick and Orgel's second argument for their theory is the genetic code. As you may know, the genetic code is universal[2]. It is the same in plants, animals, and bacteria. Crick and Orgel believed this means all life on Earth shares a common ancestor with a complete and fully developed genetic code[3]. They reasoned that if an alien civilization sent life to Earth, then it would have developed an organism with that same genetic code. On the other hand, if life originated naturally, the common ancestor of all living things may have simply had a primitive genetic code which coded for only a handful of amino acids (later on, this species would have split into several different lineages which had genetic codes that coded for more types of amino acids using the codons which originally did not code for anything). In this scenario, all life would have genetic similarities, but would also have significant differences. The moral of the story is that directed panspermia would show a universally shared genetic code. A non-panspermia origin could produce a single, universal genetic code, or many codes with significant similarities). Andy Kaiser clean 9:32 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/#comments Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:25:50 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1126 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/feed/ 7 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1326 - The ideomotor effect is a psychological accident that spans many new age traditions, séances, and other "woo-woo" practises. I must emphasise that these practises aren't faked intentionally. By M Parrott Article ID: 1326 The ideomotor effect is a psychological accident that spans many new age traditions, séances, and other "woo-woo" practises. I must emphasise that these practises aren't faked intentionally. People delude themselves into believing they are true. Examples of the ideomotor effect cover a wide range of supernatural games, from Victorian-era séances to examining the most harmoniously-vibrating new age crystal. The ideomotor effect and the Ouija board Ah, yes, one of the most popular séance tools! Today, Ouija boards are usually perceived more as a joke and a fun party game. We all know the basic principal and layout of the most common Ouija boards - you've got a flat board with letters of the alphabet printed on it: You've got a "planchette", which is a small pointing device that can be slid around the board. Participants put their hands on the planchette and concentrate on a particular problem, question or spirit communication. The planchette will then start to move towards particular letters or symbols on the Ouija board, giving you a response to your question. If you want to test this out as we go, it would be a great exercise and far superior to me just talking to you: 1) Get 26 small sheets of paper. Write the letters A-Z on the pieces. 2) Get a large table and remove any coverings (like tablecloths). 3) Place all the cards face up in a circle so it looks somewhat like the picture you see here. Candles are optional. 4) Get a strong wine glass (preferably one without wine inside). Turn it upside down and place it in the centre of the cards. And there you have a homemade Ouija board. The next steps work better if you have more than one person, however you can try it alone if you want to tempt the Powers of Darkness all by yourself. Turn one letter over so it's face down. Place two fingers on the wine glass. Concentrate. Focus on believing that the wine glass WILL definitely move towards that one letter turned upside down. Don't move your hand intentionally, but if the glass moves move with it. Keep concentrating. It will move if you concentrate. And it'll speed up towards the letter and when it gets there it will stop at the letter. Now that may not have worked for all of you, but it will have worked for some. I also apologise if the wine glass shot off the table and smashed. If so, that just means you are really easy to manipulate. Now you may be wondering how that worked and why the glass moved. You know for a fact you didn't move the glass. So how did it move? Through a genuine spirit! Nah, just messing with you. The movement happens because of the ideomotor effect. The ideomotor is the mechanism which makes your reflexes kick in when your knee is tapped gently with a doctor's hammer. But in this case what happens is, due to you focusing so much mental power on something, your body makes it physically happen. You may not think you are doing it, but you are, and the more you are convinced it is going to happen, the faster it happens. Which is why a Ouija board "works" better for people who use one more often. What evidence do I have for this? Easy: find a medium who will do the Ouija board blind-folded. Blindfold them, and then without telling them, turn the Ouija board around. As the "Ouijing" commences, the medium will move the planchette to the locations that they think the letters are, as if the board was rotated correctly. This shows the Ouija board is all in the user's mind, and that it isn't some spiritual communion. Ouija boards aren't the only evidence of the ideomotor effect in new age superstitions. Dowsing Dowsing is traditionally thought of as the process of finding underground water or oil using Y-shaped sticks or wire. To a large extent, this is the process. But dowsing has widened its spectrum of effect. A few years ago, I saw a dowser trying to find human remains on a British Archaeology programme called "Time Team". Andy Kaiser clean 11:07 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/24/evolution-the-genetic-code-and-message-theory-a-response-to-walter-remine/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/24/evolution-the-genetic-code-and-message-theory-a-response-to-walter-remine/#comments Mon, 25 May 2009 02:51:07 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1062 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/24/evolution-the-genetic-code-and-message-theory-a-response-to-walter-remine/feed/ 29 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1322 - [Editor's note: This article and its comments are here in entirety, but a continuing response by the author can be found at this link.] - This article is a response to a blog post at Uncommon Descent by Walter R... By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1322 [Editor's note: This article and its comments are here in entirety, but a continuing response by the author can be found at this link.] This article is a response to a blog post at Uncommon Descent by Walter Remine[1]. I will begin by quoting part of his essay: "Life is unified by an abundance of complex biochemical features possessed by all, or virtually all life. Such features are known as biologic universals. The list includes: DNA, RNA, a triplet-nucleotide genetic code, and the method of translation of the genetic code into sequences of amino-acids in proteins. Proteins constructed of left-handed alpha-bonded amino-acids, the same set of 20 amino-acids (out of several thousand amino-acids that exist). The lipid bilayer construction of cell membranes. Adenosine triphosphate, biotin, riboflavin, hemes, pyridoxin, vitamins K and B12, and folic acid implement metabolic processes everywhere. For a given complex trait, there are rare, very minor variations away from the standard form. For example, there is now known about two dozen microorganisms that have slight variations on the universal genetic code." I have no problem with this. I do have a problem with Remine's further comments: "Leading evolutionists acknowledge that each of the biologic universals is too complex to have been in the first life - nothing even remotely like known life could have originated by known natural processes aided by chance and the available time. The probability is staggeringly too small, even on the scale of the universe. This should have falsified evolution, but instead evolutionists compensated by making their theory unfalsifiable. That is, without any serious evidence, evolutionists now make three bold, untestable, unfalsifiable, unscientific assertions: 1.    There exists an infinitude (a very large number) of other biochemistries suitable for life. Evolutionists make this unscientific assertion in order to artificially increase the likelihood of life arising by chance. Evolutionists acknowledge the chance origin of any known lifeform is vastly too unlikely, but they claim the chance origin of some lifeform (when allowing for the infinitude of other possible lifeforms) is quite likely. They say there is nothing 'special' about Earthly lifeforms, instead life just happened by chance upon the type of life we see on Earth. 2.    The first lifeforms were vastly simpler than any life known today. The first lifeforms possessed essentially none of the biologic universals. 3.    Many evolutionists further assert that life may have originated more than once on Earth, perhaps many times." The first life by definition would have to have structures to perform things like replication, metabolic processes, etc. Although it is theoretically possible for something to reproduce, and break down energy without having the specific structures that our type of life does, if all life is descended from one primordial organism then the structures performing these functions could not have changed much as we'll discuss further on. As for Remine's allegation that evolutionists make "three unscientific assertions": I would love to see a source for point 1 - "There exists an infinitude of other biochemistries suitable for life", as I have never heard any evolutionist say anything like that. Point 2 - "The first lifeforms were vastly simpler than any life known today" - is false because the first life form would have had several of the biologic universals, as I will explain later. As for point 3 - "Life may have originated more than once on Earth" - it is a possibility that life originated multiple times, but I know of no one who insists that this is the case. Once again, no source is cited. Remine says: "With those assertions in mind, if evolution predicts anything clearly on this matter, it predicts the opposite of what we observe - it predicts that countless lifeforms lacking all, or most, Andy Kaiser clean 17:46 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/#comments Mon, 11 May 2009 02:07:30 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1002 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/feed/ 9 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1320 - The news lately has been buzzing about the swine flu. Excuse me, I mean the "H1N1 virus". Or the "2009 H1N1 influenza virus". Or the "H1N1 swine flu". - You know what? I'm going to forego the medical designation and ju... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1320 The news lately has been buzzing about the swine flu. Excuse me, I mean the "H1N1 virus". Or the "2009 H1N1 influenza virus". Or the "H1N1 swine flu". You know what? I'm going to forego the medical designation and... Andy Kaiser clean 15:22 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/03/anti-depressants-and-the-placebo-effect/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/03/anti-depressants-and-the-placebo-effect/#comments Mon, 04 May 2009 02:09:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=988 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/03/anti-depressants-and-the-placebo-effect/feed/ 15 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1319 - It's a growing trend to believe that a pill can cure anything. Any aches, any pains, any sores. It's a big reason why people are still looking for a pill to make you thin. While I think we have become far too reliant on ... By M Parrott Article ID: 1319 It's a growing trend to believe that a pill can cure anything. Any aches, any pains, any sores. It's a big reason why people are still looking for a pill to make you thin. While I think we have become far too reliant on pills, I'm not saying to scrap all drugs. They save lives, they save the economy money and they stop your pain. However, there is a specific type of drug that I have a problem with - the anti-psychotic. Or, to be even more specific, the anti-depressant. There are at least seventy-three anti-depressants on the market. For something that is supposed to "cure" depression, that's a lot of drugs. Let me explain where this idea comes from, that a drug will cure a psychological disorder. It relies upon a theory called the "monoamine hypothesis". This theory suggests that depression is caused by low levels of three neuro-chemicals from a group called monoamine neurotransmitters in the central nervous system. In bi-polar patients, the subject's levels of monoamine neuro-chemicals will fluctuate depending on whether they are in a depressed or manic state (low levels for depression, high for mania). What evidence do we have for this effect? Urine. No, honestly, urine. When studying the urine of people with depression we find they have low levels of by-products of dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin. Autopsies show that those who commit suicide have these same low levels. It therefore seems plausible that depression is caused by low levels of the three neuro-transmitters. However, correlation does not equal causation: there are no ill effects when artificially inducing low-levels of these three neuro-chemicals. The participants do not become depressed. This suggests that low-levels of serotonin, noradrenalin and dopamine do not cause depression. If this is the case, then the whole idea of anti-depressant drugs is a fallacy. What about the drugs themselves? Proponents of the monoamine hypothesis argue that anti-depressants work, therefore proving that the theory is correct. However, this justification by circular reasoning doesn't fly. More on that later. Let me first outline what anti-depressants are. There are four main types; SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitors), MAOIs (monoamine oxidase inhibitors), SNRIs (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) and TCAs (tricyclic antidepressants). Medical doctor Arif Khan (1979-1999) tested the effectiveness of three substances; Sertraline hydrochloride (an SSRI), St John's Wort (a plant from which most anti-depressants are made) and sugar pills (a placebo). The effectiveness test came back with a surprising result: sertraline hydrochloride was effective 25% of the time, St John's Wort was at 24% and sugar pills were at 35%. Actual anti-depressant drugs were less effective than a placebo. That's depressing. More research supporting these results is by Professor Irving Kirsch et al. (1998, 2002 and 2008), who showed that anti-depressants do not have enough statistical significance in comparison to placebos. Another point is that TCAs are also used to treat ADHD. You should treat ADHD with depressants, and yet TCAs - anti-depressants - are used to treat depression. I question any group of drugs used as depressants and anti-depressants at the same time. After studying these drugs and the monoamine hypothesis, it appears that the lack of serotonin, noradrenalin and dopamine is a psychological disorder manifesting itself in a physiological symptom. For example, we don't say that Tourette syndrome is caused by sudden inappropriate language, but that Tourette syndrome causes the inappropriate statements. Some argue that if anti-depressant drugs are placebos, at least they seem to do something. This is not a good plan. We should instead pursue other treatments for depression, rather than assuming one little tablet can cure such a complex thing as a psychological disorder. Andy Kaiser clean 6:47 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/19/the-drake-equation/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/19/the-drake-equation/#comments Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:06:03 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=955 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/19/the-drake-equation/feed/ 15 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1317 - I'm about to prove to you that aliens exist. I'm talking space aliens. Whether they're the traditional Little Green Men, bug-eyed monsters, or something incomprehensible to the human mind, they exist, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1317 I'm about to prove to you that aliens exist. I'm talking space aliens. Whether they're the traditional Little Green Men, bug-eyed monsters, or something incomprehensible to the human mind, they exist, they're intelligent, and they're trying to find us. I'm going to prove this to you by using the most powerful tool on Earth: mathematics. Ready? Here we go: The number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy Our planet Earth resides comfortably in the Milky Way galaxy, a pinwheel-shaped collection of at least 200 billion stars. You know how our sun is just ONE star? Give it 200 billion friends. That's 200,000,000,000. At the time of this writing, this is roughly thirty times the number of humans living right now on this planet. Personally, I can't even visualize a number that high. Again, that's why we're using math - even if we can't see it or fathom it, we can represent it and come up with meaningful answers. So, we have 200 billion stars. We know this number fluctuates - new stars form and die. Astronomers think that the birth rate of stars in the Milky Way galaxy is roughly one star per year. The percentage of stars that have planets Next, let's look at all those stars. How many have planets around them? They're hard to see, but we're sniffing them out. NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory tell us we've so far found hundreds of "extrasolar planets".  As of April 2009, the count was at 344. Some astronomers think at least fifty percent of all stars have planets! We'll be more conservative. Let's cut the ratio in half, and estimate twenty-five percent of all stars have a planet. The number of "Goldilocks planets" per star Now look at the planets spinning around all those stars. Of those planets, how many (per star) are capable of sustaining life? Such habitable places are sometimes humorously called "Goldilocks planets", meaning that conditions for life (as we know it) are not too cold, not too hot, but just right. In our own solar system, we have an idea of this number. Earth is such a planet. As we explore further, we may find that other places in our solar system are also "just right". Or say you have a solar system with a Venus-like planet, where the greenhouse effect has escalated beyond control and turned the planet into an acidic-raining wasteland which is hot enough to melt lead. Take that hellish planet and move it away from the sun. Get it out far enough and you'll find a sweet spot, where the planet is warm enough (thanks to the greenhouse effect), but not so hot it kills everything on the surface. There are endless possibilities and plenty of conjecture as to the number of habitable planets per star. For now, let's use the number as dictated by our only example, ourselves: let's assume that of the stars which have planets, one planet is capable of supporting life in some form. The fraction of planets where life evolves This leads us to a conversation about life itself: on planets capable of sustaining life, what are the chances that life exists? Some biologists think that if life can exist somewhere, it will. Their opinion is bolstered by so-called "extremophiles" - Earth-based life that has adapted to some truly nasty conditions. Extremophiles can exist without sunlight, or under massive pressure, or bombarded by amounts of radiation that would make The Incredible Hulk blush. With evidence here on our planet, this is why many suggest that if life can exist somewhere, it will. Others say that getting to that point - the point where life begins - is very difficult. We know it's possible, of course, because I'm writing this and you, my fellow human, are reading it. But let's err on the side of caution. Let's say that on life-capable planets, only one percent of those will harbor living beings. The fraction of life evolving into intelligent life So we've got a lot of stars. They have a lot of planets. Andy Kaiser clean 13:50 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/05/sugar-acid-and-teeth/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/05/sugar-acid-and-teeth/#comments Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:24:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=922 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/05/sugar-acid-and-teeth/feed/ 25 Andy Kaiser,Diane Johnson By Andy Kaiser Expert analysis by Diane Johnson Article ID: 1315 - I like to multitask. When I listen to other podcasts, I'm not simply staring at my computer speaker or glazing over as my headphones talk to me. I do other things. I browse the web. By Andy Kaiser Expert analysis by Diane Johnson Article ID: 1315 I like to multitask. When I listen to other podcasts, I'm not simply staring at my computer speaker or glazing over as my headphones talk to me. I do other things. I browse the web. I drive my car. I may eat, and, as what logically follows, drink. And it's that last one - drinking - that's today's topic. I'm a member of the Skeptoid mailing list. (Skeptoid is a podcast created by Brian Dunning. For those who aren't aware of it, I strongly recommend you check it out.) There was an interesting discussion on the mailing list. This assertion appeared: "Diet Pepsi is okay [in terms of overall health], but Diet Coke is bad." As we discussed the issue, others brought up a point: What about tooth decay and really sugary soda pop, like Coke and Pepsi? We know that pop is acidic. It's probably bad for your teeth. And it's loaded with sugar, which contributes to tooth decay. A dentist chimed in to the conversation, saying that in her experience, Mountain Dew is absolutely the worst drink in terms of tooth decay. In her practice, this seems to be the drink of choice for those with enamel wear and decay. But correlation, as they say, does not imply causation: just because two things appear related doesn't mean one thing caused the other thing. So the questions remained: What drinks are the worst for your teeth? Instead of using guesses and personal anecdotes, is there a way to objectively measure how bad a drink is for your teeth? Before we continue, I'll ask you this question, and we'll answer it later on in this article. Think about your answer, and see if it matches my test results. Here's the question: What type of drink do you think is the worst for your teeth? Your choices include pop, coffee, juice, milk, tea, sports drinks and yes, alcohol, including various beers, wines and liquors. After you pick the genre of liquid, can you pick the type or even brand? For example, we've already stated pop is bad for your teeth. Do you agree with the previous Mountain Dew assessment? What about Coke products? Or Pepsi versus Cherry Pepsi? And are all these really worse than milk, juice or alcohol? Think about your answer. I'll have the results for you soon. That's the intent of this article, to find a way to rate the "badness" of drinks in terms of tooth decay. So I ran to the store and purchased dozens of popular drinks. Juices, pop, coffee drinks, sports drinks, milk and a variety of alcohol. I then ran home, eager to test all these liquids. And... I realized I had no idea what to do next. This is where it helps to know people who are smarter then you. The doctor I mentioned earlier is Dr. Diane Johnson, DDS. Johnson is full-time practicing orthodontist and has been in private practice since 1986. Her undergraduate degree is a BS in Biomedical Engineering from Northwestern University, her DDS is from Northwestern University Dental School, and her MS is in Orthodontics from the University of Illinois. She reviews for the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Dr. Johnson says: "We deal with the harmful effects of dietary choices every day, and since the largest part of our patient population is teenagers, we see a lot of pop consumption. ...my first bit of advice would be to never drink pop! You'll probably have headaches for 2-3 days while you are withdrawing from the caffeine. Yes, caffeine is extremely physically addictive; one of the ways - like nicotine in cigarettes - that companies make sure you come back for more of their product. To mitigate the effects of pop consumption, only consume it with meals.  Brush soon after eating or drinking anything besides water (including milk or juices). Chewing gum with xylitol will inhibit plaque bacteria (Trident makes one, but you have to look specifically for the one with xylitol).  This will help with the sugar part, Andy Kaiser clean 17:06 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/#comments Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:50:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=894 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/feed/ 12 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1313 - Hi everyone, this is Andy Kaiser. I'd like to share an interesting experience. I have a unique perspective on the Digital Bits Skeptic website, because I'm the administrator. I edit and post all articles. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1313 Hi everyone, this is Andy Kaiser. I'd like to share an interesting experience. I have a unique perspective on the Digital Bits Skeptic website, because I'm the administrator. I edit and post all articles. Some of those I write myself, and my articles interest me, no matter how odd they may seem to others. I also get to see all comments submitted by visitors. This gives me a very good feel for the readership. For the most part, Digital Bits Skeptic has... well, skeptical-minded readers. These are women and men with excellent critical thinking skills, people who enjoy weird and interesting puzzles, people who want to attack logical anomalies and find out why and how. Several months ago, I wrote and posted an article about "human static electricity generators". I wrote it for laughs, and poked fun at a pseudoscientific claim that didn't even take itself seriously. This was the case of Mavis Price, and an interview she gave to the UK newspaper the Daily Mail. Ms. Price is a woman whose body supposedly generates a massive amount of static electricity. Like a high-voltage ninja, this power gives her a "death-touch" to any electrical appliance. Computers and vacuum cleaners and television sets have all fallen victim to this static buildup. So I wrote a critical article about this, poking fun at the situation and offering many suggestions as to why Ms. Price may be misinterpreting her symptoms. And the strangest thing happened: the article received a few comments, as the articles usually do, but these comments were different. They were from people chiming in to support Ms. Price. Starting with comment number three, many of these people claimed they could generate their own static electricity, and, like Ms. Price, expressed their frustration at how this power is irritating and interferes with their daily life. Here are a few comments: Kathleen said, "A friend of mine is a psychologist and he used his galvanic skin resistance test machine on me and had never seen anything like what I made that machine do." Mac said, "But these days it's worse - metal shocks me, other people, plastic yes plastic..cloth...wood...i am freakin afraid to touch anything...i mean these are mean crackling visible shocks mini blue bolts or electricity...don't get me wrong if i could control it would be cool but i can't..." Brook said, "I am 37, and have purchased 26 VCR/DVD players in the last 48 months, I have shocked people on the other end of a phone line, and in the dark if I get close to a light switch you can visibly see the arc from my finger tip to the light switch before I touch it. I dim streetlights when I walk below them, and haven't been able to wear a watch since I was 13. It is real, it is financially cumbersome, and it freaks people out. Yes, I am using a computer to type this message, I've learned first to ground myself before touching any electrical equipment, and second it doesn't happen all of the time, it seems more common when I am angry, or deep in thought etc. I just wanted to respond because there are many people that are different in the world, this is just another (dis)ability." Other skeptics and I replied. We gave recommendations for properly testing this power, how to rule out natural causes, and indicated what a supernatural cause would imply. I contacted James Randi, and asked him if he'd encountered this phenomenon. Of course he had. His response was, "Yes, I've seen a few of them. Simply changing their footwear always 'cures' the problem." A simple proposal. But as the conversation extended into several dozen comments, I realized something: Those complaining about this ability didn't seem to care enough to troubleshoot it. And that's the real problem. If you think you have a static super-power, I'm begging you: please see a doctor. If the doctor does a test and says, "My god, I've never seen anything like this before!" ...don't just end it there! Andy Kaiser clean 6:58 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/08/bless-me-father-for-i-have-sneezed/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/08/bless-me-father-for-i-have-sneezed/#comments Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:00:01 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=773 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/08/bless-me-father-for-i-have-sneezed/feed/ 13 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1311 - - "Oh, excuse me." - ...and that's all that should have to happen. - Yet, in the United States, if I sneeze, someone around me will inevitably say, "God bless you." Sometimes they leave out the "god", By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1311 "Oh, excuse me." ...and that's all that should have to happen. Yet, in the United States, if I sneeze, someone around me will inevitably say, "God bless you." Sometimes they leave out the "god", and you get the more concise and cooler, "bless you". I'd like to know: what exactly have I done to warrant such compassion? ...Or is it contempt? Why do I need to be blessed? Why do people say "God bless you" after a sneeze? A sneeze is often caused because I've got something up my nose and my body wants it out. So I get a funny twitching in my sniffer, I take a quick breath, and an explosive blast of air shoots out my nostrils. Disgusting? Maybe. But it's a normal human bodily function. So therefore, why am I not blessed for passing gas? Seems to me that breaking wind or cutting the cheese - or whatever euphemism you want for the expulsion of flatulence - is just as required and is usually as involuntary as a sneeze. Now, there are problems with blessing someone who's passed gas, since if you bless me, you've just incriminated yourself. After all, as we all learned in preschool, "he who first detected it, ejected it". And "the next person who speaks" is indeed "the person who reeks". At least with sneezing, it's obvious who committed the act. So we have the aforementioned "God bless you". What does this mean? Why the blessing? Why is this so necessary? I know several people who aren't particularly religious, and they'll casually throw out a blessing after every sneeze. I know several people who are very religious, and after a sneeze they'll race to see who can first bless the sneezer, like some kind of covert religious competition. The history of blessing after the sneeze is a little murky, like looking at history through the veil of a few layers of tissue. There are many possible causes why we bless someone after a sneeze. Here are several possibilities: A common belief about sneezing is that during a sneeze, the heart skips a beat or even temporarily stops. The blessing was meant to insure that the heart continued beating normally. In reality, the heart isn't affected by a sneeze. Some used to believe that when a spiritual soul inhabited one's body, that person was healthy. Sickness was caused by problems with the soul, or from the soul leaving the body. It stands to reason that a powerful enough sneeze could rocket the soul outside of a person's body. When this happened, bad spirits or demons could enter, and cause disease. So saying "bless you" was a ward against evil disease-spirits, preventing them from entering your body while the soul was temporary out to lunch. Another common origin of sneeze-blessing started around 590 AD, at the time of the European Great Plague. People noticed that sneezing led to illness, and at the time, that often lead to a horrible death. If you sneezed, you needed a blessing, pronto. So what's the point of this article? Why do we care about the origin of saying "bless you" after a sneeze? The answer lies in an examination of tradition and the amazing longevity of some superstitions. Many people do bless others after a sneeze. The majority of blessers probably don't intend to officially bless someone after such an event. After I sneeze, I've never had anyone frantically whip holy water at me. When I go to my doctor, he takes my temperature and gives me some pills. If blessing a disease worked, he'd instead have me kneel while he anointed me with oils and Latin incantations. People say the words because, well, that's what you say when someone sneezes. And so the tradition continues, trudging along with its ever-growing burden of unneeded Things To Do In A Given Situation. Given the length of time sneeze-blessing has been in our culture, it makes me wonder: how many other aspects of our society are pointless, and persist only because of an unneeded, long-outdated belief? The next time I sneeze, Andy Kaiser clean 6:52 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/#comments Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:42:55 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=761 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/feed/ 11 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1310 - Imagine you're sitting at home on your favorite overstuffed armchair. You sink down in the stuffing and relax. You've got a cigarette in one hand, a drink in the other. - You smoke and drink. You're sleepy, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1310 Imagine you're sitting at home on your favorite overstuffed armchair. You sink down in the stuffing and relax. You've got a cigarette in one hand, a drink in the other. You smoke and drink. You're sleepy, and the lazy trail of cigarette smoke is a gentle hypnosis. It lulls you into closing your eyes. Your brain decides it would rather be dreaming, and the rest of your body agrees. You go to sleep. You never again wake up. After your hysterical neighbor calls emergency services, the police break in to your home and find a gruesome and unbelievable sight. Your body is burned. Clothing, flesh and bones. It's gone. All that's left of you is a foot still wearing a slipper. Your chair is nothing but black cinders. But what's so perplexing, so frightening, is that there is no other damage to the room. Your body and your chair were destroyed, incinerated. But despite the horrible heat and flame needed to accomplish this, the fire never spread beyond, well, you. This wasn't caused by an electrical problem, and there was no highly-combustible fuel like gasoline. The fire was brutally hot, and burned fast, so couldn't have been caused by a dropped cigarette. And in either case, the pain of being burned would have woken you up before killing you. This is the mystery of spontaneous human combustion. While I've used a little poetic license in the story above, it really did happen. These were the facts of what could be the most famous case of spontaneous human combustion, that of Mary Reeser, who died in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1951. Proponents of spontaneous human combustion point to several possible explanations. Humans can suddenly explode into flame, they say, because of things like excessive static electricity build-up. Get a big enough zap, and you'll spark a fire. There are indeed people who get more than the average amount of static shocks. And every human gut carries around a quantity of methane gas. This highly flammable gas is one of the byproducts of digestion. Perhaps certain unlucky people - those with more than average methane and a higher incidence of static shocks - are more likely to burst into flame without warning. If you were looking for a reason to stop smoking, I can't think of any better incentive. Luckily for those of us who haven't yet combusted, things make more sense when we look at spontaneous human combustion from a skeptical point of view. In order for a human body - or anything - to burst into flame, we need three things: 1) Fuel 2) Heat 3) Oxygen Let's examine the Mary Reeser case. We have oxygen, of course: The air we breathe is about 21% oxygen. We have heat: Reeser's lit cigarette. And we have a limited fuel source: Reeser's chair. What I haven't yet detailed beyond the opening story are a few additional facts about Mary Reeser: She was overweight. At the time of the accident, she was wearing flammable nightclothes. She had also just taken multiple doses of sleeping pills. The floors and walls of her apartment were made of concrete. The wick effect I said the chair is a "limited" fuel source because stuffing and wood are probably not enough to produce a bone-incinerating heat all on their own. To achieve this, we consider "the wick effect". This is where the fat in a body contributes to a fire. As the fire heats a body, the fat will melt and begin to burn. Just as a cotton wick will pull molten wax from a candle and burn it, cotton stuffing in a chair will do the same thing with human body fat of a person sitting in that chair. Like Mary Reeser. With the addition of these facts, the sequence of events becomes ever clearer: Mary Reeser fell asleep in her chair. Her lit cigarette dropped and ignited her nightgown or her chair. The material burned, and Reeser did not wake in time (or at all) because of her recently-ingested sleeping pills. The fat in her body liquefied and burned, Andy Kaiser clean 8:21 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/08/the-skinny-on-the-body-mass-index-bmi/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/08/the-skinny-on-the-body-mass-index-bmi/#comments Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:00:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=695 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/08/the-skinny-on-the-body-mass-index-bmi/feed/ 5 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 137 - Round up a group of ten-year-old children. Put each one on a scale. One third of those children are overweight. Expand your view, and you'll see that 23% of school children are overweight. So says the British government. By M Parrott Article ID: 137 Round up a group of ten-year-old children. Put each one on a scale. One third of those children are overweight. Expand your view, and you'll see that 23% of school children are overweight. So says the British government. They also state that within four years, one out of three adults will be overweight. I'm not sure if this scare trend is common across all cultures, but let me tell you now it is bull. The problem here is that to make these weighty judgements, the government uses the Body Mass Index (also known as the BMI) which is so innately flawed that you might as well flip a coin on whether someone is obese or not. What is the BMI (Body Mass Index)? Let's start with the BMI's origin. A Belgian mathematician and sociologist named Adolphe Quetelet created the Body Mass Index between 1830 and 1850. He did this as a way to compare a person's height with their weight. This technique was originally meant to aid in social science education, and wasn't intended to determine obesity levels. BMI was not meant for medical diagnosis. So how can we use it to see if people are obese? If we're analyzing a specific individual, we can't! At least, not reliably. Let's consider the problem with using weight as an obesity measurement. You might be thinking, "well, of course your weight determines if you're obese." Not really. Muscle and bone density play a big part. Compare equal amounts of muscle and fat, and you'll find the muscle weighs a lot more, at least four times more than fat. So a BMI label for someone with no fat but a lot of muscle will be obese. For example, Michael Jordan is obese according to the BMI and I guarantee he is a lot more fit than anyone reading this. I'm normal weight and Jordan is certainly in better shape than I. So here it is; if athletes are classed as obese then how can we possibly apply this formula to anyone? How can the BMI tell us if we are obese or not? (Yes, we can take additional factors into account like diet and exercise, but the BMI doesn't do that.) One of the key measurements of the Body Mass Index is weight. But weight isn't even an accurate measurement of how healthy you are. Some health fanatics and personal trainers will tell you that there are no genetic factors behind being fat, but this is far from true. Consider the variation in ethnicities. Look at Viking descendents and Greek descendents and you'll see a vast difference in structure. Those of Viking descendents are often higher than average weight; they have a larger bone structure. Greek descendents have a thinner bone structure and are in comparison generally lighter. So back to the BMI: why is one formula applied to everyone of every ethnicity if different ethnicities are genetically pre-disposed to be different weights? If you'd like to see how morbidly obese you are - or are not - see this BMI calculator from the Center for Disease Control. Diet and exercise are good for you. If you eat right you will be your natural, healthy weight. Yes, the BMI may label you as obese or over-weight. But so what? That's the weight at which your body is healthiest. Another detrimental part of the BMI is the social aspect. No matter what you look like, no matter how thin, fat, muscular, dimple-ridden, smooth skinned, pot holed or deformed: you're still a good-looking piece of humanity. It doesn't matter if you are the image of a greater being or the creation of self-directed chance. Humanity is a beautiful race. Live life however you want to live it. Don't be bullied by anyone, especially the government or media, on how you should look. It's your life; it's your choice. Andy Kaiser clean 6:35 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/10/getting-dirty-with-bacteria-panic-and-unjustified-sterilization/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/10/getting-dirty-with-bacteria-panic-and-unjustified-sterilization/#comments Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:16:27 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=608 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/10/getting-dirty-with-bacteria-panic-and-unjustified-sterilization/feed/ 4 David Annis By David Annis Article ID: 132 - Recently I was watching The Today Show.  During one segment, they cultured swabs from what looked like clean kitchens and bathrooms.  I watched as they swabbed sinks, microwave ovens, and toilets. By David Annis Article ID: 132 Recently I was watching The Today Show.  During one segment, they cultured swabs from what looked like clean kitchens and bathrooms.  I watched as they swabbed sinks, microwave ovens, and toilets.  Imagine my shock when they found all sorts of bacteria.  I was even more horrified when I found out that the kitchen was the worst offender, both in their specific example and in the rest of the world. Horrified, I rushed home and began researching what I needed to do to protect myself.  A little research on the web revealed a study that found "nearly half of all kitchen sinks harbor high levels of potentially dangerous bacteria."  My house is dirtier than most as a result of three young boys that have priorities other than cleanliness.  Convinced that we were doomed, I ran to my car so that I could shop for Lysol, Clorox, and an autoclave. As I drove I began to have misgivings.  To protect myself from dangerous, potentially disease-causing bacteria I'd need to either stop kissing my wife or simply sterilize her mouth.  I knew this was true because we once plated our breath to settle a bet.  She's got bacteria in her mouth.  (As an aside, I can assure you with a high level of certainty that calling your future wife "dog breath" is far more dangerous than giving her a kiss, despite my study having an N of only 1.) The study of bacteria in homes was sponsored by Lysol ® brand products, makers of cleaners and disinfectants.  Now there is a funder with a financial interest in the study's outcome.  I also realized that if nearly 90% of sponges and 48% of sinks are swarming with bacteria, we should all be sick and dying or those bacteria rarely cause harm. Nevertheless, I was determined to try to make my house bacteria free.  I knew that NASA scrubbed spacecraft free of all life before sending them off to Mars, lest we find that life on Mars was only a bacterial contaminant brought by Earthly spacecraft.  Perhaps I could use their methods.  Unfortunately, a New York Times article that I read not long ago began "Researchers have found a surprising diversity of hardy bacteria in a seemingly unlikely place - the so-called sterile clean rooms where NASA assembles its spacecraft and prepares them for launching." So, it looks like I will not achieve a sterile environment in my kitchen, whether or not I use Lysol ® products.  In fact, I found that if the hygiene hypothesis is correct and increased exposure to "infectious agents, symbiotic microorganisms (e.g. gut flora), and parasites" helps a child's immune system, then providing a sterile environment for my kids would be detrimental to their health. There has also been concern about the use of anti-bacterial products in the home contributing to the development of drug resistant organisms though at least one study found no effect over a period of one year. Don't get me wrong, I recognize that food-related illness is a serious problem, causing about 76 million illnesses a year in the U.S.   Bacteria can and do cause disease, but consider the numbers we're dealing with: You yourself have more bacteria in your body than you do human cells.  I'll wash my hands and my sink. But I refuse to lie awake at night, frightened by the fact that neither my hands nor my sink will ever be sterile. Andy Kaiser clean 5:38 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/#comments Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:28:33 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=530 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1265 - "Puppies." Even the word is cute. With just a few very oddball exceptions, you'd agree with me that puppies are adorable. But at what point do people stop using the term "man's best friend", By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1265 "Puppies." Even the word is cute. With just a few very oddball exceptions, you'd agree with me that puppies are adorable. But at what point do people stop using the term "man's best friend", and start saying "pass the salt"? I'm talking about the inherent differences between humans and every other animal on the planet. After all, as the smart, tool-using, big-brained creatures we are, do we not have an imperative to nurture and care for all the other animals on the planet? No. Not when animal rights are compared to humankind's safety, science or even hunger. In my own country - the United States - eating dog meat is considered taboo. We're just too emotionally close to our pets. Elsewhere, dogs are eaten and bred as a food supply: this occurs in China, Indonesia, Korea and Vietnam. Other countries eat dog meat more covertly, in more remote locations, or are used as a food supply in times of famine. These countries include France, Germany, India, Nigeria, the Philippines, Switzerland, and near the Arctic and Antarctic. In times of desperation, the competition for life becomes a free-for-all. Stories like Jack London's "To Build a Fire" are understandable - if a man is freezing to death, of course he'll kill his trusty dog for its body heat. If a man is starving, he'll feed himself with whatever's available. This desire for life is so strong it's even visible between humans. For those who have sung and danced through the black comedy, "Cannibal: The Musical" or the 1993 movie "Alive", we know that people in extreme situations will ignore the most fundamental of taboos to stay living. Life or death situations are pretty easy to argue. But throw in some ambiguity and it gets tricky. When immediate death isn't part of the equation, at what point is it morally acceptable to kill an animal? I argue that it's allowed under these two situations: 1) It's morally acceptable for humans to eat most animals. We are omnivores. We are designed to eat meat, and we get certain nutrition from meat we can't easily get from other sources. 2) It's morally acceptable for humans to perform research and testing on animals if that effort has a chance of saving or improving human lives. Animal testing to further our scientific knowledge is an imperative. We would advance slower or not at all without animal testing, because the alternative with today's technology would be to test on humans. Even as I write these words, I don't like them. I believe they are true, but I don't enjoy having to pick what is clearly a lesser of two evils. However, I'm confident in the above because of this premise: All else being equal, any human life is worth more than any animal life. This idea may in fact be at the core of every animal rights issue. If someone has to suffer and die so that humans don't have to, then the animal must take this terrible burden. Why? Because someone has to - we don't yet have the technology to do otherwise. If we are altruistic to animals, humanity would suffer. In a rather brutal summary of the above themes, we end with this quote by comedian Nick Dipaolo: "If hooking a car battery up to a monkey's brain will help find the cure for AIDS and save somebody's life, I have two things to say... the red is positive and the black is negative." Andy Kaiser clean 5:58 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/#comments Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:54:59 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=383 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/feed/ 10 Thomas Gentry By Thomas Gentry Article ID: 1254 - Right down the road from my house, there's a store selling and promoting homeopathy and acupuncture. I've spent a couple dozen hours collecting information about the place and what it sells so that I can give an accu... By Thomas Gentry Article ID: 1254 Right down the road from my house, there's a store selling and promoting homeopathy and acupuncture. I've spent a couple dozen hours collecting information about the place and what it sells so that I can give an accurate depiction of its beliefs and worth. In the next few paragraphs I'll expound on why this alternative modality of medicine is another case of people taking money for a service they can't render. I'll use text from their own website and combine this with the knowledge and critical thinking skills I have acquired from past studies. When addressed critically, this undermines the practitioners' intellectual credibility and their entire profession. I'm not a particularly well-read or knowledgeable person; I don't have specific knowledge of any field in appreciable depth. What I do have is years of training and practice in trying to spot lies and chicanery. In this case, I don't need in-depth knowledge of any specific medical modality. If I needed detailed knowledge of every topic to judge the validity of its claims, I would still be stuck on making and learning the proofs for addition, multiplication, and subtraction--don't even get me started on division. Using the filtering processes afforded to me by the rules of logic, I gauge a topic by the unlikelihood of its claims. The reference material for acupuncture sets off nearly every "red flag" I have acquired over the years, leading me to judge it as an extremely unlikely candidate for efficacy. Right from the "get go", if you do a search on the natural history of acupuncture you find claims like "It is based on the theory that a life force called Qi [pronounced 'chee'] flows through the body along certain channels, which if blocked can cause illness." That particular red flag is called the logical fallacy of "magical thinking." The magical thinking proponent says something meaningless, and allows the listener to fill in any logical gaps. Like how this "life force" works, what it is, or what is blocking it. How does the insertion of needles fix this blockage? This method of boondoggling doesn't work once you have the trained habit of forming questions when information is presented. It's as simple as asking, "how does this statement explain the claim?" If we can get past the first premise of this Chinese ideology (which already leap-frogs past rationality), the literature abounds with examples of lazy thinking. For instance, the claim that "acupuncture has been practiced for up to 5,000 years in the Orient" added to this claim of, "the evidences for acupuncture's effectiveness are adding up." In five thousand years, there's not enough data to link a cause and effect! What disheveled mind could make both of these claims without seeing the two statements are nearly incompatible, unless the writer means to say "the evidence has been building for 5,000 years, but we don't want to be too expedient in our proclamation of acupuncture's worth." That's only five hundred decades without a sensible explanation of acupuncture's cause and effect. Today's strongest claims have no link between cause and effect. The acupuncture peddlers themselves can't definitively explain their treatment. I found at least four separate and distinct ideas proposed as the underlying method of how acupuncture works. I'd like to specifically address two of these: Endorphins The body reacts to pain and intrusion by releasing feel-good drugs that lessen the pain. That one sounds fairly straight-forward, probably because it doesn't mention Qi. It refers to an actual, measurable, chemical process of the body. But why insert needles all over your body when you could just take these same chemicals in pill form? If this acupuncture claim really is correct, the entire process has been outmoded by modern pharmacology! Magic The next idea listed on my local acupuncturists' website was, "inserting a needle into the body's connective tissue... Andy Kaiser clean 8:23 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/06/the-future-of-skepticism/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/06/the-future-of-skepticism/#comments Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:16:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=155 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/06/the-future-of-skepticism/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1247 - Things are getting worse. - Across the world, we've got so-called complementary and alternative medicine infiltrating legitimate healthcare and medical treatments. The United States government seems more interested in ... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1247 Things are getting worse. Across the world, we've got so-called complementary and alternative medicine infiltrating legitimate healthcare and medical treatments. The United States government seems more interested in supporting Christianity than supporting religious choice. There are attacks on preventative sciences, like Jenny McCarthy and others insisting their understanding of vaccination technology trumps that of any medical doctor. While I could argue that skepticism is making progress in places, like against the fringe beliefs of cryptozoology, astrology and Intelligent Design, it's even easier to argue that we're losing the battle. Logic and common sense are failing and falling, supported by the beliefs of a credulous society. We are losing. What's a skeptic to do? I fully expect that things will get worse. Yet, despite this gloomy outlook, I'm not worried. Let's do a little scrying of our own, a little fortune-telling and future-prediction. The difference between this and reading tea-leaves is that mine is an educated guess based on probabilities and human nature. Think about a possible future for healthcare. Let's assume the worst for the skeptical community. Let's assume we live in a world where people believe vaccinations cause autism and don't actually protect against disease. What will happen? As fewer people become immunized, herd immunity will break down. Entire communities will again become susceptible. We will see outbreaks and epidemics of preventable diseases like measles, mumps and rubella. We'll see previously-eradicated diseases like polio and leprosy resurface and spread through populations. Many people will get sick. Many people will die. The human response will be to analyze and respond. Doctors and biologists and groups like the Center for Disease Control will again stress the importance of immunizations. This goes far beyond the current polite and low-publicity efforts. We'll get massive ad campaigns, increased TV coverage and a flood of data supporting and explaining the science behind immunizations. The information has always been out there for those interested in finding it, but in this Sick New World, immunization science will be shoved down our throats. People will immunize because they actually understand the process, the risks, and the benefits. This scenario specifically addresses the anti-vaccination problem. But the long-term results are applicable across the board, from alternative-medicine to Scientology. If left unchecked, eventually enough people will get abused, hurt and killed. There will be an inevitable backlash as people come to their senses. As skeptics and critical thinkers, our job is to make sure this imagined world, if it does come to pass, passes quickly. If we can prevent it from happening, even better. If we can't prevent it, nature will do the job for us, though the results will be horrifying and deadly. Our job as skeptics will be to ensure this happens sooner rather than later. Our first obligation is to take care of our family, friends and those closest to us. Then work to educate the wider community and the world at large. The above example addresses healthcare. But a lack of critical thinking causes plenty of other problems in our society. Scammers will always be around unless we increase people's exposure to critical thinking. There will always be people trying to take advantage of others, and there will always be people ready to believe lies. We can lessen the damage with education and activism. Religion is another issue. At its best, it's a good cause that exists for the wrong reasons. At its worst, we get intolerance, persecution and death. Contributing to religion's existence are blind belief in tradition, reliance on unjustified moral laws, and the very human trait of being scared of the dark. Critical thinking and a desire for knowledge can help define what religion really is, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/03/sexual-selection-and-how-the-peacock-got-its-tail/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/03/sexual-selection-and-how-the-peacock-got-its-tail/#comments Mon, 04 Aug 2008 04:01:57 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=103 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/03/sexual-selection-and-how-the-peacock-got-its-tail/feed/ 2 David Annis By David Annis Article ID: 1242 - The tail of the peacock is a magnificent and beautiful thing to behold.  In a previous article, I explained how complex structures (like eyes) evolve through a series of small steps, By David Annis Article ID: 1242 The tail of the peacock is a magnificent and beautiful thing to behold.  In a previous article, I explained how complex structures (like eyes) evolve through a series of small steps, each of which gives the animal better vision. But how do ornamental things evolve, like the tail of a peacock?  The answer is sexual selection. Charles Darwin actually proposed the concept of sexual selection in his book "On the Origin of the Species" in 1859.  Evolution is caused by the competition to leave offspring. Genes of individuals that have random variations that make them more likely to be able to successfully leave offspring will be passed on to future generations, and the characteristics of those individuals will be inherited by future generations.  One way in which individuals compete to leave offspring is by competing for mates: individuals that mate more successfully are more reproductively fit than their counterparts. Sexual selection can take many forms. One form is combat, where an animal can fight with potential rivals.  For example, take two male bettas (also known as Siamese fighting fish). Place these in an aquarium. The male bettas will fight viciously with one another.  Battles for mates sometimes lead to the evolution of features that are used in the fights, like antlers of deer and moose. Sexual selection can also be "cryptic". This means that a female can increase the odds of fertilization by the sperm of desirable males and decrease the odds of fertilization from less desirable males. In many animals, sexual selection takes the form of elaborate ornamentation - often in just the male of the species.  Two well-known examples are a peacock's feathers and the brilliant red plumage of the male cardinal.  Scientists like Robert Trivers have theorized that in most species it is the male that competes for female access because the female makes a larger contribution to the offspring.  In one experiment, scientists were able to vary the relative contributions to offspring in Katydids and they observed that when the males' contribution was more valuable, females began to compete for males. However, there is significant cost to these ornaments. So why would the genes that direct the growth of ornamental structures not reduce reproductive fitness?  After all, the energy that a peacock uses to produce his tail could be used to find a mate or produce sperm.  In this example, there are two hypotheses about sexual selection. One is that the ornament is a signal that the male is healthy. After all, a sickly male can't produce and maintain the elaborate ornamentation.  The second theory is that females select males with elaborate ornament, because doing so ensures that their sons will be "sexy" and have a lot of mating opportunities; it becomes a sort of self perpetuating selection mechanism. Sexual selection can be measured experimentally by exaggerating a sexually-selected characteristic.  Methods that scientists have used to study sexual selection include lengthening and shortening long ornamental tails in swallows, and painting spots on butterflies. Even in monogamous species sexual selection can play a role in a single breeding season.  An example comes from DeLope and Moller, who lengthened and shortened the tails of male swallows during a breeding season and found that the females adjusted their reproductive efforts in response (including the clutch size and number of clutches in a season). So, the next time that a creationist claims that the great beauty found in nature can't be explained by evolution, remember just how sexy beauty can be. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/#comments Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:19:50 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=91 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/feed/ 27 David Annis By David Annis Article ID: 1233 - Evolution can easily be observed in the laboratory and in the world around us.  We can see moths evolve their coloring to match the color of soot that covers their habitat, By David Annis Article ID: 1233 Evolution can easily be observed in the laboratory and in the world around us.  We can see moths evolve their coloring to match the color of soot that covers their habitat, watch bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance in hospitals, and my favorite variety of grapefruit (that's Rio Star) was made by scientists who exposed seeds to radiation to increase the mutation rate.  In the face of such overwhelming evidence - including knowing the exact DNA changes effecting such change - it is impossible for the creationists to deny evolution with a straight face. To get around the problem, creationists often try to separate evolution into two types, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They argue that micro-evolution can make minor changes, but can¹t build new structures or make other major changes to organisms. Although "the attempt to differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization" (according to Wikipedia), creationists often claim that a chain of small micro-evolutionary steps can¹t add up to a macro-evolutionary step. Indeed, it's hard to simulate our planet's biodiversity in a laboratory, because all laboratories are much smaller than the planet and have been operating for a far shorter period of time.  Nevertheless, we can now say that macro-evolution has been observed in the laboratory under carefully controlled conditions, and that the results can be replicated.  The results are described in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences titled Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve.  Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate.  Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and "that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species."  Many traits were observed changing over time. Creationists dismissed these changes as micro-evolution.  For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability. Each population experienced billions of mutations in the first 30,000 generations. Since every possible point mutation was tried many times, scientists were either looking at a rare mutation (such as a large piece of DNA inverting) or a mutation made possible by the cumulative mutation history of prior generations.  If this was just a rare mutation, then a sample of bacteria taken just before the trait first appeared would be no more likely to evolve the trait again than a sample taken from the other populations at the same point in time.  However, if the ability to use citrate was from an accumulation of "micro-evolutionary" changes, then a sample from earlier generations of the E. coli would be able to evolve the ability to use citrate again. Fortunately, the scientists had frozen samples of each population every 500 generations.  Sure enough, when they revived earlier samples, they watched the citrate-growing ability evolve in the "micro-evolutionary" line, but not from samples taken from other lines. We know that in one population, a series of changes that happened between the 15,000th and 20,000th generations laid the groundwork for a major evolutionary advance. Here we have a clear example of macro-evolution under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/#comments Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:16:11 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1229 - In writing this article, I tried to use ten percent of my brain. I really did. But I got stuck pretty fast on the method of how to actually use only ten percent of my brain. There seem to be many ways to go about it. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1229 In writing this article, I tried to use ten percent of my brain. I really did. But I got stuck pretty fast on the method of how to actually use only ten percent of my brain. There seem to be many ways to go about it. For example, I could just think this article in my head, and only write down every tenth word. But the results would be incomprehensible. I could decrease my writing quality to 10% of its usual stellar technique. But that would be annoying for any future readers. I could remove 90% of my writing tools, and type this article using only one finger. But that would just slow me down significantly, when I'd be getting the same final result. Wait: I could encode the characters in this article into their base-10 ASCII equivalents. I'd then take the resulting numeric string and increase its value by a factor of 10, then convert the results back from ASCII into plain text. Mathematical perfection. Granted, it would be unreadable mathematical perfection. That's counterintuitive to the purpose of Digital Bits Skeptic, so maybe that's not the best idea. No, as much as I'd love the symbolism, I can't easily write this article using ten percent of my brain. Yet there are some who argue that's what everyone does all the time. Everyone, that is, apart from a few special gifted people. The first time I heard the myth of "you only use 10% of your brain" was when I was very young. Oddly, I was probably about ten. I had a respected family member fill me in. She said that the human potential had yet to be fully realized. Humans had dormant skills and talents. These super-cognitive powers were trapped in the brain, and using them required special training or a lot of luck. She said that there were a few people (she specifically mentioned Edison and Einstein) who used a little more of their brain, and they were able to really understand the world, and create and invent and make life better for all mankind. And, she said, these world-changing scientists only used "maybe twenty percent" of their brains. Wow! The implications were staggering. I thought, if I could use just twenty percent of my brain, I'd be up there with Einstein and Edison? Not bad. At school, I only paid attention half the time. If I paid attention full-time, then oh, baby: I'd be a genius. Of course, this analysis is pretty goofy. And it's meant to be. I'm trying to show how a tool (like the human brain) doesn't mesh with the idea of partial use. How do you use ten percent of a hammer? The concept doesn't make sense. Yet we hear it often in pop culture, from referencing revered geniuses like Einstein, or when self-help gurus claim psychic powers or life-changing self-help. Granted, a brain is far more complex than a hammer. Think of it instead as a collection of tools. But again, are the "10% believers" saying some tools are lying dormant and unused? If humans use only ten percent of their brains, what is the other unused ninety percent? What tools in the toolbox are never touched? Let's look at some detail. This article in Psychology Today gives several tips to improve brainpower. Note that none of them talk about anything earth-shattering, as is proper for tried and true techniques. These are established methods, from regular exercise to eating your beans. The theory of multiple intelligences is an educational theory by Howard Gardner. The theory disagrees with the definition claiming a person is either a genius or not, or a smart person or not. Gardner says that if a person is deficient in one cognitive area (for example, math), that person can be above average in another area (for example, music). This concept details how all humans have potential, but motivation and other factors determine if a person uses that skill. To use a personal story, I went to high school. One of my schoolmates was a pretty big guy - that's "big" as in tall and muscular. He was over six feet, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/#comments Fri, 30 May 2008 02:59:55 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/feed/ 5 Science Reason & Rationality by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1228 - Do you want to learn how to knock out an opponent without touching them? How about learning the art of fighting ghosts with the power of "The Force"? Well, here's your chance! by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1228 Do you want to learn how to knock out an opponent without touching them? How about learning the art of fighting ghosts with the power of "The Force"? Well, here's your chance! Japan's Yanagi Ryuken can teach you now. He holds a 10th degree black belt in five traditional martial arts, and his system is based on martial arts like Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu and spiritual paths like Qigong. Yanagi Ryuken supposedly won over 200 Vale Tudo competitions (these are "anything goes" fights, involving unarmed combat and minimal rules). According to the author of the video below, you need 500,000 yen (about $5,000 USD) in order to get a chance to fight with Yanagi Ryuken. However, if you win the fight, Yanagi Ryuken will pay you back double: 1,000,000 yen ($10,000 USD)! Good deal, right? With such a confident offer and so many claimed achievements and victories, you might think there would be more written about this martial arts master. However, little more can be found. Now, watch for yourself the Jedi-like "Master" in action using the power of the "Force". Good promotional video to attract new gullible students to join the Dojo (martial arts school), don't you think? That's what I call effective Bullshido! In this video, we have a genuine martial artist and a probable skeptic, Iwakura Goh. He accepted Yanagi Ryuken's expensive and intimidating martial arts challenge. In the resulting fight, Yanagi Ryuken gets to prove his claims by facing a real opponent on live video and in front of a live audience. Let's see what happens... Let's watch that again from another angle: This video only proves that Yanagi Ryuken's invisible "power" or "chi" or "chi kung" or "qi gong" or whatever you want to call it, is nothing but a human fantasized delusion. It has always been the case that when such claims are critically examined under properly controlled and observable conditions; the seemingly paranormal feats of "chi masters" turn out to be nothing but ordinary feats of deception, magic tricks or illusions, and are more of a natural ability than anything unnatural, supernatural or mysterious. Go ahead; try it yourself on a blind and deaf person or on any nonhuman animal. Will anything supernatural happen? Note that amusing the victim doesn't count. Another source says that Yanagi Ryuken claimed that he is able to actually fight ghosts. Too bad Iwakura Goh wasn't a ghost. Maybe then, Yanagi Ryuken wouldn't have ended the fight laying on the floor bleeding. Maybe then, he wouldn't have looked like a delusional clown. There's a silver lining to this story. Yanagi Ryuken has now decided to retire and will no longer accept any more challenges. And just when I was going to contact him to accept his challenge and make some money out of it too. Maybe there will be someone else like him in the future. Who knows? If there's a down side to this story, is that's some of Yanagi Ryuken's students and other gullible individuals might still believe or make others believe in such nonsense. They could make a living through the stupidity of others, right? I'm sure they'll find some excuse for what happened to Yanagi Ryuken that day. They'll dismiss reality, and go on arguing that no-touch knockouts really do exist. "There's a sucker born every minute." -David Hannum Like some rapidly spreading mental virus, this delusion has now infected Western countries, including the United States of America. In this video, Tom Cameron demonstrates his no-touch knockout "power"  on the Fox News show, "The bottom line". Tom Cameron was trained by a so-called martial arts Grandmaster, George Dillman. Let's now see what excuses George Dillman himself gave when his claims didn't work on a research scientist, Luigi Garlaschelli in a National Geographic special, titled "Superhuman Power: Is It Real?" Now that you heard all the fantastic excuses from George Dillman, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/19/evolution-makes-testable-predictions/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/19/evolution-makes-testable-predictions/#comments Tue, 20 May 2008 03:35:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/19/evolution-makes-testable-predictions/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/19/evolution-makes-testable-predictions/feed/ 6 David Annis By David Annis Article ID: 1226 - In the late 1850s, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace introduced the world to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a scientific hypothesis that describes how species descended from a common ancestor, By David Annis Article ID: 1226 In the late 1850s, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace introduced the world to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a scientific hypothesis that describes how species descended from a common ances... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/12/homeopathy-diluted-and-deluded/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/12/homeopathy-diluted-and-deluded/#comments Tue, 13 May 2008 01:48:16 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/12/homeopathy-diluted-and-deluded/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/12/homeopathy-diluted-and-deluded/feed/ 2 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1224 - Homeopathy finds its origins in the 18th century with a German named Samuel Hahnemann (we won't address the honour of his doctorate). This was a time when blood-letting, leeches, By M Parrott Article ID: 1224 Homeopathy finds its origins in the 18th century with a German named Samuel Hahnemann (we won't address the honour of his doctorate). This was a time when blood-letting, leeches, mercury and arsenic were utilised in medical practice. Mr. Hahnemann's idea was to create a less-harsh form of medicine straying away from the dangerous medicines of the day. This seems a good idea. A shame it doesn't work. We'll come back to him later. There are a few basic premises in homeopathy. The first is the "law of similars". The homeopath starts with a supposed "proving". It may be a natural ingredient, drug or -most popularly - poison. A test subject is told to ingest the substance for a week or so and record any symptoms. These results are not used to show if the substance is dangerous as in real medicines, but to show what they cure! ...What?! The symptoms are supposed to cure diseases and conditions that have the same symptoms! Do you see the problem? This means that homeopathic sleeping tablets include caffeine as the active ingredient. Does this not defy all common sense and modern science, where one treats a problem with something that causes the same symptoms as the problem? Where did this bizarre belief originate? For that we back-track to our good friend Mr. Hahnemann and chinchona bark extract. Chinchona bark extract was a known treatment for malaria. Hahnemann was messing around with a few drugs and narcotics, supposedly for test purposes. Upon Hahnemann's taking of the substance he gained the symptoms of malaria, in his eyes proving that the "law of similars" works. However, later studies (after homeopathy had truly taken off) showed that Hahnemann was allergic to chinchona, and this caused the effects of malaria. Okay, so the basic premise of homeopathy is based around someone being allergic to a medicine? Don't you think that evidence seems just the slightest bit weak? So people are ingesting poisons, possibly on their death-bed, believing these poisons will cure them just because some German doctor was allergic to a medicine. However, ingesting poison is not a problem: the second rule of Homeopathy is the theory of infinitesimals or potentisation. The process begins with one drop of the chosen poison being put in 100 drops of water; this is called a 1C solution. Yes, that's right, one in one hundred dilution of the active ingredient. But of course, there is the vigorous shaking and the tapping ten times, ten being the magic number of homeopathy, transferring the "spiritual essence" of the substance. With harmful substances, however, 1 in 100 is still too strong. What to do, what to do? Ah! Dilute it again. In fact, the most common dilution is 30C! That's a ratio of 1 over 1 followed by sixty zeros! No wonder homeopathic treatments advertise "no negative side-effects": there are no bloody positive side effects either! So, how do homeopaths get around this scientific impossibility? Water has a memory. Um, what? One homeopathic researcher is Jacques Benveniste, another supposed doctor. In 1988 he claimed that water has the power to remember the properties of a substance when diluted down to homeopathic treatments, and supposedly had "evidence" to prove it. Naturally, the scientific community met this theory with much scepticism, but the British Medical Journal agreed to publish Benveniste on one condition: he must open his laboratory to a team of independent referees to evaluate his work. At this point, the wonderful James Randi stepped in to investigate. Unsurprisingly, Randi and the referees came back with unquestionable evidence showing that Benveniste's work was - wait for it - wrong! It's interesting and telling that a study homeopaths continually quote is one that has been disproven. There is absolutely no credible evidence proving dilute treatments, such as homeopathic medicines, have any affects on the human immune system. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/06/supernatural-nightmare-experiences-and-the-illusion-of-prayer/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/06/supernatural-nightmare-experiences-and-the-illusion-of-prayer/#comments Tue, 06 May 2008 12:39:13 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/06/supernatural-nightmare-experiences-and-the-illusion-of-prayer/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/06/supernatural-nightmare-experiences-and-the-illusion-of-prayer/feed/ 7 Science Reason & Rationality By Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1223 - It's been almost ten years since my last supernatural nightmare experience. The last one I've had was way back in my late 20's. This is because I've learned a little secret on how to get rid of such n... By Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1223 It's been almost ten years since my last supernatural nightmare experience. The last one I've had was way back in my late 20's. This is because I've learned a little secret on how to get rid of such nightmares, once and for all. Let me share with you what led to my enlightenment. When I was a kid, I remember not being afraid of the dark, or anything supernatural like ghosts, evil spirits, demons or the devil. I also never had any supernatural nightmares. Why? Because I didn't know such entities existed. But later, I heard my family members speak about their existence. My big brother frightened me with it. My big sister shared an experience of being suddenly woken from sleep by an invisible entity pressing her down on her bed. She said that she couldn't move or call for help, and was absolutely sure it wasn't a bad dream. With this information and all the supernatural horror movies we watched at home, it became possible for me to believe in such things, which inevitably also made it possible for me to experience supernatural nightmares as well. I have never experienced sleep paralysis, but in my adult years I realized my sister's experience was just that. However, I did have my own share of supernatural nightmares which I experienced until my late 20's. One of these gave me assurance that the power of God is real and Jesus is who he said he was. In this dream, I was chased by a demonically possessed girl who was going to torture, kill or possess me. She was really horrible to look at, exactly like Linda Blair from the movie The Exorcist. Of course, I was influenced by the movie, but I didn't realize that in the dream. So, while I was running, scared to death, in the dark, away from this girl making all sorts of horrifying sounds - just like in the movie - I suddenly remembered to call upon God and pray for help. I prayed while I ran. Then I stopped running, turned around to look directly at this girl eye to eye and said, "In the name of Christ Jesus and by the power of the Holy Spirit of God, I command you to STOP!" But the girl kept coming closer and closer. I stood my ground and placed all my faith in God and in his Biblical promises. When she got about ten feet away from me, a sunny light came down from the sky (I suppose it was from Heaven) and shone on me. The light was like a force field, protecting me from the girl. She couldn't come near me. She couldn't enter the light (I suppose because it was Holy). The dream ended there: I woke up refreshed in faith and trust in Jesus Christ and in the God of the Bible. There was one problem. You see, I hadn't always been a Christian. Before I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, I was following the teachings of Hinduism for approximately ten years. For the last two of those years, I'd been a loyal devotee of the Lord Krishna (an incarnation of the Hindu God, Vishnu). During this time, I was protected from evil entities in my nightmares in the same way that I was protected through prayer and in the name of Jesus Christ. The only difference was that it was done in the name of Krishna or Vishnu. Hindu prayer also worked much the same way: one says a certain Hindu Mantra or incantation while thinking of the god or gods that it's associated with. The second religious book that I studied diligently after the Hindu Bhagavad Gita was the Quran of Islam. During this period I managed to protect myself from the evil entities in my nightmares by praying to the God of the Quran, Allah, and by reciting specific verses from the Quran for this purpose. Guess what? Yep! It worked the same way. After this, I studied the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. I also studied both the Catholic and the Protestant faith including their Canon Laws. I stayed a Christian for about seven years and almost started my very own non-denominational Christian church. Yes, I'd become a very staunch Christian, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/#comments Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:54:18 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/feed/ 10 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 124 - Let's get this part out of the way now: - What is The Secret? What is Rhonda Byrne's philosophy? What is the Law of Attraction? - It's defined many times, in many different ways, by many different people in the book. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 124 Let's get this part out of the way now: What is The Secret? What is Rhonda Byrne's philosophy? What is the Law of Attraction? It's defined many times, in many different ways, by many different people in the book... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/03/spider-bites-are-an-overrated-menace/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/03/spider-bites-are-an-overrated-menace/#comments Sun, 03 Feb 2008 05:37:26 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/03/spider-bites-are-an-overrated-menace/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/03/spider-bites-are-an-overrated-menace/feed/ 3 Tim Eisele By Tim Eisele Article ID: 123 - [Editor's note: Some of the external links in this article point to photos that may be disturbing to some.] - I’ve been noticing that when most people see a spider,the first thing they think is, “Is it venomous? By Tim Eisele Article ID: 123 [Editor's note: Some of the external links in this article point to photos that may be disturbing to some.] I’ve been noticing that when most people see a spider,the first thing they think is, “Is it venomous?” Pret... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/11/04/apophenia-definition-and-analysis/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/11/04/apophenia-definition-and-analysis/#comments Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:11:10 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/11/04/apophenia-definition-and-analysis/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/11/04/apophenia-definition-and-analysis/feed/ 0 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/28/sleep-paralysis-a-personal-account-and-analysis/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/28/sleep-paralysis-a-personal-account-and-analysis/#comments Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:05:11 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/28/sleep-paralysis-a-personal-account-and-analysis/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/28/sleep-paralysis-a-personal-account-and-analysis/feed/ 14 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 115 - I've had at least two episodes of sleep paralysis. - No, I wasn't captured by aliens. I wasn't exposed to something supernatural or super-scary. This was nothing more than a misunderstood function of the human brain. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 115 I've had at least two episodes of sleep paralysis. No, I wasn't captured by aliens. I wasn't exposed to something supernatural or super-scary. This was nothing more than a misunderstood function of the human brain. This was sleep paralysis. First, let me describe what the symptoms of sleep paralysis felt like to me. Sleep paralysis episode one: Aliens! Even if you looked, you'd have a hard time finding a more stereotypical alien abduction story. I remember waking up in bed, or at least my eyes and brain turned on and started processing. But my body was frozen. I couldn't move. I wasn't being restrained by anything. It was like the on/off switch that gave me control over my body had been flipped to "off". I had no physical control over my body. I remember seeing aliens. Yep, just like from the 1950s: Big heads, big eyes, grey skin, and short. Several were clustered over me, doing something. And (as in often the case in dreams) I knew with a flash of insight that they were operating on my memories: They had abducted me, and were erasing my memory of that very abduction! Very sneaky, aliens. During this time, I couldn't move. I was also very scared. Like that feeling you get in your chest when the roller-coaster is screaming towards the ground at top speed, or when you're about to have a horrible car accident, but the only thing you can do is press as hard as you can on that brake pedal, frozen in wasted effort. After being extremely scared, I woke up. I don't remember much beyond the terror, the frozen body, and the aliens-erasing-my-memory plan. Sleep paralysis episode two: Defrosting! Years after the first episode, I woke up in bed, again frozen, again terrified. This time I was more mentally active, and wasn't dreaming. I was simply in bed, lying there, unable to move, and (for no particular reason) scared out of my mind. I remember staring at the ceiling, being too terrified to even look around. When my sleep paralysis started to wear off, it did so slowly. I experimented with wiggling a finger. This physical action scared me too, for some reason, but I kept on wiggling a finger because it was the only part of me I could actually move. Then I was able to move my hand. Then my eyes. Then my arm. Then my head. Then I was back to normal. The terror had passed. I was just lying in bed at night. Everything was fine. The one thing sticking in my mind about this experience was my movement being linked to the fear. It was as if I was truly "frozen in terror". For a while, I was simply too scared to move. Sleep paralysis explanation and information I have vague memories of this happening at other times in my life (nothing beyond memories of waking up, being scared and unable to move), but not with the detail of the two more emotional experiences above. The frequency is perhaps one episode every two or three years. Each time I had these, I simply thought I'd had some really odd nightmares, and left it at that. Only until researching did I discover sleep paralysis is a known condition. Sleep paralysis is also a more logical explanation for a host of nighttime "frozen in terror" dreamlike occurrences. Here's what happens during sleep paralysis: when your body sleeps, you are paralyzed already - this is why you rarely physically act out your dreams. Your body lets your mind have fun in REM sleep while your body is turned off. But sometimes the body gets confused (see below), and your dreaming mind partially wakes up while your body is still in its natural (paralyzed) sleeping state. Common symptoms of sleep paralysis are a full-body paralysis, terror and hallucinating while partially conscious. What causes sleep paralysis? Known triggers include sleeping on your back, having odd sleep schedules, stress, a lucid dream immediately before the sleep paralysis occurs, and drugs (specifically ADD medications, antihistamines, and hallucinogenics). Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/#comments Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:53:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/feed/ 2 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/22/essential-oils-and-aromatherapy-a-rebuttal-to-bunk-science-and-the-healing-power-of-odors/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/22/essential-oils-and-aromatherapy-a-rebuttal-to-bunk-science-and-the-healing-power-of-odors/#comments Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:23:23 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/22/essential-oils-and-aromatherapy-a-rebuttal-to-bunk-science-and-the-healing-power-of-odors/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/22/essential-oils-and-aromatherapy-a-rebuttal-to-bunk-science-and-the-healing-power-of-odors/feed/ 2 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 112 - Scroll down to read the entire document, or click for: - Introduction and purpose - Essential oils and aromatherapy source document - Part 1: "Definition: subtle, volatile liquids... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 112 Scroll down to read the entire document, or click for: Introduction and purpose Essential oils and aromatherapy source document Part 1: "Definition: subtle, volatile liquids..." Part 2: "They... Andy Kaiser clean