On January 10, 2019, the National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS) offered a free public webinar on facilitated communication (FC), a thoroughly discredited communication method most often used with people with autism. The webinar, “Facilitated Communication and Down Syndrome,” was sponsored by NDSS’s Inclusive Education Taskforce and was led by Christy Ashby, PhD, director of the Institute on Communication Inclusion—formerly known as the Facilitated Communication Institute—at Syracuse University.

Full hand-over-hand facilitated communication, sometimes called assisted typing. (Source: YouTube)

Facilitated Communication

As readers of this column will recall, FC is based on the theory that many people with profound language deficits suffer from a physical problem—an inability to produce the sounds for speech or the movements required for writing or typing—but are not cognitively impaired. According to this theory, these individuals can’t get their ideas out of their broken bodies. FC supporters claim this problem can be solved by having another person—a facilitator—hold the student’s hand or arm and guide it over a keyboard. If the facilitator could just steady the non-speaking person’s hand, the intelligence hidden within could emerge. In the early 1990s, FC spread rapidly, and with the help of their facilitators, many previously non-speaking people began writing poetry and performing at grade level in school. Some of them even went on to attend college accompanied by their facilitators.

But in the early 1990s, the first empirical tests of FC began to appear, and the results were devastating. In every case, double-blind studies revealed that the facilitator—the disabled person’s helper—was doing the typing, not the person with autism. It was a Ouija board–like phenomenon, and the facilitators appeared to be entirely unaware that they were the authors of the words on the computer screen. Since then a number of systematic reviews of the evidence have come to the same result: FC doesn’t work (Mostert 2001; Mostert 2010; Schlosser et al. 2014).

Down Syndrome

Down syndrome is a genetic disorder that affects approximately one in a thousand births worldwide (Weijerman and De Winter 2010). Typically, the nucleus of each cell of the body (other than in the sperm and eggs cells used in reproduction) contains 23 pairs of chromosomes. In its most common form, Down syndrome, also known as trisomy 21, is produced when a child’s cells show an extra chromosome or partial chromosome in pair 21. Children with Down syndrome have characteristic physical features, including low muscle tone, small stature, and an upward slant to the eyes, and they experience substantial learning challenges. A recent survey of adult Americans with Down syndrome found that 57 percent were in paid employment but only 13 percent worked twenty-one hours a week or more (Kumin and Schoenbrodt 2016). The cause of Down syndrome is still unknown, and the most important known risk factor is maternal age, with increased incidence in mothers over the age of thirty.

Karyotype of a person with Down syndrome showing three copies of chromosome 21.(Source: Wikipedia)

The NDSS Webinar

NDSS, which was founded by two parents of a Down syndrome child in 1979, is one of two national Down syndrome societies in the United States. The other is the National Down Syndrome Congress, founded in 1973. NDSS describes itself as “The leading human rights organization for all individuals with Down syndrome.” Both organizations offer educational programs for parents, sponsor an annual conference, and lobby for legislative support of people with Down syndrome.

The NDSS FC webinar was set up as a narrated slide show. Participants who logged in on their computers saw Ashby’s slides and heard her voice but could not see her. In addition, participants could type questions for the speaker to answer. There were the usual number of technical problems, and, unfortunately, only Ashby could see the questions participants posted. There was no opportunity for real dialogue.

The webinar began with some quotes reputedly from people who use FC to communicate, and, in many cases, Ashby reported that some of these individuals now typed independently and could read what they had typed. However, it was not clear whether the quotes presented were written with a facilitator or independently. Many of the quotes were about how these individuals had suffered discrimination and believed they had a fundamental right to communicate. Others described the physical problems they faced in an effort to get their words out.

Ashby’s presentation had all the earmarks of a belief system rather than a description of an educational technology. She repeated a popular motto of the modern FC movement, “presume competence,” and she repeated the word believe several times in her presentation. Furthermore, she expanded the idea of presuming competence, asserting that it was also important to “constructing competence”:

It is not enough to believe people are capable of communicating; there are things we need to do…. So, constructing competence is something that requires action.—Christy Ashby, PhD

As this quote suggests, Ashby encouraged facilitators (a) to believe these non-speaking individuals have the ability to communicate and (b) to be active when helping them—a combination that is likely to lead facilitators to control the typing while believing they are not.

In addition to encouraging belief in the technique, recent strategies for promoting FC have turned it into a social movement. In her introduction to the quotes from FC users, Ashby invoked the disability rights motto, “Nothing about us without us.” This phrase expresses a reasonable demand that affected people be included in the design of policies and adaptations for their benefit, but when we are talking about the statements of non-speaking people obtained using FC, it is not clear the “us” is them. It seems important to point out that substituting another person’s opinions—the facilitator’s—for the non-speaking person is no better than leaving them out of the discussion entirely. It is perhaps worse.

The social movement approach to promoting FC has many features. For example, an increasing number of people with autism freely adopt autism as a feature of their identity. Many years ago, professionals were urged to say “person with autism,” rather than “autistic person.” The latter was thought to define the person by their diagnosis—turn them into their diagnosis—whereas a person with autism was a person first. Recently this idea has been reversed. Members of the Autism Self-Advocacy Network, an active autism rights organization, and others have embraced the autistic identity. Similarly, in talking about Jamie Burke, a famous FC user who graduated from Syracuse University, Ashby said that Burke, “identifies as autistic.” The adoption of an autistic identity is also consistent with the civil rights approach to advocating for people with autism, and as a result many messages obtained through FC describe the forms of discrimination the individual has suffered. In an extreme form of the civil rights approach to promoting FC, at least one advocate has asserted that opposition to FC is a form of hate speech (Stubblefield 2011).

Several critics of FC, some of whom were members of the “True Voices” group described in an earlier column, enrolled in the NDSS webinar, and to her credit, Ashby responded to a few critical questions. When asked about the “controversy” surrounding FC, she asserted that “actually the studies have been mixed,” and she offered to supply the questioner with studies that support FC. Of course, the studies that provide a test of authorship of the messages are not at all mixed.

One interchange was particularly interesting. A questioner asked, “What would it take to convince you that FC doesn’t work?” In a move reminiscent of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing interchange with Senator Amy Klobuchar, Ashby avoided answering by turning the question back on the questioner: “What would it take to convince people that for this individual it does?” Unfortunately, due to the webinar format, the questioner could not easily respond, but there was an obvious answer: “I would be convinced if the individual could pass a simple double-blind test similar to the ones used in other evaluations of FC.” All the published studies of FC that have used double-blind tests of authorship have shown that the facilitators—not the disabled individuals—were controlling the typing.

Ashby took another question from a participant who asked about a recent policy of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) that opposed the use of Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), a variant of FC. ASHA, like a large number of other professional organizations, had previously released a policy statement against the use of FC. Ashby acknowledged the new ASHA policy but was encouraging, suggesting that different school systems were looking to their speech therapist professionals—some of whom are using FC or RPM—for guidance:

I am working with lots of schools in the area, and they’re certainly aware of the ASHA statement. But they also believe very strongly that this is a human right and a civil right for students. —Christy Ashby, PhD

Based on this remark, it appears that some speech therapists are continuing to use FC and RPM in opposition to the recommendations of their professional organization.

Although FC and RPM are most often associated with autism, this is not the first time these techniques have been promoted for children with Down syndrome. Back in the early 1990s, when FC was new, its proponents suggested it might be useful for children with Down syndrome, and in 2005, Christine Tracey (2005) wrote an article in Down Syndrome News and Update about what she believed was a successful implementation of FC with her son Matteo. The family lived in Rome, Italy, where Matteo attended school with a facilitator. In addition, Ashby quoted an FC user with Down syndrome named Mary, also Italian, who used FC. Finally, Ashby suggested that FC could be used with any number of conditions that shared a lack of speech ability. The first step was to presume competence.

Given NDSS’s mission of being “The leading human rights organization for all individuals with Down syndrome,” it is not surprising the organization supports a communication method that Ashby described as a “human right and a civil right.” Nonetheless, it is unfortunate that a leading Down syndrome advocacy group is promoting a belief system over evidence-based methods that work.

A New Review of FC

All of this is somewhat ironic because less than two weeks before the NDSS webinar, a new review of research on FC was published in the peer-reviewed journal Autism & Developmental Language Impairments (Hemsley et al. 2018). Since FC was introduced in the early 1990s, there have been a series of systematic reviews of the research on FC. Hemsley and colleagues covered the period between 2014 and 2018, and their conclusions were not at all ambiguous:

There are no new studies on authorship and there remains no evidence that FC is a valid form of communication for individuals with severe communication disabilities. There continue to be no studies available demonstrating that individuals with communication disabilities are the authors of the messages generated using FC. Furthermore, there is substantial peer-reviewed literature that is critical of FC and warns against its use. (Hemsley et al. 2018, p. 2)

This does not sound like “mixed” research results. When you compare the findings of this study with the NDSS webinar presentation, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that those who conduct rigorous, peer-reviewed research on FC live in a very different world than the NDSS, Christy Ashby, and the Syracuse University Institute on Communication Inclusion.

Note

In contrast, the NDSS does not support Down syndrome as an identity. Their Preferred Language Guide [pdf] still supports the “person with Down syndrome” terminology.

References

• Hemsley, Bronwyn, Lucy Bryant, Ralf W Schlosser, et al. 2018. Systematic review of facilitated communication 2014–2018 finds no new evidence that messages delivered using facilitated communication are authored by the person with disability. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments 3: 1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941518821570.
• Kumin, Libby, and Lisa Schoenbrodt. 2016. Employment in adults with Down syndrome in the United States: Results from a national survey. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities : JARID 29(4): 330–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12182.
• Mostert, Mark P. 2001. Facilitated communication since 1995: A review of published studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 31(3): 287–313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010795219886
• __________. 2010. Facilitated communication and its legitimacy—Twenty-first century developments. Exceptionality 18(1): 31-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903462524
• Schlosser, Ralf W., Susan Balandin, Bronwyn Hemsley, et al. 2014. Facilitated communication and authorship: A systematic review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 30(4): 359–368. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.971490
• Stubblefield, Anna. 2011. Sound and fury: When opposition to facilitated communication functions as hate speech. Disabilities Studies Quarterly 31(4). Available online at http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1729/1777.
• Tracey, Christine. 2005. Matteo and facilitated communication. Down Syndrome News and Update 4(3): 90–94. Available online athttps://assets.cdn.down-syndrome.org/pubs/a/practice-338.pdf
• Weijerman, Michel E, and J. Peter De Winter. 2010. Clinical practice: The care of children with Down syndrome. European Journal of Pediatrics 169(12): 1445–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-010-1253-0.

Preamble: This is an interview translated to English from Natalie Grams and the interviewer’s native language German. For direct quotes, please refer to Natalie Grams directly: https://www.natalie-grams.de/

Annika Merkelbach: Hello Natalie. Can you introduce yourself briefly: who you are, what you are currently doing, and how your career developed?

Natalie Grams: In short, I am a medical doctor. I've worked as a professional homeopath in my own practice for a long time and was strongly convinced of homeopathy. Then I decided to write a book to support homeopathy—the beginning of my personal "story." I didn't succeed—the more I did my research, the more I recognized that I had been mistaken about homeopathy. Consequently, the book didn't appear as a defense, but rather as a critical analysis: an effort to explain why many people think that homeopathy helps them.

This changed my whole life plan. It was just not possible for me to continue treating patients homeopathically with the knowledge I had gained. The publication of the book coincided with the abandonment of my—successful—homeopathic private practice. That was very, very hard in a number of ways; at that time I didn't even know what to do next. But the decision was for me without alternative, against an ideology that was detected as false, but also against earning good money.

Since then I have been more and more skeptical about homeopathy, doing further research, where engaging in many debates and dialogues with skeptics and scientists, strengthened my conviction and my knowledge.

Afterward, I also really became a "skeptic by profession." I am now with the German skeptics of GWUP, being employed as a communication manager and trying to educate people about homeopathy. I'm very pleased that my book is now extending to English-speaking countries!

Merkelbach: You mentioned your book. How was it accepted in Germany and with your former colleagues? Is there anything that surprised you?

Grams: Two things surprised me indeed. First, I never wrote the book with big expectations; it was published in a scientific publishing house with a small non-fiction section without any marketing. I never expected, and never intended, that this small book and the story behind it would cause such a public reaction, which really went through the whole German press. Second, I would have expected my former homeopathic colleagues to be interested in why I turned away from homeopathy; if I had any intention, it was this. But I see, I was really a bit naive. I thought "If I myself, as a professional homeopath, wasn't aware of all that, they wouldn't be aware of that either.” Well, I thought, they'd notice that due to my book, and then we'd talk about it ... But what really happened was that from the beginning it was only hatred, slander, and insults, and no form of dialogue at all. I was really treated as a traitor. And that really shocked me a lot, because they are also medical colleagues after all; you might have been assumed that there would be some scientific interest and fascination with discourse.

Merkelbach: You stopped practicing homeopathy over three years ago. What has changed since then, with you and in homeopathy?

Grams: What to do after failing to encourage a debate with my former homeopathic colleagues? I joined other critics of homeopathy and in January 2016 we founded the “Information Network Homeopathy” (Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie, INH, see below). The educational work that we do there has social, but also political, intentions. Therefore, I hoped that people's view of homeopathy will begin to change. Of course, it is not the case that now nobody believes in homeopathy anymore; far from it. But at least there is a continuous media presence of the criticism of homeopathy. People notice, too, that the turnover of homeopathy is declining very slightly or stagnating—that is what has changed in the outer world.

Of course, a lot has changed with me, because I have learned to be really skeptical, to think sceptically, and to have a lot of fun with it. In the past, I thought skeptics must be grouchy people in the majority, but now I know that was a silly prejudice. Today it's my experience how much fun it is to be really skeptical and to stand up for it in public; I wouldn't have thought that before.

Merkelbach: Your book will soon be published in English. Do you expect similar reactions internationally?

Grams: Well, I also know the story of Edzard Ernst very well, and of Simon Singh, and I see parallels to my experiences there. Everyone probably experiences the same thing in these cases. The skeptic, especially in pseudo-medicine, seems to be a controversial figure anyway—experiences of attacks, bullying or slander, even court cases seem to be "normal." So, I don't necessarily expect in my case to be any different. In Germany, people have become a little accustomed to me now; now I am curious to see how my position will be perceived internationally. However, the international criticism of homeopathy is not new; I will only be one an additional person. A special aspect to this however is that homoeopathy was invented in Germany, so criticism from within Germany maybe gives the whole thing a new spin.

Merkelbach: You haven’t only had positive experiences since 2015. What motivates you?

Grams: I think that's two things in particular. On the one hand, I am motivated by the fact that I made a mistake, and although I'm a medical doctor, I did not recognize this for a long time. It's my aim to avoid that other people might also make this mistake and perhaps believe in homeopathy, so much that they miss or delay a proper treatment—with disastrous health outcomes. Especially when it comes to children who cannot yet decide for themselves. Of course, this is the core, more a medical, altruistic motivation. But, on the other hand, I must also say: this maliciousness I was confronted with generated something like "Now more than ever" within me, so I will not put up with that. I put up reasonable arguments and what happened? Instead of discourse, people distorted and twisted them and lifted all this onto a totally personal level! I am fed up with this. This motivates me to present myself and say "No, I'm sorry, here are the arguments and, now more than ever, where are your reasonable answers?"

Merkelbach: You are also a cofounder and the head of the INH. Tell us more about this organization. Do you also work internationally?

Grams: The idea for the initiative came from Dr. Norbert Aust. It was triggered by a blog entry that stated "Homoeopathy has won, the 'war' is lost, we can stop homeopathy criticism," with the conclusion that "irrationalism has prevailed." Norbert Aust took up this blog post as a challenge: "Hey, wait a second. There are so many people sitting at home or anywhere else alone criticizing homeopathy on their own with good arguments. We should meet and see what we can change and improve together." And that didn't become a relaxed meeting; we’ve been super productive immediately. We at once found a name, we created a website very soon, and we had people who wrote our "Freiburg Declaration." The declaration summarizes our points of view on (or against) homeopathy. We've also created an English version by now; it will appear within our multilingual relaunched website at the beginning of 2019.

Merkelbach: Apart from being head of the INH, you write books, articles, and columns; are member in the Münsteraner Circle (expert board against pseudo-medicine in public health); and are active within the GWUP for the INH, belong to the Giordano Bruno Foundations' advisory board, are vice-president of the hpd (Germanys greatest humanistic web portal), communication manager of the GWUP, actively work as a scientific educational person in the social media, and are a guest in numerous broadcasts and podcasts—and you also have a family. So how do you relax in or from your everyday life? Or is your activism itself already relaxation for you?

Grams: That's a rather good question, indeed. It would be a lie if I said "yes"; it's obvious that all this is terribly exciting. For example, the other day in Mainz, I gave a lecture under police protection. That doesn't leave you cold, of course. You clearly must ensure a balance in your life. I have the great fortune that my family is a source of power and strength for me; I do a lot of sports and I'm also someone who just meets a friend for coffee and doesn't talk about homeopathy at all, but about new hairstyles (laughs). Besides public life, I live a totally normal, but authentic life—I think so.

Merkelbach: There are Wikipedia pages in English, French, and German about you. How important is Wikipedia and initiatives like GSoW, but also the Information Network Homeopathy and its website, for scientific education and participation?

Grams: I consider such initiatives to be enormously important. I remember how I finally learned about the scientific state of homeopathy—it was also because I researched on the internet. Back then, I realized that there were very few informative pages that were based on reliable facts. And then there are a lot of blogs that write in a style as "Anyone who believes in homeopathy is stupid! The children of anti-vaxxers have to be taken away!” That doesn't have any use if you're looking for something factual—indeed, it's vain. Because almost nobody is so blatantly crazy that such claims could be justified.

I highly appreciate Wikipedia as a very neutral platform, which offers factual, always source-based information. It is therefore important that we are present with our skeptical topics because everyone looks on Wikipedia first. I also have confidence in the regulative power of Wikipedia's writer community. Yes, often there is a real "editors war," even on themes of pseudo-medicine. But I have experienced, also when my site appeared first, that trueness and honesty will prevail. GSoW achieves very important contributions to this—thank you!

And we did not name our information network "Anti-homeopathy Network" at all, because we would like to offer information and then everyone can decide themselves. The motto of our relaunched website will be "We clarify—you have the choice." We don't want to "ban" homeopathy or take it away from anyone, however, this is one of the most used "arguments" against our work. Our approach is quite different: we want everyone to be able to inform themselves by factual and independent sources. And that's why I think the Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia and the neutral pages are that important! People shouldn’t perceive that we want to indoctrinate or influence information in a way like: "Do it exactly as we say it!" No, our approach is: "Here is the information, look at it and then decide for yourselves." Help for real self-decision and patient autonomy; this is also part of an enlightened patient-doctor relationship.

And that is so necessary for discussing homeopathy. Many are totally horrified when they learn that homeopathy is literally "the pure nothing," because they have never heard about that before. Too many people think: "Oh, homeopathy—that's the thing with the plants." What a fallacy!

And my Wikipedia pages are rather frequently accessed. If people find a path to learn more about homeopathy, that would be great!

Merkelbach: If this article would be read by a homeopath, how would you politely explain to them in a few sentences that homeopathy does not work?

Grams: Two things. First, when I was a homeopath, I always (typically) said: “I don't have to prove it. The patient and I see that it works.” Here lies the great barrier. To understand and to accept as a homeopath that the—visibly positive—experiences you have with homeopathy are not caused by an ingredient (or energy, or information) in the globules, but by psychological effects, is very important—and very difficult. The time, the attention that the therapist gives to the patient, the faith, the expectancy that both have internalized—that’s what helps, what causes the visible effects. This is well researched and explained. These are all totally valuable things, no doubt. But that has nothing to do with any specific "medicine effect" transported by the globules.

And here I come to the second point: we know all this for certain today. As a homeopath, I always thought: "Science is not ready yet to explain homeopathy." But it’s different: science is ready. At first, it proves that homeopathy doesn’t work. Furthermore, science is able to explain why homeopathy is unable to work—if this wouldn't be the case, we have to reject great parts of daily proven scientific knowledge. That has nothing to do with science's or scientists' malice, it's not a conspiracy in any way. It's just what we know about homeopathy today, different to what Hahnemann didn't know (could not know) 200 years ago. The facts are obvious and accessible for anyone. The decision about homeopathy shouldn’t be made out of narrow-mindedness, but out of factual knowledge, on scientific rules. As a summary, we could say: on the one hand, individual experiences emerge no reliable evidence at all and on the other, there is no scientific evidence that homeopathy works.

Merkelbach: You have received many negative reactions, including death threats. Do the police take such threats seriously? (Question from Susan Gerbic)

Grams: Yes, the police take that seriously. I've already needed their help a few times. Policemen accompany me in case something happens and I have never heard "that doesn't interest us." Quite the contrary, I've had a lot of positive and understanding reactions from them. I am very grateful for that. Because in such a threatening situation, you naturally don't feel very comfortable when you know you're running into something potentially dangerous. I also live incognito, so it’s also very important to me that my address can’t be found out by googling.

Merkelbach: What should happen to protect people from practicing homeopaths who promise to heal incurable diseases? Should the law have any influence or is education enough? (Question from Robin Cantin)

Grams: Of course, we all would wish that education would be enough, but I also don't believe that the law can intervene here or that this would very useful. You can't force anyone to undergo cancer therapy. Forbidding a certain cancer therapy would be as bad as forcing them to have therapy from a medical ethics point of view. We cannot do that in orthodox medicine either. In this respect, probably education will stay essential, but I believe that other factors could help: If people understand that homeopathy is neither naturopathy nor medicine. If they understand that something without side effects inevitably has no effect at all. If they understand that the fact health insurance companies pay for homeopathy for economic and marketing reasons and has nothing to do with its effectiveness. Just because doctors offer it or because it is taught at some universities, it’s not automatically effective medicine. All these are "false indicators." If we achieve to convey this on a broader basis, then we have questioned the status of homeopathy so much that many people will not fall back on it for serious illnesses—on their own insight. We must remove this "shiny halo" from homeopathy, take away its undeserved "social reputation." That is what we skeptics have to do, as educators; it's our responsibility.

Merkelbach: Are there lessons that other countries can learn from Germany’s way of dealing with homeopathy in the health system, or vice versa? (Question by Robin Cantin)

Grams: Well, we think it is a very welcome development that in many European countries, homeopathy is taken out of the health system. Spain is currently debating it, France is intensively discussing it, England has done it—not primarily for financial reasons, as often mentioned falsely; the CEO of the NHS named homeopathy "in best case placebo." We see that German homeopaths and their lobbies are very strongly stirred up because of this. Though, we are missing in Germany statements on homeopathy from big players in official health care, from the government, medical associations, and others. Well, you must hold in mind that Germany is the origin country of homeopathy with the greatest tradition on it.This is why in Germany many people and public actors seem to feel almost obliged to defend homeopathy.But we also see that homeopathy manufacturers are trying to expand into other countries where homeopathy does not play a role yet, for example, to Sweden, Finland and Norway, or Bulgaria and Romania. They are really trying to reach people with their advertising offers, and there are courses for midwives, pharmacists, and doctors for making health professionals familiar to homeopathy. They try to gain a foothold there. Of course, we strongly warn not to fall for this kind of advertising and give homeopathy a platform in public health.

Merkelbach: Are you currently more pessimistic or optimistic about the future of medicine, the skeptical movement, and the world?

Grams: That depends very much on the kind of day I had (laughs). Okay, maybe I'm suffering from a phenomenon like "Survivorship bias" because I always think "I made it.” That is, to recognize the reasonable way and the facts and to reach the shores of rationality, so it must be possible for other people as well. Obviously, a great part of this is wishful thinking. More realistically, I think that if we skeptics didn't exist and didn't stand up for the "truth" every day, nobody would do. So, we have to do it! For a start, it does not matter if it works or not. Since it just has to be done, because nobody else does. And in the best case, it works.

Merkelbach: What can every skeptical person do to improve little things themselves?

Grams: I think it is very important to not be condescending. Many skeptics are very harsh in their tone and insult people as “believers in bullshit.” They say: "You're stupid, you're dangerous to the public." But to most people the facts just aren’t clear. And if you insult them, then they don't want to get to know them certainly. Such a style of discussion is felt as repulsive and leads to cognitive blockades and unwillingness. We must reflect upon ourselves again and again and keep control of our speech. To be right isn't a reason to become condescending; we must remain polite and patient.

We must make positive offers, not give the impression we want to "take away" anything, certainly not give a feeling of indoctrination. I often find the skeptic tone too harsh, too condemning. This is not enlightenment. Yes, that is sometimes only a nuance, in a conversation or in a comment on Facebook, where we simply present ourselves disgustingly—but that’s an important reason we can’t reach more people. And each of us can improve that. Yes, it happens: you get sarcastic, you get cynical, and you've heard the same arguments a thousand times before. Give attention to that. Maybe sometimes it’s better you ask a friend to comment on it and not do it yourself.

Where can readers of this article buy your book?

You can order my book in every local bookshop, but also via Amazon and Springer Nature (https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783030005085).

The interviewer thanks Natalie Grams for the interview, as well as Dr. Scott Harrison and Udo Endruscheit for their kind help.

Photos:
Portraits Natalie Grams: Dorothée Piroelle

SkepKon INH: Hans-Ludwig Reischmann, seen: Norbert Aust, Susanne Aust, Udo Endruscheit, and Natalie Grams from Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie

Book: Springer

The cohosts of Squaring the Strange at work on their podcast.

In part 1 of this article, Celestia and I discussed her background, the origin and format of the Squaring the Strange podcast, as well as her ascendency to her current cohosting position. In part 2, we continue our conversation.

Rob Palmer: Let’s talk about some specific topics of interest to me that you’ve covered on the podcast. What would you like to say about the History Channel and their techniques and journalistic integrity?

Celestia Ward: [Laughter] Their journalistic what? I don’t think they’ve heard of that. And it’s not just our podcast. Every skeptic out there understands that the History Channel is not a channel you watch to learn history … it’s the channel you watch to find out how aliens built the pyramids. I know people who bought into this just by watching documentaries on the History Channel. It makes sense, you know. Ancient astronauts! I actually think this is a good thing because the History Channel is becoming known, not just in skeptical circles but in the wide world, as the place you go to watch stuff like that. There’s a meme with the guy with funny hair from there: “I’m not saying it’s aliens, but it’s aliens.”

With the History Channel, the thing that has really gotten under [Ben Radford’s] skin is the Amelia Earhart debacle—where they publicized a “just unearthed” photograph that they claimed was Amelia Earhart after her crash. They claimed that she was captured by the Japanese [and they made an entire documentary out of this]. But it was just the back of some person, probably a woman who kind of had hair like Amelia Earhart. Within a half hour of the documentary airing, somebody online looked it up and found the photo in a book of photographs with a date showing it was taken three years before Earhart even made her flight.

Palmer: And I remember you guys discussing this in detail on the podcast after the hoax was revealed.

Ward: Yes. After that documentary had aired, and after it was debunked, and only after the History Channel was widely made fun of, they promised to look into it and find out the “real story behind the photograph.” And they said they would be transparent about their findings, but they never made another peep about it. This is what gets Ben. When somebody in a media position promises to look into something and get back with their findings, but what they really mean is, “We’re going to brush this under the rug as if it never happened.” That is what makes Ben shake his fists.

Palmer: For the record, how long has it been that History Channel management has not come forward with what they discovered in their investigation (if they even did one)?

Ward: Ben just recently mentioned this on the podcast. I believe July was the one-year anniversary.

Palmer: I guess it’s just such a difficult thing to dig into that they just can’t manage to figure out what went wrong. I have to tell you that after you guys talked about this on the podcast, the Guerrilla Skeptics team added what you guys talked about—regarding the History Channel making that promise and then never following up—to two Wikipedia articles: the one about the faux documentary and to the History Channel article itself(in the section: “Discredited Amelia Earhart documentary”). As of now, criticism of this “cover-up” remains for all to read on Wikipedia. One other intersection of Wikipedia, the Guerrilla Skeptics (GSoW), and your podcast that comes to mind is the Blue Whale Game. Talk about this “game” please.

Ward: One of the things that happens on the show sometimes is that I make fun of Ben for being so pedantic, and we play off each other that way. But this was one instance where a good dose of pedantry really paid off in a way that helps humanity. Ben locked onto the Blue Whale Game as being an urban legend early on. He did a lot of research and published his findings. He dug into it like the first-class researcher he is and found that all the supposed news reports of children who committed suicide while subscribed to this mysterious game were concocted after the fact by parents who were looking for some sort of reason and found little hints, such as a drawing of a whale in somebody’s bedroom.

The thing is that the whole notion of the Blue Whale Game rests on the premise that this kid, who is the victim, is engaging with a social media game that eventually talks him or her into committing suicide. And yet they’re not finding any records of such things on kids’ computers or phones or anything like that. And a lot of these stories came from places such as Russia or South America where it’s impossible to really verify the details. So those stories wind up being repeated by lazy journalists here who attribute a [local] suicide to what was going on (supposedly) in Russia. They’re not checking; they’re just repeating rumors that they’re hearing. So, rumors turn into news, and news turns into a panic, and you have the Blue Whale Game.

So Ben dissected this on a couple of our episodes and he also gave a talk about it at a folklore conference in Brussels last year. That [this is not real] is incredibly important to know if you’re parents of a child. And panics like that don’t help anybody. They don’t help parents. If somebody’s child is depressed, the parent shouldn’t be ignoring signs of depression or mental illness and then blame [a suicide] on the Blue Whale Game. Or they could be overly worried that there are all these things out there to get their children. That muddles a parent-child relationship in many ways, including posthumously.

Just like Susan Gerbic fights against the grief vampires, I view this as just another dangerous thing that people believe in. These urban legends really befoul the memory of a young person who has tragically committed suicide. This puts unnecessary fear into parents and may distract them from what’s really going on with the kid. Yes, there are real dangers that parents have to worry about, but if every alarm bell goes off because there are all these fake dangers you worry about, this can take away from your effectiveness as a parent.

Palmer: I think this was a great example of synergy in the skeptical movement! Ben researched the Blue Whale Game and published about it. Then you folks discussed it on the podcast. That directly led to the Guerrilla Skeptics (GSoW) team learning about the topic and changing the Wikipedia article about the game from claiming it was a real thing to correctly describing it as an urban legend. And it turns out this article has had almost two million pageviews in the past year, increasing at about five thousand views per day. So that enormous number of people (hopefully including some journalists) now get the actual truth about this important topic instead of reading about, and spreading, a baseless fear.

Ward: That is fantastic. Sometimes you just push over the right domino! And you guys get all the credit for realizing that this was a hot topic and that fixing Wikipedia could benefit a lot of people who use that as their first source of information. So, thank you! Thank you for the activism that you guys do! We’re just getting together and bitching about stuff for an hour every week.

Palmer: Often, parents and even prospective parents find themselves bombarded with child rearing advice, much of it being woo based. Has this started in your case? And if so, how do you deal with it? [As we did this interview, Celestia was just weeks from the arrival of her baby, who has since arrived happy and healthy.]

Ward: Well, my friends know me well enough that no one has approached me to see if I want to sell essential oils. For some reason, a lot of moms decide to stay at home and sell essential oils. And yeah, there are mommy blogs and Facebook groups. And even now [before the birth] I’ve been tagged in a bunch of parenting support groups and stuff like that. What I’ve learned—I can’t really speak to motherhood yet, but I have helped raise stepchildren—but as far as this new beginning that I’m dealing with, yeah, there’s a lot of worry. You worry about choosing the right things, you worry about nutrition, you worry about exercise, you worry about all the things that can go wrong. Genetically, you worry about everything. And that’s when people get vulnerable. Parents who have already worried about ten million things that could harm their children don’t need fake things like the blue whale game. When you’re vulnerable, a bunch of bullshit creeps in. I worry about stuff.

One of the nice bits of advice I got from one of the OBs I’ve been seeing is: “You make the best decision you can with the information you have. And time only moves forward.” What I’ve done to make myself feel less worried is educating myself on the statistics. And I’m not going to be staying up at night worrying if I made the right decision.

Let’s look at the age group. Let’s look at the chances of this. Let’s look at the chances of that, and you use math to decide what the best choice is. I don’t have an altar to math. I don’t pray to math. But math makes me feel a lot better when I’m making a decision, even if I wind up not having the results that I want. I know that I made the correct decision based on statistics, statistics that are based on the best science available. You don’t want to look at Goop and make a decision based on what’s there.

Palmer: But the problem is, of course, that is exactly what many parents do. They look at sites like Goop to get what they think is good information! The Science Moms documentary is about this very subject. I saw the premier at CSICon 2017 and was so impressed that, as part of the GSoW project, I wrote a Wikipedia articlefor it. Have you seen the film yet? It’s definitely worth a viewing for any mother-to-be.

Ward: I feel bad but I have not yet … but it is on my list. I am a big fan of Kavin Senapathy!

[Science Moms is a 2017 film about mothers who advocate for science-based decision-making regarding parenting—sort of the anti-Goop. Kavin is a science communicator and is featured in the documentary as one of the moms. By the way, the twenty-eight-minute film is available freeon YouTube.]

Palmer: How does your skepticism go over with your family and personal friends?

Ward: In fact, right now everyone in my family is a skeptic … but the deal is, my father was a chiropractor. For a brief period of time I got conscripted to help at his office in his practice. I was about ten, but I looked like I was about fifteen. So as a kid, I just kind of observed this stuff, and my job was pretty much washing towels and filing things.

And I saw some of the stuff that went on and passed as “medicine.” There was the one thing he actually did to me as well, where he tested for allergies by laying a patient down on a table and putting a piece of cotton on their belly, and then putting different substances on the cotton. And somebody held a pair of magnets to either side of their neck, a red and a blue magnet, and then he would measure their legs to see which of the substances made one go out of alignment. So, at the age of ten, that “How the hell would this ever work?” thought that’s going through your head now was going through my head! He tried to explain it to me, but I said, “This doesn’t make any sense!” Other conversations we had were similar, so it’s a good thing he wasn’t heavily involved in our bringing-up, because I and my siblings all wound-up pretty skeptical.

Chiropractic woo is something that has always made me roll my eyes. Nonetheless, I can’t have prolonged conversations about chiropractors with some of my friends. They’re personally involved with their chiropractors; they’ve been going to them for years. You can’t give them data that counteracts their experiences without it putting up a huge emotional wall. So, I am not able to discuss it effectively with them. I do want to say that chiropractic is a spectrum. There are guys who do spinal manipulation, and physical therapy, and massage, and what they’re doing is beneficial. And then there’s guys who want to crack newborns’ spines, and prescribe herbs, and put magnets on your neck.

Palmer: How about your online friends?

Ward: That’s a whole different story. I go to caricature conventions, and I go to a lot of online art groups. So, in the whole realm of people who are artists, you get a whole bunch of wacko loons. But you also get a lot of logical thinkers. It seems like all the good artists I know all seem to be skeptical thinkers, whereas the people who think they’re good artists, but really kind of suck, they tend to be the more woo believer type.

So, I have had some online tangles with people I know from the art world, and I try to be very civil. There is one fellow cartoonist who is an absolute believer in chemtrails. It really bothered him; he was very paranoid about feeling like he was being poisoned. I was like, “I could give you some information that might make you feel better.” I tried reasoning with him for a good long while, but then he threw my name and photo on the global chem trails forum where people started to call me a disinformation agent who should be killed. I didn’t wind up getting any actual death threats sent to me, but I saw on Facebook that he had posted this. I found it and said, “What the hell?” and he immediately unfriended and blocked me. Things like that give you a window into how easily some people get this misguided belief. I tried with him and did not succeed.

But in many other Facebook threads I have tried to provide a voice of reason and scientific comfort to people who are really down a wrong path. And I have a lot of fellow artist friends back me up. There’s a core group of three or four of us where if somebody on the caricature network I belong to starts spouting something, it will be one of the three or four of us who will say “but actually …” It feels good to be able to work in tandem with people who can help sway somebody away from a wrong belief, and oftentimes it works out nicely.

Celestia in her Starfleet finest at the annual Creation Entertainment Star Trek convention in Las Vegas.

Palmer: I noticed from your Facebook page that you had gone to the recent Star Trek con where you were doing caricatures, and you were dressed to the hilt in a Starfleet uniform. Very impressive by the way! So, I perceive that there’s an overlap in the skeptic and sci-fi fan community. Is that your perception as well?

Ward: Well, it’s not a one-to-one ratio, but there’s definitely an overlap on that Venn diagram. I’ve not put any degree of study into this, but my hypothesis is that a lot of people who end up as skeptics as adults had an interest in the possibilities of science—what science can do—when they were younger. It started at a really early age by watching Star Wars or Star Trek or some form of sci-fi where science was at a completely different place than it is right now in the real world on Earth. So, for some people that interest grows into a career in science. For others, like me, it got me part of the way there, were I wound-up taking a year and a half of pre-med and then went in a completely different direction. I fully admit I did not have the wherewithal to become a biomedical PhD, or a climate scientist, or a PhD of any sort. But from a layperson’s perspective, I can still enjoy picking apart bad science fiction—as well as bad science journalism. I appreciate the sci-fi that has really good science consulting behind it and manages to teach a few lessons in the process.

I want to again thank Celestia for her time. Visit her website, her caricature blog, and the Squaring the Strangehomepage.

Acknowledgements: As with part 1, a special thank you goes to Paula Serrano for suggesting several of the questions I put to Celestia. And thank you again, Celestia, for using your copyediting superpowers to polish this article and make it shine.

Artículo traducido por Alejandro Borgo, Director del CFI/Argentina.

Sin duda, las vacunas son uno de los más grandes triunfos de la medicina moderna. La viruela fue el flagelo más letal en la historia humana, responsable de 300 a 500 millones de muertes solo en el Siglo XX, cuando ya estaba desapareciendo. Gracias a las vacunas, la viruela ha sido completamente erradicada. Y ahora la polio está en camino de serlo. Hoy se da solo en tres países: Pakistán, Afganistán y Nigeria (excepto un caso aislado en Papúa Nueva Guinea.

¡Qué rápido nos olvidamos! Solo algunos de nosotros, ya mayores, podemos recordar que nuestros padres no nos dejaban ir a nadar en verano debido al riesgo de la polio. Hemos hecho un gran progreso contra otras enfermedades que se pueden prevenir mediante vacunas. Hoy, los niños no se van a enfermar de varicela, paperas y sarampión, como me ocurrió a mí. Incluso tenemos dos vacunas contra virus que causan el cáncer: el virus papiloma humano (HPV) y la hepatitis B.

La vacunación constituye una maravillosa política de protección. Tal vez pensará usted que nadie rehusaría a ella. Pero hay muchísimas personas que lo hacen, debido a la desinformación que difunden los que se oponen a las vacunas, que están mal informados. Los llamaré antivaxxers. Pueden protestar, como Jenny McCarthy, diciendo que no están en contra de las vacunas sino que quieren vacunas seguras. Son negacionistas respecto de las vacunas, no escépticos. Rechazan la enorme evidencia científica que existe sobre la seguridad y efectividad de las vacunas. Están poniéndonos en riesgo a todos al reducir la inmunidad colectiva en nuestras comunidades.

Los antivaxxers sostienen que las vacunas causan terribles daños. El mayor escándalo estuvo referido a que la vacuna triple causaba autismo. Durante un tiempo, le echaron la culpa al conservante a base de mercurio llamado timerosal; sin embargo, cuando se quitó al timerosal de las vacunas, la tasa de autismo no disminuyó. Estudios científicos múltiples no encontraron ninguna correlación entre las vacunas y el autismo, y mucho menos evidencia causal. De hecho, un estudio parecía mostrar que aquellos que recibían vacunas tenían menor probabilidad de ser diagnosticados con autismo.

VAERS

Los antivaxxers aman el Sistema de Informe de Eventos Adversos sobre las Vacunas estadounidense (VAERS, en inglés). Alegremente lo señalan como evidencia de que las vacunas causan efectos serios y adversos, y la muerte. Sin embargo no entienden como funciona el VAERS. No recolecta datos sistemáticamente ni constituye prueba alguna de daños causados por la vacunación. Acepta cualquier informe anecdótico de los pacientes, médicos, abogados, o de cualquiera que piensa que ha ocurrido un efecto adverso luego de una vacunación. Las anécdotas no se investigan ni se verifican. Hay evidencia de que cuando está en litigio un evento adverso particular tal como el autismo, el número de informes de eventos adversos en el VAERS se incrementa. Quizá los litigantes ponen más informes en el sistema de manera que puedan presentar los datos como evidencia en la Corte (1).

Cualquiera podría mentir y poner un informe falso. El Dr. James Laidler lo hizo. Envió un informe diciendo que luego de recibir una vacuna contra la gripe, la piel se le puso verde y los músculos se inflamaron; lo describió como si se transformara en el personaje “El Increíble Hulk”. Su informe se aceptó y entró en la base de datos. El VAERS detectó que el informe era sospechoso, así que lo llamaron por teléfono y le pidieron permiso para quitarlo, lo cual admitió. Si se hubiera rehusado, el informe todavía estaría en la base de datos y los antivaxxers podrían señalarlo como prueba de que la vacuna contra la gripe transforma a la gente en “El Increíble Hulk”.

Los datos del VAERS pueden ser útiles si son utilizados apropiadamente.Hubo algunos informes de invaginación (donde se produce un bloqueo en el intestino obstaculizando el suministro de sangre) referidos a la vacuna para prevenir el rotavirus. Una investigación mostró que realmente había una conexión, y la vacuna fue sacada del mercado. Pero las anécdotas en el VAERS son solo un punto de partida. Se investigan los informes de muertes; en la mayoría de loscasos encontraron causas de muerte que no se debían a las vacunas. Una chica que murió luego de aplicarse la vacuna HPV, en realidad murió de una sobredosis de drogas. En otros casos, no había información suficiente para determinar la causa de la muerte.

Por sí solas, las anécdotas no son datos. Las cosas malas pueden sucederle a cualquiera. Necesitamos saber si ocurren más seguido en las personas a las que se les aplican vacunas que en la población general. Si es así, ello establece una correlación. Pero una correlación no es suficiente para determinar causalidad. Ustedes podrían recordar el gráfico que mostraba una correlación casi perfecta entre el diagnóstico de autismo y la venta de comida orgánica.

En un estudio que revisó datos del VAERS buscando causalidad, la “causalidad podría ser probable en menos de una cuarta parte de los informes, y éstos estaban llenos de reacciones locales, alérgicas, o síntomas que se sabe están asociados con la administración de la vacuna” (2). La mayoría de ellos eran “probables”. Solo un 3 por ciento de ellos fueron “indudablemente” relacionados con la vacuna, y la mayoría no eran serios.

El hecho de confiar en el VAERS ha sido descripto como revolver la basura para encontrar datos. Los antivaxxers aman ese deporte. Respecto de la vacuna Gardasil contra el HPV proclaman que “¡Gardasil está matando a las mujeres!”. Citan a los informes del VAERS referidos a treinta y dos muertes y 12.000 denuncias. En realidad, luego de más de 170 millones de dosis, no se encontró una sola muerte ligada a la vacuna Gardasil.

This article was originally available in English.
Click here to read it.

Respecto de las vacunas contra el HPV, se halló que ninguno de los eventos informados al VAERS era más común luego de la vacunación que entre los grupos de control. En un importante estudio controlado, solo se asociaron dos cosas con la vacuna contra el HPV: tromboembolismo venoso (VTE, o coágulos sanguíneos) en 0,2 de 100.000 dosis y desvanecimiento luego de la inyección en 8,2 de 100.000 dosis. Las cifras de VTE no fueron estadísticamente significativas, y la mayoría de los pacientes tuvieron otros factores de riesgo respecto al VTE. No se estableció ninguna causalidad. En otro estudio con 200.000 sujetos, solamente encontraron una correlación con el desvanecimiento e infecciones de la piel en las dos semanas siguientes a la vacunación.

Error japonés

Un puñado de noticias falsas que ha estado circulando es el rumor de que Japón prohibió la vacuna contra el HPV. En realidad, no hizo tal cosa. La vacuna ha estado disponible en forma gratuita y libre en Japón desde 2010, y todavía lo está. Lo que ocurrió fue que el gobierno japonés suspendió momentáneamente la recomendación oficial para recibir la vacuna mientras investigaba informes anecdóticos sobre treinta y ocho chicas que habían experimentado dolores y entumecimiento luego de vacunarse. La investigación se completó en corto tiempo y encontraron que la vacuna no era la causa. Pero por alguna razón, nunca hicieron nada para restablecer la recomendación. Como resultado las tasas finales vacunación contra el HPV se desplomaron de un 74 a un 0,6 por ciento. Se trata de algo muy desafortunado. Significa que los niños japoneses han sido privados de protección contra el cáncer causado por el HPV. Esto incluye cáncer cervical, anal, orofaríngeo, vaginal, vulvar y peniano. El desarrollo de dichos cánceres puede llevar unos veinte años o más: dentro de pocas décadas, Japón estará observando cánceres que podrían haber sido fácilmente prevenidos. Incluso si no se contrae cáncer, algunas personas van a desarrollar verrugas en los genitales y otros síntomas que podrían haber sido evitados.

La vacuna contra la hepatitis B

La vacuna contra la hepatitis B se aplica usualmente a los recién nacidos en 184 países. Tiene un excelente índice de seguridad. Luego de más de mil millones de dosis, el único efecto adverso serio que ha sido identificado es una reacción alérgica en 1 de cada un millón de vacunados. Se la aplica a los recién nacidos porque cuanto menor es la edad, es más probable que persista la hepatitis B como infección crónica, la cual, más tarde, conlleva riesgos de insuficiencia hepática y cáncer de hígado. Un 80 o 90 por ciento de aquellos infectados antes de cumplir un año de edad desarrollarán una infección crónica, comparándolo con solo un 5 por ciento de adultos. Claramente, está funcionando: en los Estados Unidos, la incidencia de las infecciones de hepatitis B ha bajado notablemente desde que comenzamos a vacunar a los recién nacidos.

Los antivaxxers ignoran estos hechos y ofrecen su propia versión. He aquí lo que dijo un antivaxxer sobre la vacuna contra la hepatitis B:

Se trata de una exposición tóxica que tiene efectos desconocidos e imprevisibles. Nunca ha sido estudiada apropiadamente en humanos (verdadero control placebo), y lo que estamos observando basándonos en los informes de la población es que han sido registrados 443.093 eventos adversos (jaquecas, irritabilidad, fatiga extrema, inflamación cerebral, convulsiones, artritis reumatoidea, neuritis óptica, esclerosis múltiple, lupus, síndrome de Guillain-Barre (GBS) y neuropatía), incluyendo 1.500 muertes, a menudo etiquetadas como Síndrome de Muerte Súbita Infantil (3).

Nada de esto es cierto. El que lo afirma, tuvo que revolver profundamente el contenedor de basura del VAERS para venir con estas fantasías. ¡Háblenme de noticias falsas!

El Tribunal de las vacunas

Otra táctica favorita de los antivaxxers es afirmar que el gobierno sabe que las vacunas son peligrosas y pone dinero para compensar a las víctimas. Citan casos del Programa Nacional de Compensación de Daños (NVICP), conocido también como el Tribunal de las Vacunas. El NVICP es un sistema no contencioso para litigar en casos de daños causados por las vacunas. Se estableció en 1986 como respuesta al peligro del suministro de vacunas. Ignorando la sólida evidencia científica sobre la seguridad de la vacuna DPT (difteria, tos ferina y tétanos), los jurados han dado grandes sumas de dinero a los demandantes que sostenían haber sufrido daños debido a las vacunas. En defensa propia, la mayoría de las compañías han dejado de producir la vacuna DPT.

Bajo la disposición del Acta Nacional de Daños Infantiles causados por las Vacunas, las demandas por daños no se pueden entablar en las cortes estatales y federales. En cambio, estos casos son escuchados por un Máster Especial de la Corte Estadounidense de Demandas Federales. El demandante debe presentar una teoría biológica sobre daños, proporcionar una secuencia lógica de eventos que liguen las vacunas con el daño, y fijar un período de tiempo apropiado en el cual ocurrió el daño; el demandante también debe demostrar que no hay otra explicación biológica plausible acerca del perjuicio. Estos son requerimientos legales y no son suficientes para establecer una verdad científica. En 2006, se entregó una indemnización a una demandante que afirmó que una vacuna contra la hepatitis B le causó esclerosis múltiple, a pesar de varios estudios científicos que demostraban que la vacuna no causaba ni agravaba dicha enfermedad.

Algunos daños reconocidos de las vacunas figuran en un Listado de Perjuicios junto con un período de tiempo. Por ejemplo, se sabe que a veces (raramente) la anafilaxis ocurre dentro de las cuatro horas luego de la inyección. Para hacer una demanda de síncope vasovagal, éste debe haber ocurrido hasta una hora después de la inyección. Si un daño figura en la lista y el período de tiempo es apropiado, la compensación se da automáticamente. Si es un daño que no está en el listado, el demandante tiene que demostrar que es más probable que la vacuna haya causado el daño que no lo haya causado. El estándar de prueba es mucho más bajo que en las cortes comunes.

Para decirlo brevemente, es un sistema sin atribución de culpabilidad diseñado para preservar la entrega de la vacuna protegiendo a los fabricantes y para facilitar la compensación a la gente que, se presume, ha sido perjudicada por las vacunas. Una demanda exitosa no constituye prueba científica de que la vacuna causó el daño.

Las vacunas son seguras. Los antivaxxers están tratando de crear “manufactroversia” basada en revolver la basura para encontrar datos en el VAERS y otras fuentes de información engañosa o equivocada. Están propagando noticias falsas. Recuérdenlo, el VAERS es muy poco confiable.

Notas

• http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/01/18/how-vaccine-litigation-distorts-the-vaer/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23063829
• https://kellybroganmd.com/hepatitis-b-vaccine-for-your-newborn/

“Any talk of a sonic attack is science fiction … . I have no doubt that the Trump Administration, which has consistently claimed that an attack took place (including Trump himself), now realize that they have made a mistake, but they do not want to admit it … . As for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings chaired by Senator Marco Rubio, it was a sham.”

—Robert Bartholomew

I’m going to attempt to do several things in this article. For those unfamiliar with the claimed recent “sonic attacks” on embassies, I will provide some background information. In parallel, for people interested in reading an example of how the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW) team works, I will describe the role I had in converting the story’s initially credulous Wikipedia article into its current version: one that makes it clear that the purported “sonic attacks” in Cuba and China all but certainly never happened.

If you are already familiar with the details of this ongoing “attack” story and are not interested in the GSoW skeptical outreach project (oh my!), feel free to skip ahead to my interview with mass psychogenic illness expert Robert Bartholomew, who provides his latest thoughts on this internationally important subject.

It was sometime in mid-2017 that I first started to hear and read that U.S. diplomats in Cuba had been assaulted by some sort of sonic weapon. The story was everywhere in the media. Many embassy personnel were reporting a variety of health issues, both short and long-term, and these were now being attributed to attacks dating back to 2016. In October 2017, it was reported that President Trump was positive that these attacks had occurred, saying: “I do believe Cuba’s responsible. I do believe that … . And it’s a very unusual attack, as you know. But I do believe Cuba is responsible.”¹ Trump’s assertion that we were attacked had real-world repercussions: for one thing, it led to the U.S. State Department reducing its Havana embassy staff to a minimum. Canada eventually reacted as well by flying home the families of their diplomats.

As an aerospace engineer, I have some understanding of what is possible in this arena given the known laws of physics. So, while remaining open to the slim possibility that something real, nefarious, and not understood at all was occurring, I was not quite buying that these “sonic attacks” represented something real. Being a Guerrilla Skeptics team member, and having sworn a solemn oath to fight fake news and pseudoscience on Wikipedia (wouldn’t it be cool if we actually swore an oath?!) in October 2017 I set out to investigate what the English-speaking world’s number-one source of online information had to say on this subject.

I quickly found the very recently created short Wikipedia article named “Cuba sonic attack.” It contained only a tiny amount of skeptical material, so reading it would leave people with little doubt that the sonic attacks being discussed were real. Hell, the article’s name at the time was “Cuba sonic attack.” This version of the article is available here. (Note that while you can easily view any former version of a Wikipedia article, the current name—Havana Syndrome in this case and as of this writing—is always displayed.)

I did enough research to confirm that there was a sufficient amount of reliable skeptical criticism available against the position that this had been an actual series of attacks, so I had the article’s name changed to “Suspected Cuban sonic attacks.” (The complexity of the evolving story later caused a whole series of name changes, which—as of this writing—has settled on the phrase popularized by the media: “Havana Syndrome.”)

After successfully injecting “Suspected” into the name, and having more pressing things on my plate, I left it to other interested Wikipedia editors to eventually follow up and add additional skeptical content to the article. Unfortunately, when I reexamined it nearly a half year later, the article had grown significantly, but it had been expanded by mostly adding to the reports of the details and repercussions—medical and political—of the supposed “health attacks.” (That phrase was actually part of the article’s name at that time.) In my opinion the amount of skeptical content included did not nearly balance the material supporting claims and implications that real attacks had occurred. Importantly, the article’s lead—the summary of the article (which is the only part of an article most people ever read)—included not one iota of skepticism. (This version of the article is archived here.) The lead said, in full:

“In August 2017, reports began surfacing that American and Canadian diplomatic personnel in Cuba had endured unusual health-related incidents, dating back to late 2016. Twenty-two employees of the State Department reported experiencing what were referred to as ‘health attacks’.”

Enough was enough. I once again researched the reliable sources regarding this subject, and by late April I had used what I found to completely reconstruct the article. Besides adding adequate skeptical material to the main body, the article’s lead now included this sentence, concisely summarizing all the newly included skeptical content:

“Others expressed doubts, including scientific skeptics such as Brian Dunning, at least one U.S. Senator, the director of the Cuban Neuroscience Center, and mass psychogenic illness expert Robert Bartholomew.”

The article still included all the injury claims being made by the diplomats, as well as the political finger pointing, but it now included ample skepticism that the medical issues were related to any attacks, and many statements made by sociologist Robert Bartholomew were used. Anyone reading this version of the article (or even just reading the revised lead) would hopefully come away with a very different opinion than they would otherwise have had. (This version is archived here.)

By the way, lest you think this rewrite was presumptuous of me, (“Rob all on his own changed what the other editors wanted to have the article say? How dare he!”), let me explain that this is virtually impossible on Wikipedia. That is especially true for an article on a controversial subject. I made these changes through discussion, arguments, and agreements reached with other interested Wikipedia editors who allowed these alterations to happen and who made their decisions based upon the available facts as reported by reliable sources.

After that major rewrite, as is usual for Wikipedia articles concerning current events, material was sporadically added or changed by editors (including me in this case) to reflect newly published information. This included adding the claims regarding similar supposed attacks that were being reported in China. In fact, as this is still an evolving story, article changes are continuing right up to the time of this writing and beyond. (The live version of the article may be found here.)

One of the subject-matter experts whose opinions I added to the “Havana Syndrome” article regarding these “attacks” being an instance of mass psychogenic illness—rather than a real one using futuristic weaponry (or any weapons at all)—was Robert Bartholomew. I reached out to him, and he agreed to provide an update on this continuing story for CSI online readers.

Rob Palmer: Thanks so much for agreeing to do this! Let me start off by asking you to introduce yourself to the readers of this article who may be unfamiliar with your training and background.

Robert Bartholomew: My first career was as a radio journalist. I served as news director for two stations in upstate New York. I hold a PhD in medical sociology from James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, and have published over forty articles in peer-reviewed journals specifically related to mass psychogenic illness dating back to 1989. Part of my doctorate was on this topic. The chair of my PhD committee was Professor Arthur Kleinman, former chair of the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard University.

Palmer: Before we get to the supposed “sonic attacks,” can you describe some other cases of mass psychogenic illness that you have investigated.

Bartholomew: I investigated the Vancouver “Toxic Bus” case. On May 25, 2004, an Arab-looking passenger stepped off a bus in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. As he was leaving, the man asked the driver how his day was going … and the bus driver said good. The man then said, “It won’t be for long.’’ Minutes later the driver felt unwell and asked if any passengers were feeling sick. When one said yes, he pulled the bus over and called for help, fearing chemical or biological attack. Several emergency responders also fell ill. In all, ten people were sickened from what was initially believed to have been a chemical attack.

Symptoms included eye irritation, headache, vomiting, dizziness, loss of coordination, stomach pain, lightheadedness, shortness of breath, and tremor. Each of the patients quickly recovered. Police identified methyl chloride as the chemical in the “attack.” However, methyl chloride is common in the environment and can be found in everything from cigarette smoke to burning wood and coal—even aerosol propellants and chlorinated swimming pools, and the amount found was minute, 27 parts per million. Vancouver’s chief medical health officer, John Blatherwick, came to the same conclusion as I did: that the episode was an example of mass psychogenic illness.²

I have also investigated a series of mysterious illness outbreaks in Herat province in Afghanistan during August to September 2015 with a psychologist working there and a local Afghan government official. Over 800 students from several different schools were affected, and basic information about the incidents was gathered and analyzed, including interviews with the students. We concluded that these, also, were the result of mass hysteria.³

Similar incidents of “mass poisonings” of Afghan schoolgirls have been reported for the past decade. The Taliban have vehemently denied any involvement in these cases, and the evidence supports their contention. Not a single victim died as a result, despite several dozen incidents. Most cases were triggered by the presence of an unfamiliar odor, and in almost every instance the victims quickly recovered and were experiencing the symptoms of anxiety. Separate studies by the World Health Organization and the United Nations, have reached a similar conclusion—that they were the result of psychogenic illness.^{4, 5}

Palmer: Okay, how did you first learn of the Cuban “sonic attacks,” and when did you first suspect that things were not as they were being presented?

Bartholomew: I suspected mass psychogenic illness as soon as I began researching on the use of sound by the military and later microwaves. Dan Vergano, former science editor for USA Today, made me aware of the case. I conducted a thorough review of the literature, and what was being reported contravened the laws of physics. I dug deeper. The more I looked at this scientifically, the more skeptical I became. I never immediately assume that mass psychogenic illness is involved. You have to look at the worst-case scenario first because you are dealing with people’s lives. I can tell you that there are many psychiatrists who are very skeptical of the sonic attack claims, but they do not want to be publicly quoted or identified because mass psychogenic illness is a contentious subject, and they do not want to get caught up in the controversy.

Palmer: Some of your quotes in the current version of the “Havana Syndrome” Wikipedia article implied that the U.S. claims of there being sonic attacks in Cuba may be insincere. Do you still believe that? [This question was in reference to Bartholomew’s February 2018 statements regarding a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association on the “attacks.” According to The Guardian, Bartholomew said that it “reads like US government propaganda” and “It’s like the authors are trying to get us to believe an attack has occurred.”⁶]

Bartholomew: I have no doubt that the Trump Administration, which has consistently claimed that an attack took place (including Trump himself), now realize that they have made a mistake, but they do not want to admit it. The facts in this case are beyond clear and compelling; they are definitive. Any talk of a sonic attack is science fiction. Now some people are trying to move the goalposts and claim it was a microwave attack. There is even less evidence for that than a sonic attack.

Palmer: Now, let’s talk about the Wikipedia Havana Syndrome article. The most current reference from you in that article is not very recent. What have you published that can be used to provide more current info, such as on the electromagnetic weapon hypothesis or crickets (both mentioned in the article)?

Bartholomew: I have just completed an 80,000-word book manuscript on this episode with UCLA neurologist Dr. Robert Baloh. We look at the history of claims that sound waves have caused illness, and we also examine the microwave claims. To think that someone could hold a weapon—sonic, microwave or otherwise—and target U.S. diplomats while deep inside a major hotel, while people standing next to them were unaffected, is James Bond science fiction. It is clear that embassy staff heard cricket and cicada sounds and mistook them for a sonic attack. Bug experts who have heard the sounds reached similar conclusions. 

Palmer: How frustrating is it to be sure this was not an attack and see that you are being ignored? And what’s your opinion of the hearings held on this subject by the U.S. Senate in 2018?

Bartholomew: While it is frustrating to see misinformation published, the truth will come out in the end because we are dealing with science. The wheels of progress turn slowly, but they inevitably turn, and they will in this case—because all you have to do to solve this outbreak is to steer clear of the politics and follow the facts. When you do, it is a classic outbreak of mass suggestion. I am 100 percent certain that this is a case of psychogenic illness. This is not arrogance; it’s science, and the facts in this case speak for themselves.

As for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings chaired by Senator Marco Rubio, it was a sham. Senator Rubio asked leading questions and made jokes about the possibility of psychogenic illness. Professor Robert Baloh and I would relish the opportunity to address the Foreign Relations Committee because I think we could set them straight, so long as they are genuinely interested in learning the facts and leaving the politics aside. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that we are not engaging in speculation. It is not speculation to conclude that smoking causes cancer and people who jump off tall buildings into a concrete sidewalk will die from massive trauma. So too with the Cuban saga. The evidence of mass psychogenic illness is not suggestive or even compelling; it is definitive. There is no question about it.

Palmer: Do you wish to express direct criticism of any of the studies cited in the Wikipedia article?

Bartholomew: I can state unequivocally that the two studies suggesting that some type of exposure or attack took place—one in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the other in Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology—were seriously flawed. The authors of the JAMA study did not have a good grasp of the literature on psychogenic illness. One of the key authors later described mass psychogenic illness as a form of collusion. This is wrong! They do not understand the literature. Place 1,000 competent psychiatrists in a room and every single one of them will agree with me. It’s not debatable. These studies did not demonstrate that some type of attack or exposure took place. When you focus on the facts and take out the politics and wild conspiracies gleaned from social media, you have a classic outbreak of mass psychogenic illness.

Palmer: Lastly: “Havana Syndrome.” What do you think of that description?

Bartholomew: I like it, but it should be placed in quotation marks because it is technically not a syndrome as the symptoms are too varied. The New Yorker article referred to it as a syndrome, and I have no problem with the term, so long as it’s in quotes. I think it’s probably the best description, so I hope you keep it.

Editor’s Note: More information on this topic, with commentary by Bartholomew, appears in an article by Jack Hitt in the February 2019 issue of Vanity Fair.

Acknowledgements: I want to thank Robert Bartholomew for his participation in this interview. One year ago his own article covering this subject, “Sonic Attack Claims Are Unjustified: Just Follow the Facts,” was published by CSI, and you can read it here.

Notes:

1. “Trump Says Cuba ‘Responsible’ for Alleged Sonic Attacks, but Offers No Evidence.” 2017. The Guardian (October 16).
2. Bartholomew, Robert E., and Simon Wessely. 2007. “Canada’s ‘Toxic Bus:’ The New Challenge for Law Enforcement in the Post-911 World—Mass Psychogenic Illness.” The Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 49(5): 657–671.
3. Bartholomew, Robert E., Stephanie Lockery, and Abdul Fattah Najm. 2016. “Terror Attacks That Never Were: Myths of Poison Gas Attacks in History and More Recently on Afghan Schoolgirls.” The Skeptic 21(3): 44–49.
4. World Health Organization, Eastern Office for the Mediterranean. 2012. “Mass Psychogenic Illness in Afghanistan.” Weekly Epidemiological Monitor 5(2) (May 27):1.
5. Aikins, Matthieu. 2013. “The ‘Poisoned’ Schoolgirls of Afghanistan.” The New York Times (April 25).
6. “Fresh Row over Mysterious Sickness Affecting US Diplomats in Cuba.” 2018. The Guardian (February 24).

Photo By Marco Verch

Is the world getting crazier? It seems so, but maybe I’m just more aware of the silliness. Here are just a few of the outlandish things I’ve run across recently.

Divination by Asparagus

The Mirror and several other news sources reported in January 2019 that a woman in Bath, England, named Jemima Packington can predict the future using asparagus. She is the world’s only “asparamancer.” She tosses spears of asparagus into the air and interprets how they land and claims to have made dozens of accurate predictions. She predicted two royal babies this year when the spears fell in the shape of a crown and two smaller spears pointed towards the crown. She explains, “My great aunt read tea leaves and I inherited her gift.” One wonders how the tea-leaf-reading genes managed to mutate into asparagus-reading genes.

In a follow-up article, the Mirror describes other wacky ways of divining your fortune, such as observing your cat (ailuromancy), examining old shoes, observing egg whites in boiling water (oomancy), navel gazing, opening a book to a random page, looking at the sediment in a glass of wine (oinomancy), studying the size of bubbles in urine (uromancy), and more. One of my favorites is rumpology, practiced by Sylvester Stallone’s astrologer mother, who reads buttocks by sight, touch, or bottom prints.

Divination has a long and venerable history. The Urim and the Thummim, mentioned in the Bible, were used in divination. In ancient China, yarrow stalks were used to generate numbers for the I Ching, and turtle plastrons were heated so the resulting cracks could be examined and interpreted. In ancient Rome, the haruspex examined entrails. If you want to know more, a Wikipedia article catalogs hundreds of methods of divination in an alphabetical listing. There are forty-one entries under the letter A alone. It is quite entertaining to read through the list. Spiders? Frogs? Thunder? Dominos? Rainwater? Rose petals? Speaking to the dead? Human ingenuity is endless. With so many methods to choose from, how could you decide which one to use? Don’t bother looking for controlled studies comparing the accuracy of different methods; there aren’t any. But they might be fun to do.

Of course, these methods are all just superstition. You might wonder how so many people came to believe in them. It’s not hard to understand. In the first place, the diviners use common sense; they have an idea which answers are desired and which are plausible. When something a diviner foretells comes to pass, it has a powerful impact. People remember the hits and forget the misses. Or they find excuses for why the prediction failed. A few successes are enough to outweigh many failures; they motivate people to keep coming back. And often the predictions are vague enough that the customers can identify something in their life that seems to fit. Two royal babies this year? Which country? What constitutes royal? How far down in the line of succession? If you look diligently enough, you’ll manage to find a couple of “royal” births this year. Or maybe she meant two babies born to families with the surname Royal. If you really want to believe, you’ll find a way to activate confirmation bias.

Snail Facials

These are not new, but they’re still in the news. BuzzFeed recently declared that they ought to be banished because they are disgusting. They illustrated their point with several pictures. Click on the link and take a look; you will probably agree that they are disgusting. If you want to use the mucus, couldn’t it be collected and applied sans mollusk?

You can get a snail massage in Tokyo for $200. One person who tried it said, “I decided it might be preferable to another natural therapy—‘uguisu no fun,’ or nightingale feces facial, which has been around in Japan for centuries.” “No fun” is right!

Snail mucus is said to contain nutrients and antioxidants and to contribute to a youthful visage. The idea is far from new. Back in ancient Greece, Hippocrates used crushed snails and sour milk to treat skin inflammations. The mucus is apparently exuded when the snails are under stress. (Sounds like cruelty to animals; does the SPCA know about this?)

Could you do it yourself? Would the garden slugs from my yard do the job? Even in the best spas, with the cleanest snails, isn’t there a potential health hazard? Snails can carry bacteria, viruses, and parasites including a parasitic nematode known as rat lungworm.

There are no scientific studies showing benefits from snail facials. Snails are more appropriately used in gastronomy than in dermatology. I’ve eaten snails, but I’m not about to let them crawl around on my face. You may call me prejudiced if you like.

Injecting Semen into Arm

A man in Ireland went to the hospital with back pain. Doctors noticed that his forearm was red and swollen. He confessed that he had been injecting his own semen into his veins and muscles every month for the previous eighteen months to self-treat his back pain. The case report was published in the Irish Medical Journal with the title “‘Semenly’ Harmless Back Pain: an Unusual Presentation of a Subcutaneous Abscess.” It was the first reported case of semen injection for any purpose. The patient was treated with intravenous antibiotics but “discharged himself without availing of an incision and drainage.”

Where he got the idea that this would cure his back pain is unknown. I really would love to know what he was thinking.

More Silliness

You can get a snake venom facial in Beverly Hills in lieu of Botox. And of course, there’s vampire facials, which I wrote about recently. I’ve also written about drinking bat blood, cow therapy, peat bras and tampons, vaginal quackery, train track therapy, turpentine treatments, and the doctor who treats AIDS with goat milk.

There’s no end to the silliness, and nothing that people can’t be persuaded to try. But there’s a silver lining: all this silliness is highly entertaining. Just remember to laugh at the ideas, not at the people. Have empathy for the individuals who were doing the best they could but were the victims of misinformation and lacked education in critical thinking.

Natalia Pasternak Taschner, Photo Credit: Karl Withakay

On November 22, 2018, Institute Question of Science (IQC), the first Brazilian institute for skepticism and rational thinking, was officially launched. We could not have done it without the kind help of dear Barry Karr, CSI executive director, who went out of his way to advise us on how to start the institute, on how to navigate the tricky points of balancing credibility with financial support, and on the importance of building a committed skeptic community.

Ray Hall, Susan Gerbic, Richard Dawkins, and the legendary James Randi also gave us their support. And it all happened during last year’s CSICon, when Barry mostly—but the others also—was up to his eyeballs with the quirks and complications of that great event.

We were there to present a paper at the Sunday paper session on Brazilian quackery and pseudoscience and, of course, to learn from more experienced fellow organized skeptics. Barry—and CFI in general—made us feel very welcome in the international skeptical community, and we left Vegas knowing exactly what we had to do.

The launch was a huge success! We had plenty of media coverage, and it seems we also started a kind of chain reaction. Other skeptics literally came out of hiding, and we are building a community. This sense of belonging in a place where people share your thoughts is crucial for the success of any organization, and, mostly thanks to the advice we got from the international skeptic community, we were able to do this. It worked. IQC filled a void and brought people together to speak up for science and rationality.

We brought Professor Edzard Ernst to be our keynote speaker. He gave a wonderful lecture on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) at the public healthcare system. He also gave a lecture for undergrad science majors at the University of Sao Paulo on "How to Become a Pseudoscientist." They loved it! The audience even laughed when the German professor made a joke about a certain 7–1 soccer World Cup score…

We had quite a full house (450 people) at the launch, and our online magazine is doing very well, considering it's exclusively online without a print counterpart and the themes are not exactly popular. In less than a month, we have had over 23,000 readers and 44,600 pageviews. Our bounce rate is

67 percent, meaning that 33 percent of the people who go to the magazine website end up reading more than one article. Our piece on John of God (a well-known Brazilian “medium” who had more than 200 women pressing charges of rape and sexual assault) was shared over 400 times on a few days. 

We are already becoming a reference on pseudoscience, and people are coming to us with questions, suggestions, and demands. Professor Ernst also introduced us to other fellow skeptics around the world, and we feel that there is already an informal network of collaboration—perhaps because everyone who has tried to stand up for science and rational thinking knows how hard it can be and how important it is to have support and guidance.

Here in Brazil we can assure you IQC is up for the fight. Our first goal is to remove CAM from our public healthcare system. Practitioners of twenty-nine modalities of CAM, ranging from aromatherapy to homeopathy and from reiki to circular dance, can currently charge the federal government for their “services.”

It’s an ambitious goal in a country where CAM such as homeopathy and acupuncture are recognized by the Federal Council of Medicine.

The new government doesn’t help either, with a religious conservative serving as president, a Minister of Family and Human Rights that sees Jesus on top of a Guava tree and believes that women belong in the kitchen, and a chancellor who is a climate change denier. And if you think we hit rock bottom, it gets worse: the intellectual inspiration of the whole bunch comes from a philosopher/astrologist who disputes the central position of the sun in the solar system.

With a baseline like this, we are going to need all the help and friends we can get. We are grateful for the pointers and support we got from Barry and everyone else we met at CSICon.

Artículo traducido por Alejandro Borgo, Director del CFI/Argentina.

Creencia: qué significa creer y por qué nuestras convicciones son tan persuasivas. (Belief: What It Means to Believe and Why Our Convictions Are So Compelling). Por James E. Alcock, Amherst, NY, USA: Prometheus Books. 2018. ISBN: 9781633884038. 638 pp.

En el clásico artículo de James. E. Alcock, que se publicó en el Skeptical Inquirer en 1995, The belief engine (La máquina de creencias), el autor escribió: “Nuestros cerebros y sistemas nerviosos constituyen una máquina generadora de creencias, un sistema que evolucionó, no para asegurar la verdad, la lógica y la razón, sino la supervivencia”.

Ahora amplió sus tesis en un libro, Belief: What It Means to Believe and Why Our Convictions Are So Compelling (Creencia: qué significa creer y por qué nuestras convicciones son tan persuasivas). Es mucho más que un libro sobre creencias. En el prólogo, Ray Hyman dice que sería un libro de texto ideal para un curso que dé un panorama integrado de todas las áreas de la psicología. Dice que todo psicólogo o estudiante de psicología debería leerlo. Es un sobresaliente logro de erudición. Sus 638 páginas incluyen unas 70 de referencias. Abarca todo, desde los últimos descubrimientos en neurociencia hasta un catálogo de muchas de las creencias cuestionables que sostiene la gente y por qué lo hace.

Alcock es la persona ideal para escribir un libro como este. Tiene una licenciatura en física y un doctorado en psicología y ha estado enseñando esta última disciplina en la Universidad de York desde 1973. Es uno de los fundadores del Comité para la Investigación Escéptica (CSI, antes llamado CSICOP), es miembro del CSI, y de su Consejo Ejecutivo. También ha ganado varios premios por su trabajo en psicología y escepticismo. Ha escrito extensamente sobre psicología social y psicología de las creencias. Es psicólogo clínico y también aficionado al ilusionismo. Tiene estatura en ambos sentidos de la palabra (si recuerdo correctamente, mide aproximadamente 1,95 metros).

El poder de la creencia

Las creencias guían todos nuestros pensamientos y conductas, desde lavarnos los dientes hasta votar por un determinado partido político. Tienen poder sobre la vida y la muerte: hay gente que murió voluntariamente por sus creencias, y una persona se suicida en un atentado terrorista cada cuarenta segundos.

Alcock elucida los distintos factores que contribuyen al terrorismo suicida. Y trata de explicar por qué algunas creencias son tan poderosas que se hacen impermeables a la razón y la evidencia.

No hay nada fundamentalmente diferente acerca de la naturaleza de las creencias que consideramos racionales y las que consideramos irracionales. No elegimos nuestras creencias; se generan y se mantienen a través de procesos automáticos que ocurren en nuestros cerebros. Alcock explica cuáles son dichos procesos automáticos: percibir, recordar, sentir y pensar. Y muestra cómo esos procesos pueden apartarse de la realidad.

El cerebro usa el ingreso sensorial para construir esquemas que no necesariamente representan el mundo apropiadamente. Pierde información. Crea ilusiones visuales. La atención es selectiva: pensamos que somos conscientes de todo lo que hay en nuestro entorno, pero no es así. Vemos cosas (pareidolias) y escuchamos cosas (palabras aparentes en el ruido aleatorio) que no están realmente allí. A veces confundimos las imágenes mentales con la realidad exterior. De manera que necesitamos ser cautelosos cuando nos basamos en una creencia dependiendo completamente de lo que nos dicen nuestros sentidos.

La investigación reciente ha revelado lo poco confiable que es nuestra memoria, incluso cuando nos sentimos seguros de que recordamos correctamente. Los recuerdos se reconstruyen cada vez que recordamos algo. Los experimentos han demostrado cuán fácilmente se pueden implantar y elaborar los recuerdos. Las influencias contaminantes pueden distorsionar nuestros recuerdos de varias maneras. Los recuerdos “recuperados” bajo hipnosis son confabulaciones. El testimonio de un testigo ocular resulta muy poco confiable; los errores debidos a fallas de la memoria han llevado a condenas falsas y han arruinado vidas. Está claro que los recuerdos no deberían ser tratados como fundamentos sólidos respecto de nuestras creencias.

Alcock explica cómo aprendemos a través de nuestra propia experiencia, de observar a otros, de lo que nos enseñaron y de lo que leímos. Muchas creencias se consolidan en la infancia: los niños absorben nueva información como una esponja. Alcock aborda el condicionamiento clásico, el condicionamiento operante, el reforzamiento, el condicionamiento supersticioso y el poder de las coincidencias. Muestra que debemos confiar en otras personas respecto de la mayor parte de la información que recibimos de otros y analiza en quién decidimos confiar. Nos indica cómo las creencias influyen en las emociones y éstas en las creencias. La creencia en remedios mágicos puede paliar la desesperación cuando la medicina científica no puede proporcionarnos una cura. Aprender de los otros significa que debemos confiar en su exactitud, veracidad y honestidad, lo cual nos lleva al error y la manipulación. Debemos usar nuestras habilidades para pensar críticamente para poder separar los hechos de las ficciones.

El proceso de pensar

Alcock explica los dos tipos de pensamiento: el Sistema 1 (experiencial, intuitivo) y el Sistema 2 (racional). El Sistema 1 involucra las intuiciones y las reglas cruciales que son una necesidad práctica para dar una respuesta rápida y las necesidades de la vida cotidiana. Sin embargo, nuestras intuiciones están sujetas a muchos sesgos, que incluyen la disponibilidad, la simulación, y la representación heurísticas, la ilusión de introspección y la tendencia a la confirmación. Analiza las corazonadas o intuiciones descontroladas, la falacia del jugador, las confusiones respecto de la probabilidad y la estadística, la necesidad de observar las tasas de referencia para determinar qué es anómalo o qué no lo es, etc. El Sistema 2 —el procesamiento racional— puede llevarnos a cometer errores de lógica, sesgos en las creencias, razonamiento por extrapolación y razonamiento entimemático (razonar a partir de una premisa no explícita que uno da por sobreentendida). La lógica no nos llega naturalmente; puede ser derrotada por la emoción y la intuición y manchada por varios errores y sesgos. Es importante recordar que incluso el pensamiento racional puede ser falible.

Alcock también se concentra en cómo se forman las creencias, cómo algunas creencias resisten el cambio mientras que otras se someten a informaciones contradictorias, y cómo las creencias motivan a la gente para lograr objetivos difíciles, llegando al extremo de morir por ellos. Todos tenemos creencias equivocadas que parecen razonables como cualquiera otra. Automáticamente creemos en la información nueva; solo después la examinamos para ver si es verdad. El verdadero conocimiento se debe basar en la evidencia, pero no podemos verificar personalmente muchas de nuestras creencias más importantes, así que debemos confiar en los dictámenes de las autoridades.

Antes de que cambien las acciones y convicciones de la gente, deben cambiar sus creencias. Hay muchas creencias que están tan arraigadas, que resisten la más poderosaevidencia que esté en su contra. Alcock aborda los engaños

This article was originally available in English.
Click here to read it.

colectivos, las teorías conspirativas y pánicos morales como el que lleva a falsas acusaciones de abusos en rituales satánicos. Enumera los factores que hacen que las creencias no cambien, las formas en que la gente racionaliza la nueva evidencia, y cómo la disconfirmación puede de hecho reforzar las creencias. Y analiza cómo algunas veces incluso las creencias más extremas pueden cambian con la conversión. Alcock habla sobre la persuasión, las reglas primordiales de Hitler para lograr una propaganda exitosa, la manipulación psicológica, el lavado de cerebros, los interrogatorios, las noticias falsas, las declaraciones falsas y las posverdades, o verdades emotivas. Describe algunas de las sugestiones que hay en la literatura psicológica para que la gente cambie sus creencias. El libro analiza la tendencia a ser influenciado, el Efecto Barnum, las lecturas en frío, los impostores, artistas fraudulentos, los engaños, los esquemas de Ponzi (operaciones fraudulentas de inversión), las estafas referidas a los emails nigerianos, la detección de mentiras y el auto-engaño. Pone énfasis en que todos podemos ser engañados. Somos lábiles para detectar las mentiras y fallamos cuando debemos reconocer cuándo nos hemos auto-engañado.

Alcock explica cómo las creencias acerca de nuestros cuerpos, nuestras mentes y nuestro bienestar a veces se alejan significativamente de la realidad. El autor menciona varias ilusiones tales como miembros fantasmas, la ilusión de la mano de goma, los mapas del cuerpo, la creencia del “fantasma en la máquina”, el misterio de la consciencia, los mecanismos del inconsciente y los efectos ideomotores (radiestesia, tablas Ouija, etc.). Recientes investigaciones has desmostrado que nuestras acciones están determinadas inconscientemente antes de darnos cuenta de que hemos decidido actuar.

El cerebro puede engañarnos con experiencias extraordinarias que no podemos distinguir de la realidad externa, a menudo acompañada de emociones fuertes y efectos duraderos. Alcock analiza las experiencias trascendentales, las alucinaciones, las experiencias fuera del cuerpo, la meditación, hipnosis, sueños y la parálisis del sueño. Puede haber pademientos (síntomas subjetivos) sin que haya enfermedad (fisiopatología). Puede que las creencias sobre nuestro estado de salud no reflejen el estado de salud real, pero pueden contribuir a ello. ¿El estrés es nocivo? La creencia de que el estrés es malo puede resultar dañina para nuestra salud. Alcock examina los informes posiblemente no confiables de gente que tiene miedo a morir como consecuencia de hechizos o maldiciones, o padece el síndrome de ataques cardíacos falsos, etc. Analiza la histeria, la histeria masiva, la hipocondría, gente que está sana pero se cree enferma y los cuestionables diagnósticos mentales, que incluyen la múltiple sensibilidad química y la hipersensibilidad electromagnética.

La creencia y la curación

Sentirse mejor luego de un tratamiento no significa necesariamente que realmente estamos mejor. La sugestión es poderosa, y los rituales de sanación son persuasivos. Así, menciona el “magnetismo animal” de Anton Mesmer, el efecto placebo, las cirugías fraudulentas, las respuestas aprendidas, los efectos de las expectativas, el condicionamiento, el aprendizaje social y los placebos teológicos. Dice Alcock que hay tres tipos de curación: natural (el cuerpo se cura a sí mismo), tecnológica (drogas, cirugía) y la interpersonal, que depende del contexto y de las interacciones personales que conducen a una mejoría del padecimiento pero no en la enfermedad.

Belief, contiene un largo capítulo sobre la creencia en remedios de los que no hay evidencia de efectividad o que han resultado ser ineficaces. Abarca la medicina tradicional china, el gi gong, acupuntura, homeopatía, naturopatía, quiropraxia, aromaterapia, toque terapéutico, reiki, terapia holística del campo del pensamiento y estimulación cráneosacral. Alcock investiga las razones por las cuales la gente elige las medicinas alternativas y por qué rechaza los tratamientos y vacunas basados en la ciencia. Menciona a las creencias en la psicología, incluyendo los recuerdos recuperados, desensibilización y reprocesamiento por movimientos oculares (EMDR), el síndrome de Münchhasen por poder, y el trastorno afectivo estacional. Concluye: “Dejemos que la investigación científica cuidadosa, y no los testimonios exagerados, sea el fundamento de nuestras creencias sobre lo que es o no es efectivo”.

Ese sería un buen eslogan para el sitio web de la Medicina Basada en la Evidencia.

Somos pensadores mágicos de nacimiento, y el pensamiento mágico es difícil de superar. Alcock hurga en las creencias asociadas con la magia, la religión, la superstición y lo paranormal, analizando cómo éstos reflejan nuestras representaciones acerca de la realidad. Escribe sobre la magia escénica, la magia empática, el pensamiento mágico, el contagio mágico y la persistencia de las supersticiones. En capítulos separados, trata sobre los orígenes, beneficios y daños psicológicos de la religión, las experiencias anómalas y la parapsicología, las experiencias ilusorias, y toda la pila de creencias extrañas, desde las abducciones alienígenas hasta el triángulo de las Bermudas, desde los supuestas voces que se escuchan en grabaciones electrónicas hasta la reencarnación, desde la caminata sobre el fuego hasta los campos de energía, desde la combustión humana espontánea hasta la astrología.

Construyendo un cortafuegos contra el sinsentido

En el capítulo final, Alcock nos muestra cómo todos podemos progresar respecto del pensamiento crítico. Nos da estas ocho reglas:

1. Recuerde que todos podemos ser engañados.
2. Sea cauteloso con tus intuiciones.
3. Sea cauteloso con el Error Fundamental de Atribución: atribuir el comportamiento de la gente a su carácter e intenciones pasando por alto la naturaleza de la situación.
4. Sea cauteloso con la validación de la experiencia personal.
5. No confíe en una sola fuente de información.
6. No sobre-interprete las correlaciones.
7. Pregunte “¿Comparado con qué?” Un vino fue rechazado porque se encontró que contenía dos millones de partículas de asbestos por litro, pero la concentración de las partículas de asbestos en el suministro de agua urbana era más alto.
8. Frente a evidencias inadecuadas, suspenda el juicio antes de llegar a alguna conclusión.

Finalmente, nos recuerda que el pensamiento crítico significa que deberíamos estar preparados para discrepar con nosotros mismos, lo cual nunca es fácil.

Un gran libro

Belief: What It Means to Believe and Why Our Convictions Are So Compelling, abarca una enorme variedad de temas. Está escrito en un estilo accesible y atractivo para el lego, sin dejar de ser lo suficientemente riguroso para satisfacer a los profesionales. Creo que todos nos beneficiaríamos leyéndolo. Es equivalente a un curso de psicología y un útil manual para el cerebro; explica cómo funciona nuestra mente, cómo llegamos a creer en lo que hacemos, y por qué es difícil cambiar esas creencias. Explica nuestros sesgos y errores y cómo el pensamiento crítico puede ayudarnos a distinguir las creencias verdaderas de las falsas. Combina el conocimiento científico más reciente con el mejor pensamiento incisivo. Provee un insight sobre muchos de los problemas que enfrenta nuestra sociedad. Y es una entretenida enciclopedia de creencias falsas y extrañas.

El libro está ilustrado con muchos ejemplos fascinantes y anécdotas. Mi favorita fue la del piano rectal. Un paciente de Alcock tenía el delirio de que había un pequeño piano en su recto, y estaba obsesionado con el deseo de tocarlo. ¡Quería quitarse los dedos quirúrgicamente para eliminar la tentación! Alcock le preguntó si había pensado en que le saquen el piano; pensó que era una gran idea y le preguntó a Alcock si él le haría la cirugía.

No puedo elogiar suficientemente este libro. Lo puede consultar en su biblioteca pública gratuitamente, o comprar la edición Kindle por solo u$s 11,99. ¡Léalo! Lo va a educar y entretener, y usted comenzará a cuestionar algunas de sus creencias, cosa que tal vez no habría hecho antes. Nuestra sociedad sería un lugar mejor si cada uno leyera este libro y asimilar sus lecciones.

Harriet Hall

Harriet Hall, médica retirada de la Fuerza Aérea de los Estados Unidos, y cirujana de aviación, escribe y educa sobre la pseudociencia llamada medicina alternativa. Ha contribuido con la revista Skeptical Inquirer y del blog Science-Based Medicine. Es autora de Se supone que las mujeres no vuelan: memorias de una cirujana aviadora, y co-autora del libro de texto (2012) Salud del consumidor: una guía para tomar decisiones inteligentes.

Several of my articles have focused on claims made by paranormal TV celebrity Zak Bagans. Between his still-popular TV show and his Las Vegas museum of “haunted” items, he tends to insert himself into the spotlight by promoting extraordinary claims that don’t always turn out to be accurate, factual, or honest. Due to a plethora of source material he provides, I have a Google alert set for his name, and I follow his museum on Twitter. It was the latter that kicked off this article.

In a Twitter post from January 14, 2019, Bagans posted “Just received in the mail one of the MOST INCREDIBLE artifacts I was happy to win at auction for @Haunted Museum. The Titanic Captain’s ‘Haunted Mirror’ complete with 1922 stamped letter of authenticity that states Captain’s housekeeper saw his ghost in mirror after the wreck.” Honestly, Bagans really doesn’t need to another “haunted mirror” in his museum (see my article “A Closer Look at the Bela Lugosi ’Haunted’ Mirror”), but this new acquisition is really no surprise. 

Another Twitter post referencing the new mirror is what really got me interested in researching the matter further. In her post, Kelly Wynne wrote “A super exciting, new haunted item from the Titanic will be added to @Zak_Bagans’s Haunted Museum. Read about it here.” The link led to an article from Newsweek, which Wynne wrote, with a headline declaring “Ghost Adventures host Zak Bagans adds Titanic artifact to haunted museum collection” (Wynn 2019). Both the post and headline state that this item is an artifact from the Titanic. As the reader looks over the first sentence of the article, we see the claim has been slightly altered: “Ghost Adventures star Zak Bagans has acquired another odd artifact, this time, withties to the Titanic” (emphasis mine). So which is it? Was it salvaged from the Titanic, or does it have some vague or tenuous ties to the Titanic? Maybe it was owned by one of the thousands of people who were on the Titanic? Who knows?

Whatever the case, the story still piqued my interest, so I fired up Google. It didn’t take long to find information on the mirror, which after all the repeating, ended up not being much. According to website Antique Collecting, “The silver-framed easel mirror sat on Captain Edward John Smith’s dressing table at his home in Stoke-on-Trent.” This account, with various others, shows the mirror was a personal possession of Captain Smith that remained in his home. It is not from the Titanic, nor is it a “Titanic artifact.”

The mirror itself has a silver frame engraved with a floral design. The backing and easel look to be a well-worn, leather-type material. When compared to an iPad, the frame is estimated to be about twelve inches in height. There’s an additional item that comes with the mirror: “Included with the mirror is a small brown envelope containing a handwritten note explaining the item’s provenance” (Antique Collecting 2018). This letter seems to be the sole source of historical background of the mirror, as no other documentation has been presented or made available to the public.

There is a lot to unpack in that short quote. The statement that the letter is “explaining the item’s provenance” really stuck out to me. The statement is also repeated across multiple websites that have reported on the story. Provenance is defined as “the history of ownership of a valued object or work of art or literature” by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Establishing provenance can take many forms, and the website Lofty.com warns us that “Verbal history can be interesting, but there should also be old photographs of the item in the family collection, bills of sale, and other documentation that can prove the statements are true. Memory, including family lore, is not always accurate and tends to inflate over time” (Lofty 2018). Other types of provenance include previous appraisals, a signed certificate of authenticity from a widely respected and recognized authority (Bamberger 2017), names of previous owners that can be identified and verified, and so on.

The only documentation offered as provenance, before or after the auction, is the 1922 envelope and letter. I decided to take took a closer look at these important items, since it seems to be the sole evidence supporting the mirror belonging to the Titanic captain—again, not from the Titanic—and of course, that it is haunted. Most outlets sharing this story simply copy and paste (as I’m about to do) the following: “After his death, Captain Smith’s housekeeper Ethelwynne was invited to choose any one item of his property as a keepsake and in lieu of wages. The letter, which was penned by Ethelwynne’s sister-in-law Hilda, says that the housekeeper chose the silver mirror. The note—addressed to someone called Ida—then chillingly adds: ‘She [Ethelwynne] always spooked me when she said that at times she could still see Captain Smith’s face in it on the anniversary of when the Titanic was sunk’” (Archer 2018).

The “someone called Ida” is Ida Goodman, as is made quite clear on the envelope. Ida lived on Mill Lane, Hunsworth, Cleckheaton. This is indeed a real place, located in the borough of Kirklees, West Yorkshire, England. Hilda, the author of the letter, listed her address in the top right corner of the letter: Wood View Terrace, Hunsworth Mills, also in Cleckheaton. With a bit of digging, courtesy of Ancestry.com, I was able to identify both women: Ida Goodman and—drumroll, please—Hilda Goodman. They are, in fact, sisters (Hilda is the older sister). They grew up in Cleckheaton, along with brothers, Gilbert and Eric.

In the letter, written by Hilda, she refers to the housekeeper, Ethelwynne, as “my Sister-in-Law”—this indicates that Ethelwynne is from her husband’s side of the family. This brings up two issues; first, this indicates Hilda was married. The issue is that she was not married in 1922. On page 244 of the West Yorkshire, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns 1813–1935, it shows that Hilda Goodman married Roy Millard on June 1, 1927, at the age of 28. Her residence at the time of marriage is listed as Mill Lane, Hunsworth (the family home). This contradicts the date of 1922, believed to be stamped on the envelope, since Hilda didn’t marry until five years later. However, after a closer examination of images provided, I believe the stamp does say 1927, and not 1922 as has been promoted. I believe this to be a mistake that has been repeated wherever the story was reported.

The second issue is Ethelwynne, the alleged housekeeper of Captain John Edward Smith. I began researching the genealogy of Hilda Goodman, since Ethelwynne is supposed to be her sister-in-law. As stated above, Hilda married Roy Millard in 1927. Millard had an older brother, Harold, and younger sister, Carrie—but no Ethelwynne. I took a deeper dive into the family tree; Harold married Alice Maud Stott (who had no sisters), and Carrie married John K. Oxley (who had three sisters: Lillian, Eliya, and Minnie)—still no Ethelwynne to be found. No matter how far I went, I could not find anyone named Ethelwynne related to Hilda, the author of the important letter.

I began searching England Census records for 1911, which was the closest available to 1912 when Captain Smith died with the sinking of the Titanic. I was still looking for a woman named Ethelwynne, and although many came up, none showed any relationship with Hilda Goodman or her extended family. I finally pulled the 1911 England Census for Edward John Smith. There are seven people registered: Edward John Smith (head), Sarah Eleanor Smith (wife), Helen Melville Smith (daughter), Thomas Martin (medical student/visitor), Florence Mary Cury (visitor), Ann Brett (housemaid domestic), and Mabel Lucy Sukper (cook domestic). Of course, the servants could have certainly changed by the following year or perhaps there were servants not living in the house. However, this is the only record we have that names a housemaid: Ann Brett (age 27).

Ann Brett is listed as single (unmarried) in 1911. She is also listed as single in the 1939 England and Wales Register, working as a domestic servant for John and Ellen Rowlands. Going back a bit, the 1891 England Census lists Brett having three sisters and one brother, none of which are named Ethelwynne. The “letter of authenticity” (Bagans 2019), which was promoted on the Richard Winterton Auctioneers LTD website as “a handwritten note explaining the item’s provenance” (Richard 2018), doesn’t seem to be doing its job.

When we get down to it, the letter does very little to establish the ownership of the mirror. Although it describes a silver mirror, it doesn’t include other materials (such as the backing), the floral pattern, or the dimensions of the mirror. This opens up the letter to describing any silver mirror. Hilda also doesn’t describe how she came into possession of the mirror, only that she gave it to her sister, Ida. By 1939, Ida is listed as incapacitated and living with her older sister, Hilda, and her husband, Roy.

In addition, there is no receipt provided (for the unpaid wages due Ethelwynne) or any photographs that would establish that this mirror was in Captain Smith’s residence (on his dresser) or with anyone mentioned in the letter (Ida, Hilda, or Ethelwynne). I was hoping to find some connection back to Captain Smith, but I kept hitting dead ends.

The mirror listing on the Richard Winterton Auctioneers LTD website, richardwinterton.co.uk, clearly states “Included with the silver-framed easel mirror … is a handwritten note explaining the item’s provenance … .” So, I reached out to them via email. I explained that I had done a bit of research, had run into some discrepancies, and asked if there was any additional documentation with the mirror besides the letter that would fill in the gaps of my research. I received a reply from Alex Keller, head of Media and Relations, who stated “The item you mention sold in December and was shipped shortly after. The lot contained numerous related paperwork but unfortunately, I can’t go into any further detail as of course we don’t have it any longer. We’d be very interested to hear how your ongoing research progresses.”

I was rather disappointed they didn’t have any records related to the sale. I also found it odd that they were interested in my research, offering none of their own. It seemed they made no effort to verify the provenance of the mirror—at least none that they made public. To be fair, Keller did mention “numerous related paperwork,” so perhaps there is something more to this story. However, as of this moment we have no idea what that additional paperwork might be. Furthermore, in every listing I came across, there was nothing else presented in support of the mirror belonging to Captain Smith—just the letter.

Another part of the story, as reported by sites such as StoryTrender.com and SingularFortean.com, state “Descendants (or relatives) of Ethelwynne kept it in their possession for generations until it was discovered in a deceased estate in Wolverhampton, England; after which it came into the possession of current owner David Smith, who has held the mirror for the past five years.” This brings up more questions: Who are these relatives/descendants? Is there an actual record of which relatives owned it, aside from Ida and Hilda—who have been found not to be related to the mysterious Ethelwynne. Also, we are told it was “discovered” at an estate. Whose estate? Did the letter from Hilda follow the mirror the entire time—eighty-six years—until it was “discovered” and came to David Smith five years ago? Where did David Smith acquire it? The story doesn’t actually state he was the one that discovered it at the estate sale. These are details that should have been included as documentation of provenance.

At this point, I didn’t know what to think about the letter. Was it genuine? Was it a forgery? Was there something in it—a clue—that I was missing? I’m not an expert in document authentication, but I do know someone that is. I called Joe Nickell, senior research fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He also has an extensive background in forensic document examination (and authentication). After doing a little research of his own, he called me back to tell me what he thought. He didn’t see anything particularly out-of-place on the surface but brought up the fact that we’re not looking at the actual document but instead just a photo of it. Without the original document, there’s little examination to be done.

Another point Nickell brought up was that unless there were other verified writing samples from Hilda (Goodman), there was no way to verify if the letter was actually written by her hand. Although Nickell saw nothing in the writing to suspect a forgery, he did mention that it was possible that anyone could have written the short letter in its entirety; that a forger could have written the letter themselves and simply used an old envelope. The letter and envelope simply can’t be taken as authentication of anything on their own. To be clear, I’m not saying the letter is forged, but merely that it can’t be ruled out.

And then there is the ghostly component to this story, in which the auction house definitely used to boost interest. In the letter, Hilda writes “She always spooked me when she said that at times she could still see Captain Smith’s face in it on the anniversary of when the Titanic was sunk.” This paragraph that ends the letter has been used to promote the mirror as haunted, spawning headlines such as “Titanic Captain’s ‘haunted’ mirror could sell for £10,000” (Lindley 2018) and “Haunted mirror ‘possessed by the ghost of the Titanic captain’ up for auction” (Coles 2018). This marketing tactic no doubt is what caught the attention of Zak Bagans (and it worked).

In the Twitter post by Zak Bagans, he wrote “The Titanic Captain’s ‘Haunted’ Mirror; complete with 1922 stamped letter of authenticity that states Captain’s housekeeper saw his ghost in mirror after the wreck.” In fact the letter does not specifically say anyone saw a ghost or any kind of spirit manifestation at all. The description brings to mind someone reminiscing about someone they knew. Ethelwynne, if she actually existed, did not describe witnessing a ghost; she was remembering someone that was dear to her on the anniversary of their death. The mirror was a keepsake, a small item kept in memory of the person who originally owned it. Who hasn’t picked up an item once owned by a friend or relative, maybe even an old coworker, and thought of them or “saw their face”? I own a softball jersey from a former coworker and good friend who unfortunately died several years ago in a tragic accident. Occasionally when I look up on the wall (where it hangs in a shadow box), I can still see his face and even hear his voice trading Star Wars quotes with me. I’m not experiencing a ghost, nor is the softball jersey haunted. I’m reminiscing happy memories of a friend I miss; nothing more.

I’m left wondering if this mirror was ever owned by Captain Smith. The letter, from which practically all of the information reported about the mirror originates (and is often embellished), has been shown to be flawed or at least incomplete and unvalidated; Ida and Hilda, found to be sisters, have no connection with a woman named Ethelwynne. Census records the year before Captain Smith died shows the housemaid was named Ann Brett, who also has no connection to Ethelwynne, Ida, or Hilda. Putting it in perspective, the provenance appears to be based off a second-hand story originating from a letter we’re not sure was even written by the person whose name appears at the bottom of it. Granted, there could be other paperwork that fills in the gaping holes in the history of the mirror, as hinted at by Alex Keller, that could verify everything claimed about the mirror (besides the ghost). In that case, I’ll certainly update this article to reflect that new information. However, no such paperwork has ever been referenced in the news coverage, including the videos in which Richard Winterton (of the action house) appears in with the mirror.

This project was a great exercise in researching the provenance of an item from an auction, something I haven’t done before. Claims were made, and although I started out trying to verify them (I really wanted to connect the dots), they ultimately fell short by the information made available. Granted, I most likely put a lot more work into this than was necessary, but it was a fun and enlightening adventure in which I learned more about auction items, forensic document analyzation, and honed my genealogy skills a little more. The mirror was expected to fetch over £10,000/almost $13,000 at the December 12, 2018, auction (richardwinterton.co.uk 2018), but ended up selling well below that amount; £2,800/$4,500. Nevertheless, I have no doubt the mirror’s past and ghostly antics will grow by leaps and bounds once it becomes part of the Not-So-Haunted Museum—as was announced on February 1, 2019.

I’ll end this column with some good advice for future auction bidders via Alan Bamberger from the website ArtBusiness.com: “Before bidding on or buying any art, your job is to make sure any such provenance offered by sellers is correct, legitimate, verifiable and does in fact attest to the authorship of the art” (Bamberger 2017).

*Special appreciation to Joe Nickell for his help, advice, and sharing his extensive knowledge with me.

References

• Antique Collecting. 2018. Available at https://antique-collecting.co.uk/2018/10/30/titanic-captains-mirror-in-staffordshire-sale/.
• Archer, Megan. 2018. Titanic captain's haunted mirror could fetch £10,000 at Staffordshire auction. Available at https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/staffordshire/2018/11/08/titanic-captains-haunted-mirror-could-fetch-10000-at-staffordshire-auction/.
• Bagans, Zak. 2019. Twitter post.
• Bamberger, Alan. 2017. Art Provenance: What It Is and How to Verify It. Available at https://www.artbusiness.com/provwarn.html.
• Coles, Dan. 2018. Haunted mirror 'possessed by the ghost of the Titanic captain' up for auction. Available at https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/haunted-mirror-possessed-ghost-titanic-13608741.
• Gentile, Ashlyn. 2017. How To Prepare A Certificate of Authenticity. Available at https://www.agora-gallery.com/advice/blog/2017/12/02/prepare-certificate-authenticity/.
• Lindley, Simon. 2018. Titanic Captain’s ‘haunted’ mirror could sell for £10,000. Available at https://news.justcollecting.com/titanic-captain-haunted-mirror-auction-10000/.
• Lofty. 2018. What Is Provenance and Why Is It Important? Available at https://www.lofty.com/pages/what-is-provenance-and-why-is-it-important.
• Merriam-Webster. 2019. Provenance. Available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provenance.
• Richard Winterton Auctioneers. 2018. December Fine & Decorative Arts Sale. Available at https://www.richardwinterton.co.uk/latestnews/1416/December+Fine+&+Decorative+Arts+Sale.htm.
• Winterton, Richard. 2018. Twitter post. Available at https://twitter.com/Auctionwint/status/1072830197676810240.
• Wynne, Kelly. 2019. 'Ghost Adventures' Host Zak Bagans Adds Titanic Artifact To Haunted Collection. Available at https://www.newsweek.com/ghost-adventures-host-zak-bagans-adds-titanic-artifact-haunted-collection-1293826.

Artículo traducido por Alejandro Borgo, Director del CFI/Argentina.

El 10 de enero de 2019, la Sociedad Nacional del Síndrome de Down estadounidense (NDSS) puso a disposición un seminario web gratuito y público sobre comunicación facilitada (CF), un método de comunicación totalmente desacreditado que mayormente se utiliza con personas autistas. El seminario web, “Comunicación Facilitada y Síndrome de Down”, fue patrocinado por el Equipo de Trabajo de Educación Inclusiva de la NDSS y fue dirigido por la Dra. Christy Ashby, directora de el Instituto sobre Inclusión Comunicativa —anteriormente conocido como Instituto de Comunicación Facilitada— en la Universidad de Syracuse.

Comunicación Facilitada mano sobre mano, a veces llamada tipeo asistido (Fuente: YouTube)

La Comunicación Facilitada

Como los lectores de esta columna recordarán, la CF se basa en la teoría de que mucha gente con grandes déficit en el lenguaje padece un problema físico —una incapacidad para producir los sonidos al hablar o para los movimientos requeridos para escribir o tipear— pero no está incapacitada cognitivamente. De acuerdo a esta teoría, estos individuos no pueden expresar sus ideas debido a que están dañadas físicamente. Los que apoyan la CF afirman que este problema se puede resolver estando junto a otra persona —un facilitador—que sostenga la mano o el brazo del estudiante y lo guíe sobre el teclado. Si el facilitador pudiera solo estabilizar la mano de la persona que no puede hablar, la inteligencia que lleva escondida podría emerger. A principios de los ‘90, la CF se expandió rápidamente, y con la ayuda de muchos facilitadores, mucha gente que no podía hablar comenzó a escribir poesía y obtener buenas calificaciones en la escuela. Incluso algunos de ellos asistieron a la escuela acompañados por sus facilitadores.

Pero a principios de los ‘90, comenzaron a aparecerlas primeras pruebas científicas de la CF, y los resultados fueron devastadores. En todos los casos, los estudios a doble ciego revelaron que el facilitador —ayudante del discapacitado— era el que estaba haciendo el tipeo y no la persona con autismo. Era un fenómeno parecido a la tabla Ouija, y los facilitadores parecían ignorar completamente que ellos eran los autores de las palabras que aparecían en la pantalla de computadora. Desde entonces se hicieron revisiones sistemáticas de la evidencia que llevaron al mismo resultado: la CF no funciona (Mostert 2001; Mostert 2010; Schlosser et al. 2014).

El síndrome de Down

El síndrome de Down es un trastorno genético que afecta aproximadamente a uno de cada mil nacidos en el mundo (Weijerman and De Winter 2010). Normalmente, el núcleo de cada célula del cuerpo (además de las del esperma y las células del óvulo usadas en la reproducción) contiene 23 pares de cromosomas. En su forma más común, el síndrome de Down, también conocido como trisomía 21, se produce cuando las células de un niño presentan un cromosoma extra o uno parcial en el par 21. Los niños con síndrome de Down tienen rasgos físicos característicos, que incluyen baja tonalidad muscular, baja estatura y una inclinación de los ojos hacia arriba. Experimentan considerables desafíos en el aprendizaje. En un sondeo reciente de estadounidenses adultos con síndrome de Down se encontró que el 57 por ciento tenían empleos pagos pero solo el 13 por ciento trabajaba 21 horas por semana o más (Kumin and Schoenbrodt 2016). La causa del síndrome de Down todavía se desconoce, y el factor de riesgo más importante es la edad maternal, con mayor incidencia en aquellas madres que tienen más de 30 años.

Cariotipo de una persona con síndrome de Down, que muestra tres copias del cromosoma 21. (Fuente: Wikipedia)

El seminario web de la NDSS

La NDSS, que fue fundada por dos padres de un niño con síndrome de Down en 1979, es una de las dos sociedades nacionales del síndrome de Down en los Estados Unidos. La otra es el Congreso Nacional del síndrome de Down, fundada en 1973. La NDSS se presenta como “La organización líder en derechos humanos para todos los individuos con síndrome de Down”. Ambas organizaciones ofrecen programas educativos para padres, auspician un congreso anual y hacen lobby para obtener apoyo legislativo a aquellos que padecen el síndrome.

El seminario web de la NDSS se montó como una exhibición narrada en diapositivas. Los participantes que entraron al seminario con sus computadorasvieron las diapositivas de Ashby y escucharon su voz pero no pudieron verla a ella. Además, los participantes podían tipear preguntas para que sean contestadas. Existía la cantidad usual de problemas técnicos y, desafortunadamente, solo Ashby podía ver las preguntas posteadas por los participantes. No había oportunidad de diálogo.

El seminario comenzaba con algunas citas que presuntamente provenían de gente que usa la CF para comunicar y, en muchos casos, Ashby informaba que algunos de estos individuos ahora tipeaban independientemente y podían leer lo que habían tipeado. Sin embargo, no estaba claro si las citas que se mostraban estaban escritas por un facilitador o en forma independiente. Muchas de las citas se referían a la discriminación que habían sufrido estos individuos y creían que tenían el derecho fundamental de comunicarse. Otros describieron los problemas físicos que tuvieron que enfrentar para poder hacer que llegaran sus palabras.

La presentación de Ashby todas las características de un sistema de creencias en lugar de una tecnología educativa. Ella repetía un eslogan popular del moderno movimiento de la CF: “capacidad de confiar o animarse” (en una oración, significa asumir que una persona autista tiene la capacidad de pensar, leer y comprender aunque no haya evidencia de ello), y repetía muchas veces la palabra “creer”. Además, ampliaba la idea de “capacidad de confiar o animarse”, afirmando que también era importante la “capacidad de construir”:

No es suficiente creer que la gente es capaz de comunicarse; hay cosas que necesitamos hacer… Así, la capacidad de construir es algo que requiere acción.

Como lo sugiere esta cita, Ashby alienta a los facilitadores: (a) a creer que estos individuos no-parlantes tienen la habilidad para comunicar y (b) ser activos para ayudarlos —combinación que es probable que lleve a que los facilitadores tomen el control del tipeo aunque crean que no lo están haciendo.

Además de alentar la creencia en la técnica, las estrategias recientes para promover la CF se convirtieron en un movimiento social. En su introducción a las citas de los usuarios de la CF, Ashby invocaba el eslogan de los derechos de los discapacitados: “Nada sobre nosotros sin nosotros”. Esta frase expresa una demanda razonable acerca de que la gente afectada debe ser incluida en el diseño de políticas y adaptaciones en pos de su beneficio, pero cuando estamos hablando sobre las declaraciones de gente no-parlante obtenidas usando la CF, no está queda claro que el “nosotros” son ellos. Resulta importante señalar que substituir las opiniones de otras personas —las de los facilitadores— no es mejor para la gente no-parlante que dejarlas completamente fuera de la discusión. Es quizá peor.

El enfoque del movimiento social para promover la CF tiene varias características. Por ejemplo, un creciente número de personas con autismo adopta libremente al autismo como algo distintivo de su identidad. Hace muchos años, los profesionales eran instados a decir “persona con autismo” en lugar de “persona autista”. Ésta última se pensó para definir a la persona por su diagnóstico —convirtiéndolos en su diagnóstico— mientras que una persona con autismo era primero una persona. Esta idea ha sido revertida recientemente. Los miembros de la Red de Auto-apoyo del Autismo, organización activa sobre los derechos de los autistas y otros, han adoptado la identidad autista. De manera similar, hablando de Jamie Burke, famoso usuario de la CF que se graduó en la Universidad de Syracuse, Ashby dice que Burke “se identifica como autista”. La adopción de una identidad autista es también consistente con el enfoque de los derechos humanos para defender la gente con autismo, y como resultado muchos mensajes obtenidos a través de la CF describen las formas de discriminación que ha sufrido el individuo. En una forma extrema del enfoque de los derechos civiles para promover la CF, al menos un defensor ha afirmado que la oposición a la CF es una forma de expresión del odio (Stubblefield 2011).

This article was originally available in English.
Click here to read it.

Varios críticos de la CF, algunos de los cuales eran miembros del grupo “Voces verdaderas” describieron en una columna previa, registrada en el seminario web de la NDSS, y a su favor, Ashby respondió a unas pocas preguntas críticas. Cuando se le preguntó acerca de la “controversia” respecto de la CF, ella aseguró que “realmente los estudios habían sido mezclados (o ambivalentes)” y se ofreció a proporcionar estudios que apoyan la CF. Por supuesto, los estudios que proveen una prueba de autoría de los mensajes no son nada ambivalentes.

Un intercambio fue particularmente interesante. Alguien preguntó “¿Qué podría convencerla de que la CF no funciona?” Ashby evitó contestar devolviendo la pregunta a quien la hizo: ¿Qué podría convencer a la gente que para este individuo funciona?” Desafortunadamente, debido al formato del seminario web, quien preguntaba no podía responder fácilmente, pero hubo una respuesta obvia: “Estaría convencido si el individuo pudiera pasar un simple test a doble-ciego similar a los que se usan en otras evaluaciones de la CF”. Todos los estudios publicados sobre la CF que han usado pruebas a doble-ciego han demostrado que los facilitadores —y no los individuos discapacitados— estaban controlando el tipeo.

Ashby contestó otra interrogación proveniente de un participante que preguntó sobre una reciente política de la Asociación Americana para el Habla y la Audición (ASHA) que se oponía al uso del Método de Incitación Rápida (RPM), una variante de la CF. La ASHA, así como un gran número de organizaciones profesionales, había lanzado previamente una declaración de políticas contra el uso de la CF. Ashby reconoció la nueva política de la ASHA pero sugirió que diferentes sistemas escolares estaban buscando sus terapeutas profesionales del habla —algunos de los cuales están usando la CF o el RPM— como guía:

Estoy trabajando con muchas escuelas del área, y sin duda están informados de la declaración de la ASHA. Pero también creen muy enérgicamente que este es un derecho humano y civil para los estudiantes.

Teniendo en cuenta esta observación, parece que algunos terapeutas del habla continúan usando la CF y el RPM, oponiéndose a las recomendaciones de sus organizaciones profesionales.

Aunque la CF y el RPM están más asociados con el autismo, esta no es la primera vez que estas técnicas han sido promovidas para los niños con síndrome de Down. A principios de los ‘90, cuando la CF era novedosa, sus promotores sugerían que podría usarse en niños con síndrome de Down, y en 2005, Christine Tracey (2005) escribió un artículo en Noticias y Actualizaciones sobre el síndrome de Down donde consideraba que fue una implementación exitosa de la CF para su hijo Matteo. La familia vivía en Roma, Italia, donde Matteo concurría a la escuela con un facilitador. Además, Ashby citó a una usuaria llamada Mary, con síndrome de Down, también italiana, que utilizaba la CF. Finalmente, Ashby sugirió que la CF podía utilizarse en un sinnúmero de enfermedades relacionadas con la falta de habilidad para hablar.

Dada la misión de la NDSS de ser “La organización líder en derechos humanos para todos los individuos con síndrome de Down”, no sorprende que la organización apoye un método de comunicación que Ashby describe como “un derecho humano y civil”. No obstante, resulta desafortunado que un grupo líder de ayuda a las personas con síndrome de Down promueva un sistema de creencias en lugar de métodos basados en la evidencia que funcionan.

Una nueva revisión de la CF

Todo esto resulta algo irónico porque menos de dos meses antes del seminario web, se publicó una nueva revisión de la investigación sobre la CF en la revista de revisión por pares Autism & Developmental Language Impairments (Autismo y Deficiencias en el Desarrollo del Lenguaje) (Hemsley et al. 2018). Desde que apareció la CF, a principios de los ‘90, ha habido una serie de revisiones sistemáticas de la investigación sobre este método. Hemsley y sus colegas abarcaron el período entre 2014 y 2018, y sus conclusiones no fueron nada ambiguas:

No hay nuevos estudios de autores ni evidencia de que la CF sea una forma válida de comunicación para los individuos con severas discapacidades de comunicación. Seguimos sin estudios disponibles que demuestren que los individuos con discapacidades de comunicación sean los autores de los mensajes generados al usar la CF. Es más, hay abundante literatura de revisión por pares que es crítica respecto de la CF y advierte contra su utilización (Hemsley et al. 2018, p. 2).

Esto no suena como resultados de investigación ambivalentes o contradictorios. Cuando usted compara los hallazgos de este estudio con la presentación del seminario web de la NDSS, es difícil evitar llegar a la conclusión de que aquellos que condujeron investigaciones rigurosas, de revisión por pares sobre la CF, viven en un mundo muy diferente al de la NDSS, Christy Ashby y el Instituto de la Universidad de Syracuse para la Inclusión de la Comunicación (Syracuse University Institute on Communication Inclusion).

Nota

En contraste, la NDSS no apoya al síndrome de Down como una identidad. Su Guía de Lenguaje Preferida [pdf] todavía apoya a la “persona con la terminología del síndrome de Down.

Referencias

• Hemsley, Bronwyn, Lucy Bryant, Ralf W Schlosser, et al. 2018. La revisión sistemática de la comunicación facilitada 2014-2018 no encuentra nueva evidencia de que los mensajes enviados usando la CF sean escritos por la persona con discapacidad. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments 3: 1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941518821570.
• Kumin, Libby, and Lisa Schoenbrodt. 2016. Empleo de adultos con síndrome de Down en los Estados Unidos: Resultados de un sondeo nacional. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities : JARID 29(4): 330–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12182.
• Mostert, Mark P. 2001. La comunicación facilitada desde 1995: revisión de los estudios publicados. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 31(3): 287–313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010795219886
• __________. 2010. La comunicación facilitada y su legitimidad — Desarrollos en el siglo veintiuno. Exceptionality 18(1): 31-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903462524
• Schlosser, Ralf W., Susan Balandin, Bronwyn Hemsley, et al. 2014. La comunicación facilitada y su autoría: Una revisión sistemática. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 30(4): 359–368. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.971490
• Stubblefield, Anna. 2011. Mucho ruido y pocas nueces: cuando la oposición a la comunicación facilitada funciona como discurso de odio. Disabilities Studies Quarterly 31(4). Available online at http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1729/1777.
• Tracey, Christine. 2005. Matteo y la comunicación facilitada. Down Syndrome News and Update 4(3): 90–94. Disponible online en https://assets.cdn.down-syndrome.org/pubs/a/practice-338.pdf
• Weijerman, Michel E, and J. Peter De Winter. 2010. Práctica clínica: El cuidado de los niños con síndrome de Down. European Journal of Pediatrics 169(12): 1445–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-010-1253-0.

Stuart Vyse

Stuart Vyse es psicólogo y autor de Believing in Magic: The psychology of Superstition (La creencia en la magia: la psicología de la superstición), que ganó el Premio William James de la Asociación Americana de Psicología. También es autor de Going Broke: Why American’s Can’t Hold on to Their Money (En bancarrota: Por qué los estadounidenses no pueden mantener su dinero). Como experto en el comportamiento irracional, se lo cita frecuentemente en la prensa y ha hecho apariciones en la CNN International, la PBS NewsHour, y el NPR’s Science Friday. Se lo puede hallar en Twitter en @stuartvyse.

“We created a podcast that has significant reach; we discuss critical thinking and science. And we’re not just teaching people about it—we’re fans of it. We’re obsessed with it. We love it. It’s a cornerstone of who we are.”

—Jay Novella

In the previous parts of this article, Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast rogue Jay Novella and I discussed a wide range of topics, including the origins and evolution of the podcast, the Skeptics’ Guide book, the influence and loss of Perry DeAngelis, and the Novellas’ Sci-Fi review show, Alpha Quadrant 6. (You can read part 1 and part 2 on csicop.org.) In part 3, we conclude our comprehensive conversation.

Rob Palmer: So, Jay, tell me: at the beginning, did you or any of the Skeptics’ Guide rogues envision your podcast becoming as popular and influential as it has now become?

Jay Novella: We never thought the show would end up where it is today. Even today we consider ourselves lucky. Not to diminish the hard work. We record the show and interact with listeners over email. We also spend time getting to know our patrons. It took years for us to really understand that the podcast has a significant reach, and that it’s having an effect. And I like it that way. I like us humble. In the end, we’re doing what we set out to do, which was to help educate people. And, as Bill Nye says, we want to change the world—to make the world a better place. And science is the number one thing that the world needs.

After a conference, we’re basically talking about the people that we met, and the cool experiences that we had, and it has nothing to do with fame … I honestly don’t like being in the public eye. I like to have a private life … I would really hate to be super famous. It becomes debilitating. And I think the charm wears off very quickly. Going to a conference is awesome, because for those three days we’re in an environment where a lot of people know us, and that’s a ton of fun. But man, it feels great just leaving, and not having all that attention, because it’s emotionally heavy. I couldn’t do it twenty-four hours a day. That’s not the life I want.

Palmer: Can you tell me about your pre-SGU career and how it prepared you for your business and tech roles with the SGU?

Novella: I started off as a software engineer. I loved writing code. When the internet exploded, I got into web programming. So I was building business layer functionality behind websites and building full websites. Then I got into e-commerce, and I became an e-commerce expert. That was the last job that I had, and it dovetailed so wonderfully into me being able to grow the SGU.

When I started to work behind the scenes for the SGU, I created and maintained the website. I also handled all the audio gear. Steve and I figured out how podcasting worked, and then it progressed to the point where I was comanaging the company with Steve. We always worked together well and complemented each other. Steve’s always focused on the content, and I’m always focused on everything else. 

Palmer: Can you explain the decision to monetize the podcast?

Novella: I had to convince Steve we have to monetize this. It costs a lot of money to do what we do, and the time commitment is so huge that we all need to be compensated for the time that we put in. Steve resisted monetizing. Early on it was okay, and the costs were manageable. As we grew it got to the point where we had to make a move. At this point everyone else out there was monetized. Steve still felt we should hold off. What he wasn’t sure about was that the landscape changed. I had been watching it closely from the very beginning. Back then I agreed: we should not be asking people for money. But then it got to the point where the amount of time that we had to put in, the hosting fees, just on our media alone, was huge. Everything costs big bucks. And then we got to the point where I’m like, “we can’t continue to do this without an income. This business needs its own income…” So, finally, we started a membership, and it was a very easy transition. It was the very beginning of us having money to reinvest back into the company.

Steve and I have been talking for years about what it would be like if one of us worked full time … and it just got to the point where we knew that it could happen. Then once the lawsuit happened, all our money was going to that. It was a real barrier for us. [Note: Steve Novella and the SGU were sued for writing a critical article about a doctor’s medical practice. After several years of legal proceedings, the suit was dismissed.] We’re going to get back a portion of the half a million dollars we spent on legal fees. Now that our income isn’t tied up, we are free to grow. And so, last spring Steve and I talked about me seriously working for the SGU. I think it’s really going to happen. [Note: Not long after this interview, it was announced on the SGU that Jay had become a full-time employee of the podcast.]

[During our Skype session, I “met” both of Jay’s children who popped into his recording studio one after the other, only to be ever-so-nicely escorted out so we could resume the interview. This seemed like a good time to ask the question that a fellow Guerrilla Skeptics teammate had suggested.]

Palmer: Someone I think you know, Sharon Roney, wanted me to ask you if fatherhood is “like a big science experiment.” And how has it changed your perceptions “now that you have little human beings to mold?”

Novella: I know Sharon! Great question. It has changed my perception … first I am no longer the most important person in my universe. There’s this massive humbling effect. The amount of care that you have to give, and time and attention, is profound. And you have to want it. I couldn’t imagine doing this with the wrong partner, because you and your spouse have to be on the same team. You also have to accept the fact that your relationship is going to take a hit, because you’re not just hanging out with that person anymore. It’s a ton of work.

So yeah, it’s humbling, number one. Number two, it’s the most important thing I’ve ever done in my life. These are people that I’m responsible for. I have to commit a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money to give them the tools they need to become adults. And, you know, I want them to have fun while they’re kids and enjoy all this time. It’s wonderful … and scary. As far as teaching them, it doesn’t come as easily as you would think. It’s very complicated trying to reach a child. Especially because I started parenthood with zero experience. I never worked with kids before. Some people find it very easy; I find it very difficult.

I’m trying to figure out ways to explain things to my child, and I don’t know if they get it. My brother Steve, who had already raised two children, said, “Don’t dumb things down as much as your gut tells you to.” I want both of my kids to understand and love science … that it’s revealed secrets of the universe to us … all these wonderful pieces of information. That it’s the reason why we know how hot a volcano is … And it’s the reason why we understand the points of light that we see out there are stars, what they are, and what they’re made of. …We’re constantly putting these little tidbits of information in their heads.

Palmer: Let’s talk about NECSS [The Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism]. I’ve heard reports that the 2018 speaker list was very female-centric. Was that intentional, or just the way it worked out this time?

Novella: Humans are very male-centric. Back in the 1950s, most women didn’t work. The percentage was insignificant. Even though things are very different today, there’s still great inequalities. We noticed a long time ago that the speaker line-up at all the conferences we attended were mostly white males. As a conference organizer of ten years, it’s very easy to find excellent white male speakers. … We decided to make a concerted effort to change this.

We were the first skeptical conference to have a female MC, Leighann Lord. [In 2018] we broke 50 percent female speakers. The previous conference was about 40 percent. We just said, “Look, we’re going to broaden our net. We’re going to try twice as hard to find female speakers.” And we spent a lot of time. Liz Gaston, who was the head of the speaker committee, did a wonderful job. This was definitely intentional. It took a ton of work, and I think the last two conferences that we’ve had have been our two best.

Palmer: Did you notice the change in speaker mix having an impact on the demographics of the attendees?

Novella: No, it didn’t really change that. But we sent out a survey to everyone that attended and there was a ton of positive feedback. People were happy we did it.

[Note: it was here that I asked Jay what he thought about Sharon Hill’s blog post, written immediately preceding NECSS, in which she said she “handed in her skeptic’s card.” As his response was pertinent to the article I was writing on that subject, I used his comments there. See "I’m Keeping My Skeptic’s Card!" if you are interested.]

Palmer: I read that NECSS 2018 featured “a renewed emphasis on art and alternate outreach methods,” and that you did a workshop right up that alley called “Epic Movie Characters.” So, tell me about your presentation. What was the main thrust, and what ideas were you trying to convey?

Novella: So just to give you a little context, Brian Wecht and I decided years ago that we wanted NSCSS to have an infusion of art as well … not just science and skepticism. We want to show that our conference doesn’t have to be one-dimensional. We have a lot of attendees who are interested in other topics.

Brian and I thought the workshops were the right place to explore. The workshops are intimate; each session has no more than thirty people. We’ve done Acting 101, beginner improv, and how to speak in front of an audience. We’ve also discussed elements of film in different ways. We want people to have fun with us. We can let our hair down and enjoy some of the hobbies that we have outside of science.

Palmer: And how does this relate to your 2018 workshop?

Novella: In this particular one, we talked about the idea of what makes a character successful in a movie. I don’t mean, “Are they a likable character?” I mean, is the character actually doing a good job of relaying what they’re supposed to relay? For example, Indiana Jones may be one of the best characters ever created in any movie. Why does Indiana Jones’s character work so well? We deconstruct it, and we go through the whole process of talking about the writing, the nuances of the character, the way that the film is shot, the characters relationships. … We created a list of must haves that most successful movies follow. Successful characters typically evolve over time. They face an obstacle that changes them. Elements like these make up a successful character. When they are not there, or not done well, you end up with a one-dimensional character. It’s hard to pull off.

I remember asking the audience, “Why do we love Darth Vader, because he doesn’t even follow all these rules that we came up with?” Darth Vader is a horrible person in Star Wars. He is the ultimate bad guy. He represents Nazi Germany, for crying out loud. And he’s a kid killer. But yet, he is this phenomenally successful, loved character, even as a bad guy. Fascinating.

Palmer: Regarding the larger picture of the big skeptical conferences like NECSS: Some people are saying there are too many skeptical cons now, and they are splitting the available pool of people too much, hurting attendance at them all.

Novella: Well, I don’t honestly know how many people there are out there that want to attend a science and skepticism conference. I don’t think right now there are too many conferences. I think that the larger conferences are nicely spread out geographically. People attend the one that’s closest, or the one that they like the most. After I go to QED, I could say I’ve been to at least most of them, and they’re all so unbelievably different. They don’t feel the same. They don’t have the same regulars [or] the same staff. 

NECSS has been around for ten years, and we’ve had good attendance. Of course, I’d like a lot more people to come. I love the conference, and the people who attend have a great time. I don’t feel like the numbers are too small, or too big. … It is what it is.

Palmer: Maybe it’s just an issue with the cons in close proximity being a problem? Los Angeles and Vegas are so close that people likely pick just one.

Novella: I could see that, especially if they’re pulling from the same pool of people. I like that there are multiple conferences though. It’s our job to bring in new people and grow the community.

Palmer: Last question about cons: Any chance the SGU cast will all return to CSICon? [I met all five SGU members at CSICon 2017 but missed them at the 2018 con.]

Novella: Oh yes! We would have gone this year [in 2018], but the dates didn’t line up because of QED.

Palmer: Let’s talk about the flat-Earth conspiracy theory, or should it be called the flat-Earth “misconception”?

Novella: flat-Earth is such a profound misconception. To think that we’re having such a lack of trust of science! It’s been politicized. In my opinion this isn’t like political journalism, where you need to show both sides of the argument. There are facts, and there are things that are not even worthy of talking about. Flat earth is not even worthy of talking about. How do you even begin to tell them that, “Look, everything that you’re fighting for is so 100 percent void of any scientific credibility that I don’t even want to have this discussion with you?” It’s a total gut of established science and everything that we stand for. We know that science is legit, because it delivers the goods—as so many people have quoted over and over again.

Our society is run on technology, which comes from science. We’re surrounded by incredible feats of technology. flat-Earthers are communicating to each other on cell phones, through social media that’s going through hundreds or thousands of computers! It’s like an ant sitting on top of a pile of refined sugar saying, “The gods are providing us with unlimited food.” Well, no, you happen to be an ant that lives in the sugar factory. Give me a break.

Palmer: I understand that someone in your own family has these fringe beliefs, including being a flat-Earther. Do you want to discuss that?

Novella: Talk about very odd circumstances! She’s closely related to me, Bob, and Steve. We created a podcast that has significant reach; we discuss critical thinking and science. And we’re not just teaching people about it—we’re fans of it. We’re obsessed with it. We love it. It’s a cornerstone of who we are. And she is a fundamentalist. She is a conspiracy theorist. She is a survivalist. One day she said that they could see heaven with a telescope. My guess is someone read an article about seeing some type of gaseous cloud that had some cool shape to it. This is transformed into seeing heaven. And of course, that’s where God is! As if God is floating somewhere in outer space. We have this lump of flesh sitting on top of a spine that is the most incredible thing in the universe. It’s called a brain. Millions of years of evolution, and [flat-Earthers] refuse to use it.

The humbling thing is that she is a highly educated person. Some people need to believe so badly that they can compartmentalize anything … literally anything. Even the [shape of] Earth.

Palmer: Do you think it’s a matter of accepting a different level of proof for one’s beliefs, or just wanting badly to believe something despite mountains of contradictory evidence?

Novella: I don’t think proof has anything to do with it. Their perception is based off of their emotional needs. I’ve talked about flat earth concepts with people who believe it, and it doesn’t matter what you say. No level of proof can sway them from their belief. They’ve gone into the snake’s mouth, and most of them can’t pull themselves out. 

I want to thank Jay for being extraordinarily generous with his time, and for giving me more than enough interesting material for this three-part interview series.

Photo By Marco Verch

¿El mundo se está volviendo más loco? Parece que sí, pero quizá es que yo estoy más consciente de la estupidez. He aquí solo unas pocas cosas estrafalarias con las que me he cruzado recientemente.

La adivinación usando espárragos

En enero de 2019 The Mirror y varias otras fuentes informaronque una persona de Bath, Inglaterra, llamada Jemima Packington puede predecir el futuro utilizando espárragos. Es la única “espárrago-mántica” en el mundo. Lanza tallos de espárragos al aire e interpreta cómo caen y afirma haber realizado docenas de predicciones exactas. Este año predijo (el nacimiento) de dos niños reales cuando los tallos cayeron en forma de corona y dos tallos pequeños señalaron la corona. Explica: “Mi tía abuela leía las hojas de té y yo heredé su don”. Uno se pregunta cómo los genes de lectura de las hojas de té se las arreglaron para mutar en genes de lectura a través de los esparragos.

En un artículo posterior, The Mirror describe otras formas extravagantes de adivinar su futuro, como observar a su gato (ailuromancia), examinar zapatos viejos, observar huevos blancos mientras hierven en el agua (oomancia), contemplarse el ombligo, abrir un libro en cualquier página, mirar el sedimento en un vaso de vino (enomancia), estudiar el tamaño de las burbujas de la orina (uromancia), y muchas más. Una de mis favoritas es la rumpología, practicada por la madre del actor Sylvester Stallone (astróloga), que lee los glúteos mirándolos o tocándolos.

La adivinación tiene una historia larga y venerable. Las Urim y las Thummim, mencionadas en la Biblia, se usaban en la adivinación. En la China antigua, se usaban tallos de milenrama para generar números del I Ching, y se calentaban plastrones de tortuga de manera que pudieran interpretarse las rajaduras. En la Roma Antigua los arúspices examinaban las vísceras. Si quiere saber más, un artículo en Wikipedia cataloga cientos de métodos de adivinación en orden alfabético. Solo con la letra A hay cuarenta y una entradas. Es muy entretenido leer la lista. ¿Arañas? ¿Ranas? ¿Truenos? ¿Dominó? ¿Agua de lluvia? ¿Pétalos de rosa? ¿Hablar con los muertos? La ingenuidad humana no tiene fin. Con tantos métodos para elegir, ¿cuál decidiría usar usted? No se preocupe buscando estudios controlados comparando la precisión de los diferentes métodos: no hay ninguno. Pero sería divertido llevarlos a cabo.

Por supuesto, estos métodos son solo superstición. Usted querrá saber cómo tanta gente llegó a creer en ellos. No es difícil de comprender. En primer lugar, los adivinos usan el sentido común: tienen idea de qué respuestas desean los consultantes y cuáles son plausibles. Cuando algo que predijo el adivino ocurre, este hecho tiene un poderoso impacto. La gente recuerda los aciertos y olvida los yerros. O encuentran excusas respecto de las predicciones fallidas. Unos pocos aciertos pesan más que muchos errores: motivan a la gente a volver. Y las predicciones a menudo son lo suficientemente vagas como para que los consultantes puedan identificar algo en su vida que parezca encajar con la predicción. ¿Dos niños de la realeza este año? ¿En qué país? ¿Que constituye la realeza? ¿Cuán lejos está en la línea de sucesión? Si usted observa con suficiente diligencia, se las arreglará para encontrar un par de nacimientos “reales” este año. O quizá la adivina quiso decir que nacerían dos niños con el apellido Royal (Real). Si realmente quiere creer, encontrará una forma de activar el sesgo de confirmación.

Tratamiento facial usando caracoles

No es nada nuevo, pero todavía figura en las noticias. Recientemente BuzzFeed declaró que deberían proscribirse porque resultan asquerosos. Ilustraron sus puntos de vista con varias fotos. Haga clic en el enlace y eche una mirada: probablemente estará de acuerdo en que son desagradables. Si quiere usar la mucosidad, ¿no se podrían juntar y aplicar los moluscos?

En Tokio, usted puede hacer una sesión de masajes con caracoles por 200 dólares. Una persona que lo hizo dijo: “Decidí que podría ser preferible a otra terapia natural —‘uguisu no fun’, o masajes con excrementos de ruiseñor, que se vienen usando en Japón hace siglos”. ¡“No fun” es correcto!

Se dice que la mucosidad del caracol contiene nutrientes y antioxidantes y contribuye a rejuvenecer el rostro. La idea no es nueva. En la antigua Grecia, Hipócrates usaba caracoles triturados y leche agria para tratar inflamaciones de la piel. Aparentemente, la mucosidad es exudada cuando los caracoles están con estrés. (Suena como crueldad a los animales: ¿la SPCA (Sociedad para la prevención de la crueldad hacia los animales) sabe algo sobre esto?

This article was originally available in English.
Click here to read it.

¿Podría usted hacerlo por sí mismo? ¿Las babosas de mi patio podrían hacer el trabajo? Incluso en los mejores spa, con los caracoles más limpios, no hay un potencial riesgo para la salud? Los caracoles pueden tener bacterias, virus y parásitos como el nematodo conocido con el nombre Angiostrongylus cantonensis.

No hay estudios científicos que hayan demostrado que existe algún beneficio por parte de los tratamientos faciales con caracoles. Los caracoles se usan más apropiadamente en la gastronomía que en la dermatología. He comido caracoles, pero no estoy dispuesta a permitir que repten por mi rostro. Me pueden llamar prejuiciosa si lo desean.

Inyecciones de semen en los brazos

En Irlanda un hombre fue al hospital con dolor de espalda. Los médicos advirtieron que su antebrazo estaba rojo e hinchado. El paciente confesó que se había inyectado su propio semen en las venas y músculos una vez por mesdurante dieciocho meses para auto-tratarse el dolor de espalda. El caso fue publicado en el Irish Medical Journal con el título “’Dolor de espalda Seminalmente’ inocuo: presentación inusual de un absceso subcutáneo”. Fue el primer caso declarado de inyección de semen para cualquier propósito. El paciente fue tratado con antibióticos intravenosos pero se dio de alta por su cuenta sin valerse de una incisión o drenaje. Se desconoce de dónde sacó la idea de que esto curaría su dolor de espalda. Realmente querría saber en qué estaba pensando.

Más tonterías

Usted puede hacerse un tratamiento facial con veneno de serpiente en Beverly Hills en lugar de usar Botox. Y, por supuesto, hay tratamientos faciales con vampiros, sobre los cuales escribí recientemente. También he escrito sobre beber sangre de murciélago, terapia vacuna, corpiños y tampones, charlatanismo vaginal, tratamientos con trementina y el del médico que trata el SIDA con leche de cabra.

No hay límite para la estupidez, y nada que la gente pueda ser persuadida de no intentar hacer. Pero hay algo rescatable: toda esta insensatez es muy entretenida. Solo recuerde reírse de las ideas, no de la gente. Tenga empatía hacia los individuos que hicieron lo mejor que pudieron pero fueron víctimas de la desinformación y falta de educación en el pensamiento crítico.

1. N. del T. La autora utiliza un juego de palabras. “No fun” significa “no es divertido”.

Harriet Hall, médica retirada de la Fuerza Aérea de los Estados Unidos, y cirujana de aviación, escribe y educa sobre la pseudociencia llamada medicina alternativa. Ha contribuido con la revista Skeptical Inquirer y del blog Science-Based Medicine. Es autora de Se supone que las mujeres no vuelan: memorias de una cirujana aviadora, y co-autora del libro de texto (2012) Salud del consumidor: una guía para tomar decisiones inteligentes.

Carl Sagan, Father of the "Baloney Detection Kit"

La ciencia es persuasiva, y debería serlo; la ciencia es el gran detector de la realidad. Lo que parece ser una afirmación científica, a menudo no lo es. Los promotores de la pseudociencia (afirmaciones disfrazadas de ciencia que tienen poco valor científico) saben del gran valor puesto en la ciencia. Agregue un término científico, o hágalo sonar como ciencia, y el valor de una afirmación, producto o servicio será instantáneamente realzado. Esto también puede ser problemático porque el agregar la palabra ciencia a una afirmación no la transforma en ciencia.

La pseudociencia es un gran obstáculo para la racionalidad. Las creencias pseudocientíficas son más costosas de lo que la gente imagina. El tiempo y el dinero gastados en la pseudociencia son tiempo y dinero que se podrían haber gastado en actividades beneficiosas. Vivimos en una sociedad interconectada, y así las creencias pseudocientíficas de poca gente pueden influir en muchas personas. Como ejemplo, la falsa creencia de que el autismo es causado por o asociado a la vacunación temprana ha llevado a tasas de inmunidad reducidas, más niños hospitalizados, y en algunos casos a la muerte (Stanovich et al. 2016). Como otro ejemplo, considere la extraña afición de Steve Jobs que “ignoró a sus médicos luego de que le informaran de su cáncer de páncreas y postergó una cirugía nueve meses mientras siguió dietas frutales no comprobadas, consultó a un vidente y se sometió a la falaz hidroterapia” (Stanovich et al. 2016,192).

El Kit de detección de charlatanería

El estímulo para escribir el Kit de Detección de charlatanería fueron las sugerencias previas hechas por Carl Sagan (1996), Lilienfeld et al. (2012) y Shermer (2001). Este Kit se refiere a las charlatanería en el sentido de “disparate científico”. En el sentido que se una aquí, charlatanería se utiliza como sinónimo de pseudociencia. No hay un único criterio para distinguir ciencia de pseudociencia, pero es posible identificar indicadores, o signos de advertencia. A mayor número de signos de advertencia, mayor es la probabilidad de que la afirmación sea una tontería.

Indicador de charlatanería: las afirmaciones no han sido verificadas por una fuente independiente.

Quienes promueven charlatanería afirman frecuentemente que poseen un conocimiento especial, descubrimientos específicos que solo ellos conocen. Estos hallazgos muchas veces se ven reflejados en expresiones como “descubrimientos revolucionarios”, “lo que los científicos no quieren que usted sepa”, “lo que solo unos pocos han descubierto” y otras por el estilo. Estos hallazgos no se someten a la crítica o a la reproducción. Cuando se llevan a cabo estudios, es imperativo que los investigadores operacionalicen (que provean una precisa definición operacional usada para manipular o medir una variable) variables, de manera que los detalles se puedan criticar y reproducir. Los acientíficos no se preocupan por ello. Si un hallazgo no puede ser reproducido tenemos un gran problema, y resulta irrazonable considerar un solo hallazgo como evidencia. También resulta problemático cuando solo aquellos que realizan en descubrimiento original lo han reproducido con éxito.

Indicador de charlatanería: el demandante solo ha buscado evidencia confirmatoria

El sesgo de confirmación es un error cognitivo (sesgo cognitivo) definido como la tendencia a buscar evidencia confirmatoria ignorando la no-confirmatoria (Gilovich 1991). La mayoría de la gente tiene tendencia a buscar evidencia que apoye (sus hallazgos) ignorando (o sin buscar demasiado) la evidencia no-confirmatoria. Una característica importante del pensador científico es la tendencia a buscar evidencia no-confirmatoria. Aquellos que promueven el charlatanería ni deben estar al tanto de la evidencia no-confirmatoria, ya que no tienen interés en ese tipo de información. La ciencia está estructurada para minimizar el sesgo de confirmación. El difunto Richard Feynman (Premio Nobel de Física) sugería que la ciencia es un conjunto de procesos que detectan el auto-engaño (Feynman 1999). La ciencia nos ayuda a asegurarnos de que no nos engañamos.

This article was originally available in English.
Click here to read it.

Indicador de charlatanería: las creencias y sesgos personales conducen a las conclusiones

Las afirmaciones disparatadas están frecuentemente influenciadas por los sesgos y creencias personales. Los científicos reconocen sus sesgos y creenciaspersonales y usan procesos científicos para minimizar los efectos. También, como lo hacen los pseudocientíficos, los científicos buscan evidencia confirmatoria. “En algún punto, usualmente durante el sistema de revisión por pares (aunque sea informalmente, cuando uno ve que los colegas leen un manuscrito antes de que sea entregado para su publicación, o formalmente cuando el manuscrito es leído y criticado por colegas, o públicamente luego de que salga la edición impresa), tales sesgos y creencias son erradicados, o serechaza la publicación del artículo o libro”, decía Michael Shermer (2001, 22). Quienes promueven la charlatanería fracasan en el reconocimiento de sus sesgos (consciente o inconscientemente) y así hacen muy poco esfuerzo para prevenir esta forma de influenciar sus afirmaciones.

Indicador de charlatanería: excesiva confianza en las autoridades

Mucho de lo que aprendemos proviene de personas con autoridad (docentes, autores, padres, periodistas, etc.), y dichas autoridades a veces se equivocan. El mérito de la afirmación, independientemente de quien la hace necesita tenerse en cuenta. La autoridad puede darnos una pista de lo que es correcto, pero las autoridades son falibles. Éstas frecuentemente afirman diferentes creencias. ¿Qué autoridad está en lo correcto? Incluso las autoridades con mayor reputación son susceptibles a un rango de sesgos conscientes e inconscientes; cometen errores y a veces tienen determinados intereses, así como los que no son expertos. Carl Sagan escribió que “Las autoridades deben probar sus opiniones como cualquier otro. Esta independencia de la ciencia, su ocasional negativa a aceptar la sabiduría convencional, convierte en peligrosas las doctrinas menos auto-críticas, o con pretensiones de certidumbre” (Sagan 1996, 28). Feynman (1999, 104) agrega: “La autoridad podría dar una pista sobre lo que es la verdad, pero no es fuente de información. Tanto como sea posible, debemos ignorar la autoridad cuando las observaciones no estén de acuerdo con ella”.

La autoridad más importante en la ciencia es la evidencia.

Indicador de charlatanería: excesiva dependencia respecto de las anécotas

Las anécdotas (breves relatos personales de un evento) no son suficientes para concluir que una afirmación es verdadera. Las anécdotas son difíciles de verificar, y muchas veces no son representativas, han sido generadas por casi todos los fenómenos que puedan imaginarse y a menudo están construidas para parecer significativas cuando de hecho no lo son. Las anécdotas pueden ser útiles como hipótesis y podrían eventualmente ser consideradas como evidencia, pero no deben utilizarse excesivamente en las discusiones científicas. Desde el primer día de clases, informo a mis estudiantes que la discusión científica requiere referencias a los datos científicos. Las experiencias y opiniones personales generalmente aportan poco en las discusiones sobre ciencia, especialmente cuando no pueden ser inferidas razonablemente a partir de la literatura científica.

Indicador de charlatanería: uso de excesivas palabras o términos que suenan como “científicos”

En un intento por distinguir con precisión conceptos similares, los científicos pueden usar una jerga especializada. A veces “se abusa de esta práctica, especialmente cuando la terminología aporta técnicas sin basamento con una inmerecida respetabilidad científica” (Lilienfeld et al. 2012, 27). Aquellos que promueven la pseudociencia muchas veces usan palabras técnicas, de manera que parezcan inteligentes o cultos incluso cuando la utilización de las palabras es incorrecta. En contraste con el lenguaje científico, este léxico casi nunca tiene sentido, precisión, o ambos (Lilienfeld and Landfield 2008). Usar palabras que suenen como científicas es un dispositivo retórico poderoso. El hecho de que suenen científicas no las hace necesariamente científicas.

Referencias

• Feynman, R. 1999. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out the Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
• Gilovich, T. 1991. How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York, NY: The Free Press.
• Lilienfeld, S., R. Ammirati, and M. David. 2012. Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. Journal of School Psychology 50: 7–36.
• Lilienfeld, S., and K. Landfield. 2008. Science and pseudoscience in law enforcement: A user friendly primer. Criminal Justice and Behavior 35: 1215–1230.
• Sagan, C. 1996. The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
• Shermer, M. 1997. Why People Believe Weird Things. New York, NY: Owl Books.
• ———. 2001. The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense. Oxford University Press.
• Stanovich, K., R. West, and M. Toplak. 2016. The Rationality Quotient: Toward A Test of Rational Thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Jamie Hale

Jamie Hale es profesor de la facultad y asociado al Laboratorio de la Eastern Kentucky University's Cognitive Neuroscience y al Laboratorio de Percepción & Cognición. Ha publicado artículos y libros sobre una gran variedad de tópicos. Jamie es director de www.knowledgesummit.net y autor de Confiamos en la evidencia: la necesidad de la ciencia, la racionalidad y las estadísticas. Sus futuros artículos tratarán sobre los modelos para mejorar el pensamiento científico, los mitos populares, y la racionalidad en términos de la ciencia cognitiva.

In the tradition of Operation Bumblebee and Operation Ice Cream Cone, I bring you Operation Pizza Roll. Okay, that does sound pretty dramatic and silly, but I assure you that this is quite serious. I also suggest that you will have a much better understanding of what I’m going to tell you if you take a few minutes and familiarize yourself with Bumblebee and Ice Cream Cone first.

Before I get to the goals, operation, and results, I should remind readers what the difference is between a cold reading and a hot reading. A cold reading is when a psychic (medium) does not know you, but “reads” your body language, appearance, and reactions to usually very general statements that fit most people; statements such as “You have always wanted to write a book” or “Your father used to say things that would embarrass you when you were young.” Cold reading can happen over the phone, by text, and even more successfully in person. No matter how hard you might try not to give feedback to a psychic, you will probably do so inadvertently. 

A hot read is when the psychic has information on you beforehand. Someone might have overheard you talking in the waiting area, they might have been given information from your friend that suggested you get the reading, or someone watched you park and exit your car in the garage, and so many other methods. Possibly they might have your name and did an internet search or a Google reverse image search. Or you paid with a credit card or used Paypal, or they found your information on social media. There are many ways to get a hot reading on someone.

To catch a psychic in a hot read is very difficult. The majority of psychics I’ve come in contact with usually cold read their way through the reading. With practice and just by paying close attention, most everyone can cold read convincingly. Operation Bumblebee and Ice Cream Cone were elaborate stings to catch a psychic in a hot read, but in both cases, we were only able to prove the cold read.

If you ask an expert on psychics such as Mark Edward, he will tell you that psychics are just lazy, especially when doing a group reading. Using the law of large numbers, if a psychic on a stage throws out some vague statement to an audience of 200 people, someone is going to claim the reading for themselves. If the psychic starts to miss, they just move to a person nearby and continue.

People such as myself and Mark Edward, who have been interested in psychics for many years, know that with the invention of social media as avenues open for gathering information, hot reads are easily available. In fact, if an up-and-coming psychic superstar who isn’t already banking a six-figure income doesn’t take advantage of internet search applications, they are missing out on a great opportunity to increase their “hits” to maximum level—no matter how distasteful that may be to mention here.

Purchase your ticket to see the psychic online and then share on Facebook or Twitter that you will be attending the psychic show and in seconds the psychic is now aware of your social media feed, as well as all the content you put on it. The psychic only needs a few “ringers” in the audience to get the gasps of wonderment and bring in the book sales and private readings, which is where the big money is.

The bigger the audience, the easier it is for the psychic to hide the hot read and the harder to set up a sting to catch them. You have to have a way to control the information. Maybe Grandma also reads your social media in the afterlife and knows you lost your car keys for two days? Just because you wrote about that happening on your Facebook feed isn’t clear enough evidence for a hot read. The psychic can claim that they got that information from your own brain through telepathy or maybe Grandma told them, or possibly the psychic read it on Facebook. For a successful psychic sting, you have to have strict protocol and controls.

BBC 3 did a wonderful sting on three mediums in 2007. They gave a building a fake history in a newsletter and website as well as added a plaque and photo to make the story more convincing. All three mediums fell for it and all were called out during the taping, which made for great TV. But the mediums could have claimed that they got the information from the film crew and the organizers’ minds. Everyone in the room knew the fake story. This sting wasn’t correctly blinded.

Catching someone in an irrefutable hot read involves controlling the sting in such a way that the people being read don’t know the planted online information. With Operation Pizza Roll we did exactly that. It worked like a charm.

Locking in a psychic in a hot read was near the top of my goal list, but even more importantly I wanted to get the skeptic community excited and interested in doing activism. This specific psychic I had never heard of and had no idea if he was hungry enough to go for the sure thing I was going to hand him on the silver platter that is Facebook.

I also had to make sure that my volunteers understood that we were going to create the very sort of fiction that the psychic creates; fighting fire with fire. As much as we disliked doing so, we were going to have to hand over money. We could have purchased $65 tickets, but those people aren’t going to get a reading. VIP is the only way to get a chance to get called on. We wanted to look like we were grieving and were not living paycheck to paycheck. The psychic wants to get his/her hook in the real believers and wealthy newcomers. In this case, each seat was $125. My team understood that we were not going to expose the psychic at the venue, and it was quite possible that our actions might have made the believers in the audience into even bigger believers as attendees we were going to agree with whatever the psychic told us.

Mark Edward agreed to attend the event with me. A single man in the audience is suspect as the room is generally filled with women. In most instances, there are only a few men, and they all appear to be with their wives. Edward and I became Mr. and Mrs. Wilson for the night. Seven international volunteers, Edward, and I discussed the basic plan in our secret Facebook group: Operation Pizza Roll. We only had one week to pull this off. In previous stings, we took months to prepare. We pulled old fake Facebook pages out of Bumblebee retirement, changed the names and photos and the volunteer team (now calling themselves Pizzarollers) made a super-duper secret Facebook group that Edward and I were not admitted into. At some point in the discussion the Pizzarollers were having, they decided that Susanna was going to go to a psychic. She saw a Facebook ad for Thomas John—the Manhattan Medium and tagged him on Facebook. They discussed among themselves about attending and tagged him again. Tagging on Facebook informs the psychic that there are people interested in attending one of their events and gives them the ability to link back to our social media accounts. Social media accounts that were created just for that psychic to view.

The Pizzarollers created detailed backstories for Mark and Susanna Wilson: shared cat videos, checked into restaurants, and did what they could to look like normal Facebook users. They quickly created the story that Susanna was stressed about losing her dear twin brother Andy to pancreatic cancer in 2016. Mark was upset that he did not get to say goodbye to his father who passed away many years ago, from heart disease. Now Mark was concerned that he had inherited the disease.

This is all we knew when we sat down in the VIP section that night in March 2017. Just in case, Edward and I wore items that would enable the psychic to also easily cold read us. Edward had a lapel pin from the Marine Corps, and I wore a Scottish pin. We both also wore wedding bands.

The venue held about fifty people. We were in the third row with fifteen other VIP ticket holders. The psychic stood on stage with his eyes closed for two hours, hardly moving at all. He took no breaks and when he felt someone was speaking to him from beyond the grave, the person in the audience who “claimed the reading” raised their hand and was given a microphone. I should add that the entire audience was given permission to audio tape the readings. After a religious deep-breathing prayer, we got started. This rushed excuse for piety seemed less than a serious attempt at injecting spirituality and more like a disingenuous qualifier for the religious in the audience. 

The first reading was all the way in the back row and every statement was a direct hit. It was odd how specific the statements were. It was too perfect. Edward gave me that knowing look. The second reading I need to mention because it was directly across from us, again very specific and although the woman in green (to be mentioned later) was dabbing at her eyes with a tissue throughout the reading, Edward said she wasn’t actually crying. Then it was our turn.

He said “I’m getting someone’s twin” so I timidly raised my hand claiming the reading, and they brought me the microphone. He asked me if this was my brother, Andy, who died from pancreatic cancer only a short time ago. I responded very meekly, “Yes,” and pulled out tissues to dab away tears, pretending to get very hotfaced from the obviously stressful moment of hearing from my recently deceased non-existent twin brother. Edward had to get a paper from someone to fan me from time to time. What a loving husband.

Our readings lasted fifteen-minutes and included Mark’s father who had died a long time ago from heart disease. The psychic picked up that Mark was really stressed over some medical tests he would be getting the results for in a week. He was told to stop obsessing over the tests, something would be changed and of course to pay attention to what the doctors say. All of this we already knew.

Then the psychic started talking about things we had no idea about. Who is Buddy? I said my brother and father each had that nickname. Turns out it was my black Labrador who had died, and Steve kept getting mentioned, but we stumbled over how to answer who it was. I said we knew many Steve’s and thought it might be a close friend of my brother’s. We found out later Steve was Mark’s father. Who is Maria? I said it was Andy’s girlfriend. It was Andy’s wife, and she was holding a small box that I needed to get from her. Who smoked and quit and started up again? Was it my brother Andy? Relieved to be led to the right answer, I agreed that it was. Apparently, Andy is going to connect with me with music that we shared in common. What is the connection with Michigan? I had no idea what to say so I said we had lived there at one time. Also, Andy is on the other side with dogs.

This went on with a few more details thrown in, we had no idea what was on the Facebook pages, so no idea how much he had read past the general information Edward and I were given by the Pizzarollers. We knew we had confused the psychic with some of our answers. How did I not know my beloved dog was named Buddy? And Edward didn’t know his father’s name was Steve? We blundered through those parts of the reading, but by then we had proved conclusively we had no idea what was on the Facebook pages and the psychic did. And the only way he could have known that information was to have read it on Facebook.

Hours later we were able to tell the Pizzarollers what the psychic said and sent them audio of the reading. They shared screenshots from the pages showing how correct the psychic was about our backstories. Several of the statements made by the psychic confused them, they started looking over other Facebook accounts and discovered some posts that they had made but forgotten about, like when Andy had made a Facebook life event for when he stopped smoking in 2013 and someone congratulating him on his marriage to Maria. The Michigan statement was really confusing. One of the Pizzarollers noticed a photo someone had put up, just a random photo meant to be a filler. It was of a building in a park, the caption reads “Frenchman Creek, Cornwall,” which is in England. The psychic had asked if I had any connection to “overseas” and I said “well, yes” but wasn’t specific. Turns out that if you do an internet search for “Cornwall Creek,” you will discover it is in Michigan.

The VIP pass included a twenty-minute meet and greet with the psychic, where we were going to get a free signed copy of the psychic’s latest book, Never Argue with a Dead Person: True and Unbelievable Stories from the Other Side. Before we got up from our seats, a woman from the audience came over and said how nice it was that our family came through for us. I asked her if she also got a reading tonight. She said she had and was delighted that this time her grandmother had come through, not like the last time when he gave her a reading. What? Yep, she was also a hot read. She told us that she had attended a small event that included all ten people getting a personal reading not so long ago. She wasn’t even suspicious. It was really sad to see her so caught up in it.

During the meet and greet, everyone was handed a copy of the psychic’s latest book. The psychic walked among us asking our names to personalize the book. When he got to the woman in green previously mentioned, she handed the psychic the book and joked to him to “spell it correctly this time.” It seemed odd to us that the psychic didn’t need to ask this person their name but asked everybody else. After getting our books to Susanna and Mark signed and a selfie with the psychic, I asked if there were other mediums he respected. We were given a few names of people we had never heard of. Then were told of a “few students that were really promising.” I asked, “Students? You have students?” After answering in the affirmative, the psychic pointed to two women sitting with us in the VIP area. One of them was the woman in green whom he had given an amazingly detailed reading to and who Edward had flagged as a fake tear dabber. Wow! It appears the psychic did indeed have a promising student and one who was very well trained. In mentalist circles, this is known as a stooge or “plant.” No one in the room seemed to pick up on that.

The psychic read about ten people during the two hours. Four of them were hot reads. I can only wonder about the other six. I should mention the statement from the manager who introduced the psychic at the beginning. She said, “How nice to see so many familiar faces.”

The day after the event, the Pizzarollers were busily going through all the audio and looking at the Facebook pages, and found during searches that our psychic has a criminal history. Apparently, he was a performer in Chicago using the name “Lady Vera Parker” in 2009 when he was arrested and jailed for taking security deposits on Craigslist for property he did not own. He had many different aliases and, according to an 800Notes website, has had the Chicago police asking for more information from people who had fallen for his scams. I did call the phone number listed and it was indeed the Cook County police department. We found several other gossipy style websites that talked about his police record and other events. In 2016, the New York Daily News reported that a California PR company was suing Thomas John for not paying for their services. According to the court records the Daily News had, the firm ZTPR had been hired to “help him build and exaggerate in the press his public profile as a believable psychic medium”. Yelp reviews are mixed, five-stars that love him, others give him one-star reviews. Several mentioned that they felt that the information they received was from an internet search for the name on the account of the person who purchased the tickets. Others say that there was “no way he could have known all the information he relayed.” One of our favorite phrases we hear frequently. Some were savvy enough to say that they hadn’t posted all that much information on social media so didn’t think he could have found iy there.

One really odd thing happened to me a couple days after the event. I had not mentioned publicly to anyone the name of the psychic. I did talk about doing a successful sting on my Facebook page, but without mentioning his name how would he know to look on my page. Still, I made sure that the post was hidden for “friends only.” I received a tweet from the psychic to my Susan Gerbic Twitter feed with only a heart. He figured it out, by tweeting to me, he was letting me know that he had seen through the Susanna Wilson persona. But how? The only two options I can think of were that he is truly psychic, or he figured it out from Susan Gerbic purchasing the tickets for Susanna and Mark Wilson over Paypal.

So now we end, if you would like to listen to Mark and Susanna’s reading it is here for your listening pleasure. Remember that we are stumbling through this reading as we only knew a tiny bit about what was on those Facebook pages. Thank you Mark Edward for your help with this article.

Have you ever heard that skeptics overthink puzzles? Well that just happened to me and I’m going to tell you an amazing story, so buckle up.

I’ve spent hours reviewing Lifetime’s TV show “Seatbelt Psychic” with so-called psychic medium Thomas John. Yes, you read that right, it is called “Seatbelt Psychic” because John drives around Los Angeles and picks up “unsuspecting passengers.” As he drives them to their destinations he speaks to their dead family members. Does reality television get any more ridiculous?

I wanted to watch the eight episodes, make lots of notes and write about hot and cold-readings. How mediums that claim to talk to the dead and appear to do so with such great ease. Mostly it is just clever word play and when you know what to look and listen for, you can see it and hear it. That’s what I wanted to do. For hours, I watched the first three episodes. They are 19 minutes long, but I hit pause – reverse – pause again and took a lot of notes. So for me, it does take a long time to watch one episode. I was also going to remind you that we should never make fun of the sitters, they are unsuspecting and vulnerable. Hearing that your dead father is proud of you and that your Uncle Charlie is watching over you when you are ill is pretty comforting.

I wanted to tell you all these things.

But I was wrong. 

First before we begin, I must acknowledge that I have had a reading with Thomas John in March 2017, that reading was recorded and the story is terrific. Read about Operation Pizza Roll here.

I watched the first episode of “Seatbelt Psychic” several times, taking notes and looking for patterns. I was really impressed with John’s smooth delivery. He is sympathetic without being glib or fake. He comforts these people who are bawling their eyes out, but in a way that leaves them feeling uplifted. I’ve been researching medium Tyler Henry for the past couple years and he is no where as good as Thomas John.

The sitters (in this case they could also be called riders) were interviewed after leaving the car. They all were so impressed that Thomas John was spot on every time. They were so grateful that he gave them readings and several said that their whole life has been changed and he was blessed several times by them.

So, I watched and took notes and wondered several things.

There are many cameras in the car. Watching the editing shows angles for at least six cameras inside. There is a film crew following the car and as soon as they get out, the crew is there to show them leaving the car. Why when people got in the car they didn’t react to the cameras? Why didn’t they give a destination? Why didn’t they try to pay for the ride when it was over? Why wasn’t there even a tablet on the dashboard for driving directions? People get in the car, buckle up and Thomas John pulls away from the curb and into traffic. Within a minute or two he tells him that he is a medium that speaks to the dead and asks if they are “open to getting a reading from him?” Other than saying hello, and “how is your day so far” at no time is there any conversation about the destination.

When two people got in the car together, they got into the back seat, but one always sat in the middle seat. Isn’t it more comfortable to sit next to the window? It’s a large town car, but still why bunch up with the person next to you when you can move over to the side and have a seat in-between? Possibly sitting in the middle seat made it easier to see them on the camera?

The next thing I wondered was why the people looked so finished. They reminded me of characters in “The Truman Show (1998).” Their makeup, nails and hair was well done, clothing stylish yet still looked every day. The clothing really looked odd because there were no logos anywhere. I looked purposefully for logos. Not even small one on a shirt, no baseball caps, no t-shirts with clever slogans, no Nike swooshes. If you take a random sample of people in Los Angeles taking an Uber or Lyft, some of those people will have a sports team logo somewhere. Not with this group. I have heard that TV shows do not like you to wear anything on the set that has any kind of logo, so I was really starting to get suspicious.

The stories were pretty fanciful also. One was a woman that Thomas John had to kick out of the car because he saw, “200 dead people around her.” She said she was a mortician and wasn’t bothered at all when he told her to leave the car. Then there was a firefighter from 9/11 and a woman from New Jersey whose family had been in the mafia. Another woman’s father was a cross-dresser and Thomas John said that he was seeing a man with hairy legs in women’s clothing and red panties. In episode 1 he asks a pregnant woman if she had been kidnapped, she nods yes and he says she could have been killed but an angel was watching over her. Then in episode 3 with a different woman, Thomas John asked if she had been kidnapped, she said yes and told the story of how she had been trafficked and sold all over the USA as a sex slave as a child.

People were crying all over the place as Thomas John got hit after hit. Very specific hits with names, health issues, locations and more. I was getting some tingles wondering what was going on. How was he so specific? The show claims in big letters at the beginning he has never met these people before. Would Lifetime lie about that? No way, that would be too much. What if they were found out? That would be so embarrassing for Lifetime and for Thomas John.

Then Wendy got in the car. Thomas John asked if he could hold something that belonged to her so he could get a stronger connection. Normally people give jewelry to the psychic to hold, but Wendy handed him her nametag from her workplace. As Thomas John held it in his hand, right in front of one of the cameras, it showed her full name and photo. Yep. I just paused the screen and looked at her name: Wendy Westmoreland. She was pretty easy to find on Facebook. The photo that was shown on the show of her brother whom Thomas John connected with is the same photo on her Facebook page.

I spent quite some time browsing around Wendy Westmoreland’s completely open Facebook page. She sure likes to take selfies and uploads a lot of photos. I found a post with a candle saying, “share if you have a brother in heaven also.” Then looking a little more, I found that Wendy is a part-time actor. Oh really? She shared a trailer of herself in a film called “Stalked by a Doctor: Patient’s Revenge”. I watched the trailer and there she was, a juror in the jury box. And then I noticed that “Stalked by a Doctor” was produced by Lifetime. Yep, the same producer of “Seatbelt Psychic.”

Then I went to her Facebook friend list and saw lots and lots of actors listed. I spent a couple of hours getting screen shots from “Seatbelt Psychic” and comparing them to her Facebook friends. I enlisted a few friends of mine and I’m proud to say that I think we got some matches. Then then I found a post about how Wendy just joined the actor’s union. And then it dawned on me; IMDb!

I looked up “Seatbelt Psychic” on IMDb and found that there was a cast for the show. Why would there be a cast? Other than the “random unsuspecting people” that are riders getting readings, it’s just Thomas John. He talks to the camera when he is alone in the car, but there is never anyone else.

Unless the “unsuspecting people” he gives rides to are all actors.

Looking over the IMDb link for episode 1 there are six actors listed, Lisa Cash, Curtis Kingsley, Tyrone Evans Clark, Jamaal Lewis, Kate Romero and John Stellar. The photos for their IMDb match up with the so called unsuspecting people that Thomas John gave readings to. In case you are not aware of how IMDb works, I should mention that the actors listed on the show have to add themselves, kind of like a Wiki. Lifetime is not adding their names. This is why you only see six names besides Thomas John listed, the other actors have not signed into their IMBd accounts and added themselves.

I looked at the credits for “Seatbelt Psychic” and noticed that the actors aren’t listed, but listed is a casting director, casting producer, casting coordinator and casting assistants.

Why would “Seatbelt Psychic” need casting if there is only one person on the show?

Every episode states that “THOMAS JOHN has not met any of these people before” and that is entirely believable. These actors might have been told that they were going to go for a ride in a car and just to go along with it, then Thomas John gives them their individual readings possibly with the benefit of plenty of pre-show information supplied by their agents, managers or Facebook pages.

Could it be what we are seeing isn’t acting but genuine reactions to the hits he is getting? Sure. Actors have feelings too and may be even more prone to burst into tears like anybody else who is being manipulated. That’s also believable. It’s possible these short car rides are actually much longer with more involved readings and discussions about family members, carefully edited down to include only the best of the best comments. That’s also probable.

What we do know is these people are NOT picked up on a random ride-share. They are known people before they even get near the car. Anyone who understands how hot-reading works, (the psychic has information about you before the reading happens) knows as long as the psychic knows who is going to be read, it’s an easy job to match the name and visual information, especially if you have a Hollywood headshot to refer to.

These actors have to fill out forms before they get in the car or on camera. There are then so many ways to get information on them. It only took me a couple of minutes on Wendy’s Facebook page to find an old family photo of her brother, his name and that he had died. All things that Thomas John knew as well. Thomas John told actress Lisa Cash about her getting a new dog and that her other dog that had passed over had picked out this current dog for her. A minute on Lisa Cash’s Facebook page shows how much she loves dogs. At her age she probably has had several dogs that have “passed over”. I didn’t need any fancy information to find these people. I just used their first and last names, selecting the one from Los Angeles and others by merely focusing briefly in the “About” Facebook area that they are actors. Some are Facebook friends of each other and moving from one person’s account to another makes it quite easy to locate more of these “sitters.” Jamaal Lewis has a public fan page on Facebook where he posts all the time. I know he was a tuba player in high school, his birthday and his family members as well as all kinds of random bits of information.

If not enough info is gleaned from his page, I can just click on his mother’s Facebook page and scroll through that and keep following family members till I’ve got what I need.

As I stated at the beginning of this article. I had suspected that I would be spending hours going over the word play between Thomas John and the sitters. I expected to spend weeks on this project, it was quite a surprise to find that all I had to do was look on IMBd or the credits of the show to explain how it was that Thomas John was getting such precise hits. I completely overthought this whole thing, when the answer was so simple.

They are all actors.

There are no unsuspecting passengers.

Reality shows are anything but what they claim to be. The only things that are real are often the conspicuous absence of any real script, plus there is no real acting, no real direction. As in most programming like “Seatbelt Psychic,” any real input happens in the editing room. We never see that. The sad truth is most viewers are only looking for entertainment and this on-the-cheap style of production is as lazy as it is profitable.

If I over-think, it’s only because I’m a skeptic who takes the time to look for the truth. The average viewer simply identifies with the most morbid and salacious material being fed to them, then blithely goes back to their bowl of popcorn.

Don’t overthink.

Accept the obvious and sharpen your Occam’s Razor.

Thank you Stuart Jones, Mark Edward and others for your help with the research for this story.

In January of 2018, I attended a psychic gallery reading at the Valley Forge Casino Resort in Pennsylvania. The event featured Matt Fraser, a self-proclaimed “gifted psychic medium” and author of the best-selling book The Secrets to Unlocking Your Psychic Ability (Fraser 2019). I was there, along with some friends, as secret agents taking part in a world-wide project to see just how gifted our psychic host was.

I had not heard of Fraser until I was contacted by Susan Gerbic of the Guerrilla Skepticism project. I had met Gerbic in Las Vegas during CSICon 2016 and we quickly became friends. She was planning something called Operation Peach Pit: an undercover operation to determine if a particular psychic was using hot-reading techniques during their shows. For those readers that may not know, hot reading is a technique used by “psychics” and stage performers, where they use information that had previously been acquired through various research methods (social media, eavesdropping, etc.) and deliver that information as if it was received via spirits.

Gerbic had run similar “sting ops” under the code names Operation Bumblebee, involving psychic Chip Coffey (Gerbic 2015), and Operation Ice Cream Cone, which focused on Tim Braun (a psychic endorsed by James Van Praagh). Even though neither of these investigations demonstrated the psychics were using hot-reading techniques, both did conclude that cold-reading techniques (where careful observations and calculated guesses make it appear as if the psychic knows more than they actually do) were employed.

I’m a total geek, so naturally the idea of going “undercover” appealed to me. I agreed to participate and was instructed to gather several trusted people who would be willing to play the roles of Facebook characters with well-established profiles and complete backstories. Members of the team were world-wide from New Zealand, Australia, New Jersey, and California, all keeping the social media profiles active and interacting with each other. This was truly an international operation, which caused the geek in me to get really excited.

I approached several people, explaining what was involved and making it clear that we had to keep up the act for the entire event, no matter who we interacted with: the target psychic, their staff, audience members, people sitting at the bar—i.e., everyone. I was able to recruit four others: Diana, Mike, Katrina, and Heather. With my wife, Donna, and I, we made a team of six. I gave the names to Gerbic, who then purchased six general admission tickets to a January 14 event at the Valley Forge Casino Resort featuring Matt Fraser. (There wasn’t a VIP option for this show.)

The day before the event my team had a meeting, via Skype, with Gerbic, Mark Edward, and Jack Hitt, a reporter from the New York Times. Gerbic gave us the run-down; each of my team members were given a few bits of information about the characters they were playing. It wasn’t much, just enough to get by. For example, I was given a name, where I was from and where I was currently living, and the backstory that I thought my apartment was haunted. My character had posted various photos of orbs on social media to show people I lived with spirits (I despise orbs). All our characters were friends that haven’t seen each other in a long time, and this psychic event was a bit of a reunion.

The reason for the limitation on how much information we were given was so that none of us would be able to give away specific details that could only be obtained on Facebook. Also, he couldn’t say he “read our minds” as we didn’t know any of the details on the Facebook pages; this made the sting double-blinded. The objective was to see if Fraser would take information directly from the social media accounts and relate it to us as psychic readings. If we knew too much about out characters, we might unintentionally give away personal information (fabricated or not) that would nullify the experiment.

Gerbic also instructed us on what she wanted us to do while attending the event. We were to interact with as many people as possible before the show, sharing our “stories” with as many attendees as we could. During the show, if we were picked, we were to simply go with the flow. Basically, no matter what the psychic said, we were to go along with it (agree) and see how far the narrative went.

Mark Edward then spoke up to give us some pointers. Edward is a professional mentalist and author who I also met at CSICon 2016 when my wife and I attended a cold reading workshop he hosted with Ray Hyman. Edward gave my team a crash-course in hot- and cold-reading techniques: what to look for, what the psychic will be doing, and to be alert for “plants”—people wandering around before the show to collect information. His advice was helpful and boosted everyone’s confidence. Although I had experience with this kind of thing (doing my own undercover style work), the rest of my crew had never done anything like this before. The advice and guidance from Gerbic and Edward went a long way to making everyone feel more at ease.

The day of the event finally arrived, and my team met up at the main bar in the Valley Forge Casino Resort. We got there about two hours early and totally embraced our characters; we all screamed in joy as we ran toward each other, hugging and claiming, “it’s been years since I saw you!” We got plenty of looks from those surrounding us, so we were definitely off to a good start. We spread out around the bar, meeting other attendees and sharing our stories (elaborating when asked detailed questions) with several groups of ladies, and they shared their experiences with us—both why they were there that day and their previous experiences with psychics.

After speaking with a mother and daughter, I felt a twinge of guilt; the mother was pouring her heart out, explaining how she just wanted to contact her son and make sure he was alright. This wasn’t the first time she had been to one of Matt Fraser’s events; in fact, she had attended several with the hope of being picked and hearing one last message from her son. My guilt was felt when she asked me who I was hoping to contact. I’m usually open about not believing psychics are genuine and explaining/demonstrating the techniques of hot and cold reading, but I had to stay in character or I’d ruin the whole operation. This sweet woman told me a very touching personal story, and now I was going to recite a fabricated one back to her. Even though I didn’t want to lie to this person, I also had to keep in mind that I really didn’t know this person—she might be working for the event, she might be well-known fan of Fraser, and so on. Yeah, I sound like a conspiracy theorist … but this was part of the deal.

The show was about to begin, so we all headed over to the theater. We met Fraser’s mother, who was working the front table selling her son’s books. I asked if it was okay to take photos during the event and was assured that I could take pictures and video if I wanted, which allowed me to video the entire show for review later on. We spread out over two rows of seats, with Diana sitting by herself in a different section. A quick survey of the audience indicated a predominantly female attendance; out of well over a thousand attendees, I only counted about twelve men. I took some photos and sent them to our Operation: Peach Pit contact, who in turn updated the Facebook pages and checked us into the event.

Once everyone was seated, an announcer introduced Matt Fraser by listing his many television appearances, before welcoming him to the stage. My first impression was immediate: I found him a bit gaudy. From his over-bedazzled suit jacket to his huge gold watch and superbowl-size diamond ring, it just screamed “Look at me! I have money!” After speaking with many of the attendees, I had learned that many saved up for quite some time to afford tickets. The flashing of gold, diamonds, and sequins felt like he was flaunting it in front of his fans.

As soon as he hit the stage, Fraser immediately began relating a well-rehearsed origin story of his inherited psychic powers, showing off an obvious charm and getting several laughs from his audience. He then stepped off the stage and walked among the audience as he described how the readings would go. I found this to be the standard routine I’ve heard many times before: not all messages would be clear, spirits like to talk over each other so parts may mean something to others and not you, the attendees need to help him make sense of what he says, and so on. I’ve been to several of these events with John Edward, James Van Praagh, and multiple psychics at Lily Dale, New York—and I’ve heard the same speech from all of them. It’s basically a disclaimer to cover their butts when getting things wrong, usually putting the blame on the attendee (sitter) rather than the psychic.

Fraser claims he can “help others by connecting them to their loved ones and delivering heartfelt messages from the Other Side. Matt’s special gifts are in bringing through validation with names, dates and details from your loved ones in Heaven.”(Fraser 2019). However, that’s not what I witnessed during the next two hours. Instead, I watched Fraser ask entire rows of people to stand up at a time then commence throwing out general statements (e.g., I’m seeing a father figure that passed) and waiting for someone in the row to claim it was their relative. Although picking out specific rows gave an impression he’s already narrowed down who he’s supposed to be reading, he was actually giving himself a one in twelve chance that someone will be hooked by one of his general statements, depending on the number of people in the row.

He didn’t come up with specific names or even dates, instead he tossed out random numbers such as “three” and usually left it up to the attendee to make a connection. Such numbers, given without proper context (e.g., Does the number three have any meaning to you?), can relate to anything from a day, month, or time … to part of an address or age or number of grandchildren. It’s an open-ended guess where the attendee is under pressure (from thousands of staring audience members) to make a connection. Once a connection is found, it is counted as a “hit” for the psychic and is taken as he knew what he was talking about all along.

Once someone was hooked, Fraser would then zero in on the target, employing standard cold-reading techniques: offering general statements and quickly asking questions and rephrasing the answer to seem like he already knew the answer. As he read a woman sitting a few rows behind me, I heard Fraser ask, “Now is your mom also departed?” When the woman agreed, Fraser followed quickly with “Know that she is also stepping forward now.” He obviously didn’t know, but used the information given up by his target to his advantage. A few moments later, Fraser also asked the same woman if her husband had recently departed; he was and amazing came through just at that moment. Why is he asking about things he should already know?! Because he’s not psychic, that’s why.

Perhaps the worst part of his whole routine was when he would scold an audience member for not making connections. Although he tried to do it in a “funny” way, I found that Fraser was actually quite rude and arrogant at times. He told people such things as “Hello! Would you pay attention?!” several times, often making the person look silly. This seemed to get a laugh from most of the audience, though I still don’t understand why. This attitude came out when Fraser was racking up the “misses” and/or when his target was not forthcoming with the necessary information required to continue his routine.

There was another tactic that came up as I was writing this article. Mark Edward had been watching the video I had taken (video was permitted during the event) and spotted something that raised his interest. Edward tells me, “One of the methods I spotted while watching the video of Matt Fraser’s show was something that, after seeing it and thinking it over, I immediately wanted to add into my own act! Hey, that’s showbiz. I’m always looking for a new ‘angle’ and this ruse seemed to work very well for Fraser. I could be wrong, and what he did certainly might have been a part of my active imagination, but who cares if it works, right?”

Edward explains further: “When Fraser has a row of people stand up, he goes to one end and stands just slightly in front of the row, leaning forward so he can see all their faces and body language. He states a standard fishing line such as he’s ‘getting an impression’ of something. For our example let’s use, ‘I’m feeling someone has just lost a father figure.’ As he states this and in this same moment, he brings up into view his pointing index finger and begins the process of generally pointing it at the row. He’s scanning for a reaction here. In the split second between when someone acknowledges his ‘vision’ and the movement of the raising of his arm toward the group, he locks in for a reaction and if there is a positive indication to his statement, he simply course corrects onto that one person in the row. Boom! To the majority of audience members, this appears to be a direct hit. Simple isn’t it? This is one of those things in staging and presentation that sells the psychic or mediums’ ‘accuracy.’ With some practice, it’s yet another powerful weapon in the mediums’ arsenal.” Standing to the extreme end of the row means that when the psychic points he does not have to move his finger/arm much to look like he was always pointing at the person who reacts. If he were standing directly in front of a row of twelve people and pointed at them, it would be much more obvious when he moved his finger/arm to point at the person who reacted. Standing to the extreme side made it look like he always knew who he was getting the message from (Edward 2019).

Although there was a lot of work put into this operation, none of my team members had a chance to get a reading. This isn’t too surprising; we were only six people in a sea of well over a thousand attendees. As we made our way out of the theater, we did get the opportunity to speak with Fraser after the show. He was doing a small meet and greet, autographing copies of his book. I purchased a copy and had him sign it. My team and Fraser chatted about who we were and our various reasons for coming to the show. Fraser accepted our stories without a hint of doubt—even while I was constantly thinking in my head “Tell me I’m a making this up … tell me you know we’re here undercover.” Alas, he did not.

In conclusion, we didn’t see any signs of hot-reading techniques. To be honest, I don’t think there was any need for such techniques during an event like this. From what I could gather through conversation and eavesdropping, many of the audience members were repeat customers and firm believers in psychics and their alleged abilities. With a few general statements and quick questions, I think even the most amateur psychic could have worked this crowd. I didn’t observe any “spectacular revelations,” nothing that came from such pinpoint accuracy that it would make me think Fraser had any pre-show knowledge (or psychic gifts).

I went into this experience prepared for trickery, but willing to see if there was anything truthful to the claims made by Matt Fraser. As expected, he didn’t seem to demonstrate any supernatural ability, just a knack for fast-talking his customers into believing he could talk to spirits. I did see a lot of people who were completely open to whatever Fraser said, which is a dangerous power given to one person. This is how some psychics bilk thousands of dollars from desperate people morning the loss of loved ones. They become blinded to the trickery, often at the cost of their life savings. I saw no one there for “entertainment purposes”; these were people that were (highly) emotionally invested in the belief of Fraser could speak to the dead. To me, they were being taken advantage of.I can only hope that the continued efforts of those who expose this grief vampirism reach more and more readers, eventually bringing an end to “psychic readings.”

References

• Edward, Mark. 2019. Personal correspondence.
• Fraser, Matthew. 2019. Matt Fraser Psychic Medium. Available at https://meetmattfraser.com/.
• Gerbic, Susan. 2015. Operation Bumblebee. Available at https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/operation_bumblebee.
• ———. 2015. Operation Ice Cream Cone. Available at https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/operation_ice_cream_cone.

Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect. By Mick West. Skyhorse Publishing. 2018. 304 pp. Hardcover, $21.99; kindle, $13.19.

Mick West might just be the consummate gentleman debunker.

After devoting the past fifteen years to online conspiracy-fighting projects such as MorgellonsWatch.com, ContrailScience.com, and Metabunk.org, he has released a new book. It’s easy to see conspiracy theorists as unreachable, unreasonable, and unredeemable. But West is here to help, and he offers this help on multiple levels. It can be self-help if the friend caught up in a rabbit hole is you; it can be help for loved ones, even if they act like enemies when certain topics come up; and it can be help for society at large. The harm these false beliefs cause is not limited to particular relationships or households—it spills into public discourse and legislation.

West sees the term debunking as noncontroversial in this instance, because when he shows people the error of chemtrails or flat-earth theory, he is not remaining impartial to investigate an unknown but rather introducing people to facts that have already been proven. The bunk has already been established as bunk; it’s now an issue of debunking the mindset. A former game programmer, West admits it’s a process comparable to debugging. 

Readers seeking a trove of empirical data might be disappointed, as Escaping the Rabbit Hole is not packed with charts and graphs—with a few exceptions, such as a graph illustrating the usage of the term conspiracy theory, to debunk the idea that the CIA promoted the term conspiracy theory as a pejorative in a 1967 memo (… talk about meta bunk). West offers a tour of some of the academic thinking on conspiracy theorists, but he cautions that the psychology of conspiracists is not well understood. The few traits they are said to share are often overstated and understudied. The sixteen pages of endnotes are mostly links to online articles, conspiracy videos, and threads.

The book touts itself as “A Guide to Helping Friends, Family, and Loved Ones,” and as promised, it takes on a personable tone as West teaches you how to be a consummate gentleman (or gentlewoman) debunker. It’s a conversational book about how to have effective conversations. Through examples and testimonies, he shows us that it is possible to extract someone from a rabbit hole. There’s a method to his respectful tone and empathy: it works. He summarizes the three critical elements of maintaining an effective dialogue, supplying useful information, and giving it time. Or, as he paraphrases himself: “Talk to them, show them stuff they missed, and don’t rush.”

Part one lays out some debunking techniques and familiarizes us with the term conspiracy theory and the spectrum of beliefs. Readers who have never been trapped in a rabbit hole themselves and might simply dismiss conspiracists as crazy or gullible (as many skeptics do) will benefit from the charitable description West offers, bringing us into the fold enough to understand the commonalities we have with conspiracy believers. Conspiracy theory belief, as West says, “is as American as apple pie, and like apple pie it comes in all kinds of varieties, and all kinds of normal people like to consume it.”

Part two comprises in-depth looks at four particular types of conspiracy theories (chemtrails, 9/11 demolitions, false flags, and flat earth) as well as stories from people once taken in by those theories. Throughout the discussions, West provides resources and sensible approaches to dealing with these conspiracy theories, ones he is particularly experienced with, thanks to Metabunk. Being a capable debunker means becoming familiar with the conspiracies, and West saves us time by summarizing what believers subscribe to (including variations, as no group is completely homogenous). Indeed, the fact that each believer is unique means that different approaches are needed.

In part three, his final two chapters discuss complications and the future of debunking. Turning someone away from a seductive, simplified view based on scientific misunderstanding will never be easy. It requires scientific communication on a very personal level, doing research, and gaining an understanding of fields that you might be unfamiliar with—and, even if you do the work, your friend might not be able to understand it. Or, if you succeed communicating the ideas, accepting a new version of reality might be complicated by family dynamics or personal conflict. We also have Russian trolls, bots, AI, and other technological surprises that will make debunking even harder.

Debunking conspiracy theories is a lot of work. But it’s worthwhile if you are helping a loved one out of a mindset that can cause them harm. Mick West has shouldered a tremendous amount of the work himself, summarizing some conspiracy beliefs and demonstrable facts to refute those beliefs in this relatively short book (278 pages, plus a useful index). He offers both psychological and practical shortcuts—in one instance he directs us to a video of old books he’s collected to debunk chemtrail theory. This simple video showing old-fashioned books has persuaded many who had rejected similar online images as fake.

One hope that comes through in the personal stories is the notion of turning conspiracy theorists into conspiracy debunkers. Many conspiracists are already prone to asking questions; they just need guidance on how to vet information. West describes his own transition as a youth, swapping information via bulletin boards, and how his fascination with strange phenomena shifted from reading about the unexplained to, instead, finding explanations and sharing those with his friends. Other people he quotes made similar transitions, if a bit later in life, and describe how they enjoy keeping up with conspiracy theories nowadays simply so they can interject new knowledge back into their old communities.

With persistence—and of course facts, logic, and respect—we might just pull something unexpected out of a few rabbit holes: skeptics.

Kids and their parents around the world apparently have a new deadly online danger to fear: a mysterious and terrifying online figure known as “Momo,” whose creepy image is that of a bug-eyed, reptilian-visaged woman in the Japanese horror tradition. The targeted teens are sent violent or gruesome images by Momo through an app or social media and encouraged to reply. They are threatened if they don’t and forced agree to conduct a series of violent and bizarre tasks—resulting in death. It’s called the Momo Challenge.

Amelia Tait of iNews noted:

News about the challenge first spread in July 2018, when a 12-year-old Argentinian girl was rumoured to have died by suicide because of threatening messages. … The British press has now reignited panic around the internet game after a mother from Bolton posted a comment in a local Facebook group, warning other parents that her seven-year-old son had been looking at Momo online and ‘made three kids cry’ by telling them about the creature.

The Momo Challenge is a repackaged version of an older, nearly identical and largely debunked suicide game called the Blue Whale Game. In 2017 scary warnings circulated on social media asking parents, teachers, and police to beware of a hidden threat to children: a sinister online “game” that can lead to death. A typical message warned:

The Blue Whale “suicide game” is believed to be a hidden online social media group which its main aim is to encourage our children to kill themselves. Within the group daily task are assigned to members have to do different tasks for 50 days. They include self-harming, watching horror movies and waking up at unusual hours, but these gradually get more extreme. But on the 50th day, the controlling manipulators behind the game reportedly instruct the youngsters to commit suicide. Please share and warn all other parents of the dangers of this game.

Plausibility, Fact, and Fiction

Urban, or contemporary, legends are marked by plausibility; they are told as true and often are said to have really happened … to a friend of a friend, of course. Often kids tell the stories to other kids to scare them in an updated cyber version of terrifying campfire tales. Expanding on the mention of a Momo-mortified mom, one news article breathlessly noted:

It was revealed on Thursday, February 21 that a seven-year-old boy from Manchester was a victim of the game. His mum was deeply concerned to find out he had made several of his peers cry by telling them Momo was going to come into their room at night and kill them. She is urging parents to be aware of the shocking whatsapp challenge—and its dangers. A mum from Belfast also found the creepy game on her seven-year-old daughter's ipad this week.

Part of the reason this story has credibility for many parents and school officials is that there is a grain of truth to it—though not to the rumors of online suicide games specifically. Cyberbullying and sexting extortion are genuine online dangers that teens face; there are thousands of documented cases where both teens and adults have been forced to do things for strangers, including sending both money and nude photos. For concerned parents it’s not much of a logical leap to online suicide games targeting teens and run by a cabal of conspirators. 

Police, teachers, and others have issued statements to address rumors but often end up legitimizing the stories and making them more credible. People take a “better safe than sorry” approach to sharing these stories, and it ends up doing more harm than good if there is no underlying threat, as is the case here. It’s also common for journalists and others—even when a threat is recognized as bogus—to spin the panic into a “teachable moment” in which to remind kids about the dangers of peer influence and the perils of online predators, bullying, and so on.

I previously researched the first two deaths claimed to have been associated with the Blue Whale Game, that of a female teen in Atlanta, Georgia, in May 2017 and a male teen in San Antonio, Texas, two months later. If the specifics of these games are true, determining whether or not a given person was a victim of it or not should be easily enough established by a competent, trained investigator. Either their digital footprint includes instructions from some unknown person directing them to complete fifty daily challenges, or it does not; either they were doing increasingly bizarre and harmful tasks on each of the forty-nine days leading up to their deaths or they weren’t, and so on. As for the death of the Argentine girl driven to suicide by Momo mentioned above, police have not confirmed any link to her death, much less the existence of the Momo Challenge. Rumor and speculation, not confirmed fact, are the coins of the cyber realm.

Fear Tests and Moral Panics

The Momo Challenge and the Blue Whale Game are part of a folkloric tradition of what’s called a fear test, in which teens and legend trippers conduct a ritual to summon a menacing figure or test their bravery, for example standing in front of a mirror and reciting “Bloody Mary” a dozen times or visiting a location where spirits are said to dwell, such as an abandoned house or train trestle. Will teens be brave—or scared—enough to complete the challenge, even if they know it will end in their deaths?

There is little evidence that these games have actually caused suicides—or that they even exist. Moral panics such as these are part of a very old tradition. These scary media stories are very popular because they are fueled by parents’ fears and wanting to know what their kids are up to. Indeed, the Blue Whale Game and the Momo Challenge have all the hallmarks of a classic moral panic. Familiar elements and themes include:modern technology and seemingly benign personal devices as posing hidden dangers to children and teens; in classic “Stranger Danger” fashion, the threat is some influential evil stranger who manipulates the innocent; andthere is an element of conspiracy theory to these stories: it’s always a “hidden world” of anonymous evil people who apparently have nothing better to do than ask teens to do things for fifty days before (somehow) compelling them to commit suicide.

Especially when dealing with extraordinary claims of conspiracies and online death cults, it’s easy for grief and moral panic to override critical thinking. The evidence for the Blue Whale game and the Momo Challenge is built largely on rumor and conjecture instead of solid evidence. This is only the latest in a long series of similar moral panics and outrages shared on social media and aided by sensationalist news media. Often the best antidote to these rumors is a healthy dose of critical thinking, media literacy, and skepticism.

Photo by Markus Spiske

With his enthusiastic hype and on-air shenanigans, Dr. Oz has always impressed me as sounding more like a used car salesman than a respected cardiothoracic surgeon. A used car salesman may tell you the car is in pristine condition, was always kept in a heated garage, and was only driven round the block once by a ninety-year-old great-grandmother. Then you find out it makes strange rattling noises, and you get a CarFax report that says it was extensively rebuilt after being nearly totaled two years ago in a collision with a cement truck. The used car salesman has lied to you and sold you a lemon.

Dr. Oz promotes all kinds of questionable health claims. He keeps coming up with the next Miracle Weight Loss product, always supposedly better than the one he promoted last month. He has guests who provide testimonials. He may do a half-assed demonstration that proves nothing. He may interview an expert who explains the “science” behind the product. Then you try it and it doesn’t work. Then you look for the scientific studies that supposedly proved it works, and you discover that, as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, “there’s no there there.” Like the used car salesman, Dr. Oz has sold you a lemon.

So I was not at all surprised to learn that Dr. Oz is selling the other kind of lemon, the kind that grows on trees. No, he hasn’t opened a produce stand or a grocery store, but he is selling the idea that drinking the juice of fresh lemons in water is beneficial to health. His online article is titled “5 Benefits of Drinking Lemon Water: Drinking this delicious beverage is a simple way to improve health.”

The Video

An embedded video clip from his TV show is big on showmanship but short on science. In it, Oz says if you want to shed some unwanted pounds, look and eat a little bit better, “clean eating” may be the way to go. He interviews a nutritionist who offers “a sneaky way to help you eat clean all day long.” She says:

• You want to avoid chemical preservatives, sweeteners, and artificial colors. You want to eat food “in its truest form,” in its most natural state. (The “natural” fallacy.Sometimes cooked foods are more nutritious.)
• She says, “after a long night, you want to get hydrated.” (Is there any evidence that you are dehydrated when you wake up?)
• Having a cup of water with a squeeze of lemon “is a great way to get hydrated.” (Drinking plain water or any other liquid is just as good a way to get hydrated.)

At this point, Dr. Oz chips in and says it increases saliva (wouldn’t that tend to dehydrate you?) but says it is also “thought of as a detoxing way.” (What do you suppose that means? It’s not even good grammar. And the idea that we need to detox is a myth.)

Back to the Article

Making your own lemon juice with fresh lemons is “a simple and refreshing way to sustain a healthy lifestyle. The fruit contains nutrients that are vital to your health. By indulging in a tasty, low-calorie beverage, you will be getting hydrated and reaping five benefits at the same time.”

Let’s examine those five benefits:

1. Improves skin quality. Collagen helps sustain skin elasticity. “When you increase your intake of vitamin C, you are giving your body the proper nutrients needed to maintain healthy skin.” (But if you don’t have a vitamin C deficiency, you don’t need to increase your intake. And there is no evidence that drinking lemon water has any measurable impact on skin health.)
2. Aids in digestion.
   • Starting the day with warm lemon water will “activate your digestive system.” (News flash: your digestive system is always ready to work; it doesn’t need to be activated.)
   • “The citric acid found in lemons supplements your natural stomach acids which help break down food.” (Your stomach doesn’t need any help; it’s already more acidic than lemon juice, and much more acidic than lemon diluted with pH neutral water.)
   • Sipping on this warm beverage also acts as a gentle laxative, promoting regularity. (Eating anything or drinking any warm beverage stimulates a gastrocolic reflex that produces intestinal contractions.)
3. Supports the immune system. “Increasing your intake of vitamin C will help you gain and sustain your immunity which will ultimately prevent you from getting sick.” (Adequate vitamin C intake does help maintain a healthy body; but no, supplemental vitamin C does notprevent you from getting sick. In fact, the immune system may make you sick with autoimmune diseases.)
4. Prevents kidney stones. Lemons contain citric acid; low citrate levels may play a role in the formation of calcium-based kidney stones. “Although it is not proven,it seems that lemon products increase urinary citrate levels.” (This is pure speculation. Lemon water might reduce the risk of kidney stones, but there’s no evidence that it does.)
5. Improves the flavor. That’s a matter of taste. Some people might enjoy the sour flavor; some will want to add a sweetener; some will prefer the taste of other beverages. “The key is to drink water throughout the day (no matter what you add to it) so you can stay hydrated and feel your best.” (The admonition to drink water throughout the day is based on a myth. For most people, it’s sufficient to drink [water or any other beverage] when they feel thirsty or notice decreased urination.)

But …

How much vitamin C is there in “a squeeze of lemon juice”? Not much. A whole medium lemon contains 92 percent of the daily requirement of vitamin C. Vitamin C is essential to prevent scurvy and support vital functions, and it is not stored so it must be ingested regularly. But many other foods are rich in vitamin C, including thyme, parsley, kale, broccoli, and strawberries. Unless you are suffering from vitamin C deficiency, you probably don’t need additional vitamin C. Any excess will just be excreted in the urine. Will your toilet be healthier? I doubt it.

And what about adverse effects? Dentists warn that drinking lemon water can damage tooth enamel. 

Conclusion: Despite the Name, Dr. Oz Is No Wizard

If you enjoy drinking warm water with a squeeze of lemon juice, go ahead. But don’t feel obligated to drink it in the belief that it will improve your health. Get your vitamin C from a varied, healthy diet with an emphasis on fruits and vegetables. Drink whatever liquids you enjoy and drink them whenever you are thirsty. The land of reality is preferable to the land of Oz.

Over the past two decades, high profile debates over human origins, abortion, and stem cell research have distracted from the opportunities that scientists, skeptics, and religious Americans have to forge relationships built on common values and goals.

Though topics such as the teaching of evolution may generate disagreements, other areas of science (such as health, sustainability, climate change, and food security) may not. Even in the face of disagreements, dialogue-based efforts can help break down stereotypes between scientists, skeptics, and people of faith, cultivating mutual respect and personal relationships, leading to collaboration on society’s most pressing problems.

These are some of the main points emphasized in a recent report Scientists in Civic Life: Facilitating Dialogue-Based Communication, which I authored on behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (Nisbet 2018).The booklet provides an overview on relevant research, practices, and examples that scientists, skeptics, and their partners can draw on to encourage more thoughtful dialogue about science and society.

As one of the world’s largest scientific societies, AAAS has long emphasized the importance of public dialogue to its membership and the scientific community at large. “[Scientists] need to engage the public in a more open and honest, bidirectional dialogue about science and technology … addressing not only the inherent benefits, but also the limits, perils, and pitfalls,” wrote former CEO Alan Leshner in a 2003 Science editorial. Consistent with this mission, the aim of the new booklet is to empower scientists and their institutions to play a more active role in bringing Americans of diverse backgrounds together to spend time talking to each other, contributing to mutual appreciation and collaboration.

Churches are a vital place to begin.

Networks of Engagement

When I moved in 2014 with my family from Washington, D.C., to a small city north of Boston, I was surprised to find that my new community had a locally based group of volunteers who were working to promote climate change resilience efforts along the city’s riverfront and ocean coastline. The hub for this group was a centuries-old church at the center of town, where members would meet during evenings and after Sunday services to plan their efforts and recruit new volunteers.

Religion, as this example shows, is more than just a belief system that shapes how people understand or prioritize a problem such as climate change. Churches are communication centers where information is shared and conversations can take place about complex science-related issues.

For these reasons and others, it is important for scientists and other experts to build deep relationships with their local churches, temples, and mosques. Congregational leaders rely on strong interpersonal bonds and norms of stewardship to encourage their members to participate in civic-related activities. These networks are further strengthened by the moral framing of issues by church leaders, the conversations that churchgoers have with others, and information provided directly when at church (Lewis et al. 2013).

Even today, research shows that churches remain the social context where Americans are most likely to receive requests to become involved in their communities (see Figure 1). Specific to science-related issues, they may be called upon to help people recover from the impacts of climate change, to work on actions to educate their communities about public health, or to voice their opinions to elected officials on topics such as evolution or biomedical research.

Dialogue in a Turbulent World

In facilitating productive dialogue about science topics that intersect with faith and religion, all scientists and academics have a role to play. Regardless of their personal beliefs, when engaging in conversations with faith communities, scientists can connect around common values and interests.

Every scientist is also likely to find something in common with people and groups who live and work in their local community. As fellow residents, scientists can build connections by way of their identification with local pastimes, sport teams, entertainment choices, favorite businesses, economic trends, school districts, cultural traditions, natural resources, and climate/weather events.

Consider E.O. Wilson’s (2006) approach to facilitating a dialogue with religious leaders and their communities. In his book The Creation, Wilson described environmental stewardship as not only a scientific matter but also one of personal and moral duty. Wilson’s aim in writing the book was to engage a religious audience that might not otherwise pay attention to popular science books or, for that matter, appeals on the environment. Wilson passionately believed, as he told Bill Moyers in a 2007 interview:

[If atheists and religious folk] sat down and talked about our deepest beliefs together, we’d come up with more agreements, than disagreements. …Science and religion are the two most powerful social forces in the world. Having them at odds at each other all the way up to the highest levels of government and the popular media all the time is not productive.

Boundary Spanners

Scientists who are themselves already a part of faith communities may be particularly well-positioned to serve as trusted dialogue brokers. By one 2011–2012 survey estimate, approximately 11 percent of U.S. biologists and physicists say they attend church services at least weekly, and a similar proportion say they hold no doubts about the existence of God. More than one third claim a religious affiliation (Ecklund et al. 2016) (see Table 1).

Through their shared beliefs and community membership, these boundary spanners are likely to be effective at facilitating conversations between their fellow scientists and those members of the public who share their faith. In doing so, they can draw on their own experience to share insights on the relationship between science and their personal faith. A leading example is Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, who as a Christian evangelical regularly speaks to congregations about climate science, drawing on her faith to connect to audiences by way of a shared identity and language.

Science in Seminaries

Many religious leaders and clergy are also interested in facilitating constructive conversations among their congregations and faith communities about scientific topics. Unfortunately, clergy have historically not been likely to have formal training in how to lead thoughtful dialogue about the social implications of science. To address this gap, the AAAS DoSER program has partnered with Christian seminaries and theological schools to include more science in their core curricula as part of an ongoing “Science for Seminaries” project.

Each partner seminary, in consultation with AAAS, integrates science articles, books, films, guest lectures, laboratory and research site visits, and other content into core course offerings such as biblical studies, church history, and theology. These resources are developed in collaboration with local scientists to build and strengthen relationships with local science institutions. A program called Scientists in Synagogues is a similar grassroots initiative designed to equip Jewish clergy, scientists, and laypeople with the knowledge and skills to engage in dialogue and learn about society’s biggest questions, drawing on science and religion as sources of wisdom and inspiration.

At synagogues and Jewish community centers, the program sponsors adult education courses, lectures, and events on topics exploring the intersections among Judaism, neuroscience, astronomy, evolutionary science, moral psychology, and other scientific fields.

Talking Faith and Climate

Specific to climate change, research conducted by the U.K.-based nonprofit ClimateOutreach has examined the narratives, metaphors, imagery, and frames of reference that can be used by scientists and religious leaders to engage people of faith by way of informal conversations, public statements, popular articles, and sermons. This research and similar studies recommend presenting a commitment to climate change as representing a moral responsibility to God, our children, neighbors, the “least of us,” and “all of creation.” Climate change can be discussed as part of a story arc that encompasses a challenge, an action, and a resolution—a narrative style familiar from scripture (Roberts and Clarke 2016).

Yet even when framed in such terms by the highest religious authorities, scientists and science communicators should recognize that this approach has limits, especially outside of a localized, dialogue-focused framework. For example, an analysis of responses by Catholics to Pope Francis’s 2015 Laudato si encyclical on climate change found, somewhat predictably, that liberal Catholics tended to assign the pontiff greater credibility on the issue, while more conservative Catholics assigned the pontiff less credibility. In this case, the political identity of these Catholics tended to trump their faith-based one (Li et al. 2016).

Looking ahead, as more and more scientists and their institutions turn to locally focused dialogue activities to engage publics on the biggest science and society questions, a first step toward improved relations with religious Americans and their churches may be simply to recognize and affirm shared values, beliefs, and goals. With this established, further dialogue can be structured in such a way as to encourage working together toward common goals on climate change and other pressing problems.

References

• Ecklund, Elaine Howard, David R. Johnson, Christopher P. Scheitle, et al. 2016. Religion among scientists in international context: A new study of scientists in eight regions. Socius 2: 2378023116664353.
• Leshner, A.I. 2003. Public engagement with science. Science 299(5609): 977.
• Lewis, Valerie A., Carol Ann MacGregor, and Robert D. Putnam. 2013. Religion, networks, and neighborliness: The impact of religious social networks on civic engagement. Social Science Research 42(2): 331–346.
• Li, N., J. Hilgard, D.A. Scheufele, et al. 2016. Cross-pressuring conservative Catholics? Effects of Pope Francis’ encyclical on the US public opinion on climate change. Climatic Change 139(3–4): 367–380.
• Nisbet, M.C. 2018. Scientists in Civic Life: Facilitating Dialogue-Based Communication. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available online at https://www.aaas.org/programs/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion/resources-engaging-scientists-project.
• Roberts, O., and J. Clarke. 2016. Faith & Climate Change - A guide to talking with the five major faiths. Oxford: Climate Outreach. Available online at http://climateoutreach.org/resources/climate-change-faith.
• Wilson, E.O. 2006. The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. New York: WW Norton & Company.