Dave, Aysha, and Lisa attended with a group of approximately twelve sceptics, many of whom were from CFI and Skeptic North. Apparently before we even stepped foot into the Convention Centre there was some controversy over at Skeptic North. Some of the organizers of the expo, along with some other folks associated with it, were engaged in a back-and-forth with the blog’s authors in the comments section (some of it was genial and some of it was nasty). So the organizers knew at least that some members of Skeptic North would be in attendance, and they were ready for them.

Lisa’s immediate response to the expo was revulsion at having to give propagators of woo and pseudoscience her $8 admission fee. She would much rather have donated the money to some sort of charity than to fork it over to them. So she felt a little better when Sunday turned out to be two-for-one admission.

Once inside the expo, the group naturally split off into sub-groups, with a plan to meet at the exit at 12:30pm. Somehow Aysha and Lisa managed to stick together and experienced most of the expo as a pair, going undetected as skeptics and experiencing no drama. Not so for some of the other attendees. Approximately 20 minutes into their foray, Lisa and Aysha heard an announcement over the loud speaker warning vendors that “four members of Skeptics North” were in attendance and may “attempt to record and/or photograph” vendors without authorization. The announcement also mentioned that the skeptics appeared to be dressed in black. It was an odd statement given that probably three-quarters of the people in the room were wearing black. At the moment the announcement came, Aysha and Lisa were discussing Omega Alpha’s products with the vendor, who then said, “You’re wearing black. Are you a skeptic?” To which Lisa responded, “Everyone here is wearing black. You’re wearing black!” It was light-hearted and they all went back to discussing Omega Alpha’s vast array of natural health products including their robust pet line (OptiPet Multi, E-Z Rest, GlucosaPet, Kidney Tone, and Liver Tone, to name a few).

Dave Bailey was prepared to go either way at the expo, but any notion of innocently engaging people went out the window when the organisers made their announcement. At that point his dander was raised and plan ‘B’ went into action. The previous evening Dave had downloaded a picture from Hell’s News Stand and ironed it onto a t-shirt — a cross-section of a toilet with the slogan, “If water has a memory then homeopathy is full of crap.” He took off his jacket to reveal his shirt and waited for reactions. For better or worse, none of the organisers or participants chose to take up the obvious challenge, although Dave did have a pleasant conversation with a couple of elderly ladies who seemed both amused and bemused. Later as Dave was being ‘followed’ out of the hall, a man walking in stopped to read it, chuckled, showed it to his wife, and then gave Dave a thumbs up and said he loved it. What he was doing there with that attitude was anyone’s guess — perhaps he wanted to have some past-life regression therapy to find out why homeopathy had failed to save him in a previous existence.

Dave was intrigued that some of the exhibitors seemed to be lowering themselves by appearing in such an environment when their presence at a genuine health expo would not have been out of place. He was particularly struck by the hemp booth, which didn’t seem to be touting any miracle cures, just promoting a product that is provably a resource with good sustainability and one that could be of much benefit to the agricultural community. Dave wonders if such vendors can’t afford to turn down any opportunity for publicity. (He highly recommends the hemp substitute for peanut butter — a free sample was eagerly devoured!)

This was Aysha’s first time attending the Whole Life Expo, or anything like it, so she was pretty excited to learn about which alternative products are popular right now. The one she was most baffled by was a homeopathic detox kit. Drops of the remedy had to be added to a 1.5 litres of water, shaken, and consumed daily for a few weeks. Aysha felt that simply filling a bottle with tap water at home would have been a more cost-effective and sensible option.

It was Lisa’s first natural health expo as well. She had no idea what to expect, but found herself constantly exclaiming about how unbelievable it all was. As Dave noted, there were some ‘legitimate’ vendors, but they were few and far between. The vast majority of them stretched the boundaries of science, and many of them were ethically questionable. It seemed as though Lisa’s incredulity grew greater with each booth she visited.

First there was Asea, the “scientific breakthrough that was thought to be impossible.” This was a particularly interesting experience because in trying explain how the product works, the vendor just got more and more twisted up. For the record, the front of the pamphlet explains that Asea is “NOT a vitamin or mineral supplement, NOT made from sea vegetables, NOT a [sic] herbal formula, NOT an exotic fruit or berry energy juice, NOT an over hyped antioxidant formula, NOT a novel delivery system.” So what is it? Lisa wondered as she excitedly opened the pamphlet to find out. Well, it doesn’t actually say. The brochure explains what Asea does for you (“boosting the cell’s communication allowing it to protect, repairing [sic], and replacing cells efficiently”). It explains the “science” of it (some stuff about reactive molecules, ATP, antioxidants, free radicals, oxidative stress, and redox signalling). According to the fine people at Asea, their product is “highly patented” (Lisa didn’t know there were high and low stages of patents) and is the only product that has stabilized the native cell molecules. Okay!

Aysha tried a sample of Asea while Lisa asked the vendor what Aysha might expect to feel from it. They were told that in about 15 minutes Aysha would feel a boost of energy. Lisa kept checking in, but Aysha reported no increased energy.

Lisa’s incredulity grows over at the Biotronix Research Instruments booth. Apparently these products heal with “electro-medicine.” This information packet is almost too brilliant to ever be thrown out and must be excerpted here, in its original form — all spelling and capitalization is in the original:

Every Cell In The Body Is Designed To Run At A Voltage Of 70-90 Millivolts. We Heal By Making New Cells ! For The Body To Make These New Cells Requires 70-90 Millivolts. We Get Sick When Our Voltage Drops Below The Operating Voltage of 20 MIllivolts. Thus, All Chronic Disease is Defined by Having Low Voltage.

However, If You Run Out of Voltage Before Finishing Making Enough New Cells To Replace Those That Are Damaged, Voltage Will Drop Even Lower And Now You Are Stuck With CHRONIC DISEASE. A Drop In Voltage Causes A Drop In OXYGEN!!! [—.] The Only Way You Can Get Well Is To Increase Voltage. This, Can Be Assisted By Using ELECTROMAGNETIC DEVICES. [—.] INTRODUCING: – A NEW INSTRUMENT ‘LYMEAID GENERATOR’

And it goes on—for SIX PAGES!!!

But the expo got even better. (Worse?)

Aysha and Lisa caught about 10 minutes of a talk/demonstration by Nicholas Ashfield. The presentation platform happened to be right near the washrooms, and when Lisa saw the device on the table, she couldn’t resist finding out what it did. The device looked like something that would be used in a low-budget 1970s sci-fi movie to appear “science-y” — it had knobs and a meter. Ashfield’s field of expertise (over 30 years of practice) is Radionics: “vibrational healing that clears past traumas, restoring attunement [sic] with life.” According to his flyer, Radionics is “gentle, fascinating, and effective.” While not a particularly great speaker, Ashfield did have a few choice bon mots that Lisa just had to jot down. When it came time to demonstrate his product, Ashfield asked for a volunteer, and one bald gentleman in a black shirt (perhaps a skeptic??) raised his hand a little too eagerly. Then a bunch of other people raised their hands, including Lisa. Ashfield said he couldn’t just choose someone, that he had to let the “source” choose for him and he used “internal dowsing” to eliminate everyone in the crowd except for—bald-black-shirt guy! Ashfield referred to this “source” over and over again, but never explained what it was. Apparently it was some sort of supernatural entity that guided him. It was the “source” that allowed Ashfield to use Radionics to “clear” the plant—ahem, uh—volunteer from a distance — he didn’t have to be hooked up to the machine or even be near it; it works long distance. Ashfield informed us that in physics it’s known as an “index.” Ah. So long-distance, via Radionics, Ashfield managed to tune into the plant/volunteer’s “energetic e-mail address.” And then he told his fortune. Aysha commented that it was like he was reading the guy’s horoscope out of the paper. Indeed. After a relatively racist comment (about how Native people have been using this technique for a long time because they have a connection to nature that modern, “civilized” people didn’t have), Aysha and Lisa had had enough of the Radionics guy and moved on.

(Side note: It was just before Ashfield’s talk that the second announcement about ‘skeptics in our midst’ came over the loud speaker. Ashfield said he didn’t mind if skeptics were in attendance because he, too, used to be a skeptic — before he tried Radionics.)

Lisa really wanted to have a “Bio-ENERGY & KARMA DIAGNOSIS” and even filled out the form to have it done, but alas the line was too long. Instead she had her posture checked. There were maybe five or six chiropractic-type people there all with the same tools for checking posture, so Lisa had it done twice. The first gentleman told her that her head was too far forward while pointing to a photo of a spine with scoliosis in a subluxation text book. He really wanted her to sign up that day for treatment at a discounted rate. He even took credit cards!

Despite all of these experiences, not every vendor was sketchy. Or, at least, some provided pleasant surprises. One vendor spent a great deal of time discussing her product for digestive problems. Aysha and Lisa maintained a credulous, curious demeanour throughout the expo, asking questions with keen interest. When Lisa asked this vendor, “Should I take this pill if I don’t have digestive problems?” it is to the vendor’s credit that she said no. She instead suggested foisting it upon grandma at Christmas dinner. Nonetheless, the question was meant as a set-up to see if the vendor would recommend her ‘remedy’ even in light of a lack of symptoms, and she passed the test.

Aysha also found herself impressed by a vendor’s candor. She had a great conversation with a vendor about a “chakra reading” being offered at one of the other booths. The vendor had a ‘reading’ done the day before and seemed a little skeptical of what she was told. She mentioned that a lot of what the ‘reader’ told her was very general and could have applied to anyone, but that a couple of major things were going on in her life that the ‘reader’ did not mention; the vendor really felt that the ‘reader’ should have picked up on those things. Aysha told the vendor that she agreed and that she wishes people would talk more about the misses that they experience when they have a ‘reading’ done. Aysha was impressed with vendor’s critical reflection on her experience.

Dave was surprised to learn (and later confirmed through independent online research) that what he has been using as cinnamon for years is actually not true cinnamon, but cassia, a related plant that is usually substituted. The true cinnamon is much less woody than cassia, thin and brittle in texture, but with a very similar if not identical aroma. The genuine article may soon be appearing on his spice rack. Knowledge worth the $4 admission fee?

What shocked Lisa most about the expo overall was what seemed to be the absolute lack of effort on the part of the vendors and manufacturers to pass their products off as scientific. It seems that just saying something is science and having a few pseudoscientific words and phrases at the ready is all these vendors generally need to fob their wares off on unsuspecting consumers. But when pushed even a little to get into the nitty gritty by people with some scientific knowledge, the vendors tripped over themselves in a befuddled mass of confusion and ignorance. When the Asea vendor was going on about redox signalling and mitochondria, Aysha asked for more specifics about how it worked. The woman then pulled out a lovely colour photo of a cell, when she didn’t identify as a blood cell until Lisa pointed it out to her. “Oh yes,” she said, laughing, “thank you for pointing that out!”

Another vendor had a few products, one of which was a plate that allegedly leeches bad chemicals from your food. Simply place your grocery bag on this plate and it will remove all harmful chemicals from your food. Lisa asked how it works. The vendor explained that it uses a “process” by which the “bonds” between the chemicals are “broken down.” When Lisa pushed further — microwaves? what? — the vendor replied, “It’s proprietary.” Lisa didn’t leave it there. “Well, what about the good things in food, like the vitamins and minerals? Does it break those down too?” The response was “no.” Magic!

Aysha and Lisa visited a booth promoting “polarity therapy” workshops. This was something neither of them had heard of before and they were ever so curious! The pamphlet explains polarity therapy as “the art and science of balancing the subtle, natural electromagnetic energy that creates and maintains our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual selves.” When prompted, the vendor had an extremely difficult time explaining what it was, highlighting instead that we could learn all about it through the workshops. She pointed to a couple of books there and then said that it takes years to learn.

Aysha and Lisa still don’t know what polarity therapy is.

For the most part, the members of Association for Science and Reason had a fine time at the expo until Dave Bailey ran into a little trouble at the end for taking photographs. While there was apparently a sign indicating that photography was not allowed inside the expo hall, Dave went outside of the expo hall to a balcony above it and took photos from there. He was approached by security and someone who seemed to be one of the organizers or associated with the organizers. Members of CFI and Skeptic North were treated antagonistically, and you can read their respective reports via the links below.

CFI’s account:
Skeptic North’s account, 1:

Skeptic North’s account, 2:

Open your mind, you new-age freak!

I remember when I thought that being a skeptic was a bad thing. Watching The X-Files as a kid, I always thought Scully was a stick in the mud and Mulder was by far the star of the show. Granted, this was just a TV show, but at the time I wondered why Scully couldn’t believe her own stupid eyes! There were space aliens, CHUDS, vampires, teens with super-human speed — the list of extraordinary things goes on and on, yet she always approached every investigation with a grain of salt and at the end of every episode her findings were “inconclusive.” Understatement of the century!

I was a just kid when I watched that. I bought into it hook, line, and sinker. I loved paranormal investigation movies and read all the books of mystery: The Healing Power of Pyramids, Bermuda Triangle, The Search for Atlantis, How to Increase Your ESP, etc. It all seemed perfectly reasonable to me that such things existed. But as I got older I found that no matter how much I exercised my pineal gland, I couldn’t read minds; no matter how many cups of milk I put into my pyramid, I never got yogurt. My reality had become vastly different from my beliefs, and all I had to show for it was a sore forehead and an unlimited supply of sour milk (with or without maggots).

What happened? Why are there so many books and TV shows dedicated to these things if they don’t actually exist? I think I can sum it up in one simple phrase.

Everybody loves a good magic act.

Penn & Teller are awesome for this reason. They give enough of the process away in their stage show to let you know that you’re witnessing a ‘trick’ or some slight of hand, but they still capture the whimsy of the crowd by keeping some of their act a secret. Magic is all about control and deception: if done in an innocent fashion for entertainment purposes, it’s very cool. Unfortunately, with this in mind, it’s not so cool that purveyors of magical thinking know full well what “magic” is all about and have perfected many ways to control and deceive you without your knowledge and/or consent.

I suppose the best general rule to follow in order to make sure you’re not being taken for a ride is to ask questions. If something doesn’t feel right about the line someone is feeding you, just keep asking questions until it makes sense for you. If it doesn’t make sense, you’re probably getting swindled in some way and should probably graciously back away.

Relax…

There are no “100% risk-free” opportunities that only come along once in a lifetime that you can’t live without. A lot of these ‘opportunities’ require you to make split-second decisions regarding your finances. If you feel pressured to make a purchase or to hand over your cash or credentials for a service you don’t understand, or don’t remember applying for, then you’re probably about to become a trophy on some con artist’s wall.

Watch out for conversational ‘shotgunning’

Beware of people who talk too fast and don’t listen to the responses to their questions — they’re ‘shotgunning.’ This line of attention control makes it impossible for you to keep up, but they seem to know what they’re talking about by the sheer amount of drivel they’re spilling. Only after their rant, when you have a moment to go over the glut of information and misinformation they’ve fired your way, will you be able to discern what they were talking about and what their arguments were really full of. These conclusions often come too late to act on and usually after you agreed with the person just to shut them up. When confronted with people like this, it’s best to back away slowly. Unless you can fit a word in edgewise and you’re really familiar with their arguments, you stand a good chance of getting owned when attempting to debate or rationalise with them.

So who should you trust?

You, ya turkey! We don’t live in a dictatorship. We should be able to look into anything we want, especially if it’s going to cost us our health or life savings. If something in your life comes into question, look into it. Is there a way for you to test the claims a group, corporation, or product makes? Absolutely! Get creative, ask for a demo, look at public forums, look into suspect industries, see what your peers are saying. Is there consensus, or is there a huge divide between the claims mentioned by the parties in question and the actual people using the products and services of interest? If so, ask questions. And keep asking questions.

But the movement needs movement, not just sedentary agitation*.

I spend a great deal of time thinking about how to get people more actively involved. Showing up at pub nights and lectures is one thing, but in terms of actually making a difference in the world it does little. All of us like-minded people show up in a room to complain about fraud, hoaxes, lies, hypocrites, and so on. We get quite passionate and emotional, even angry. But most of us do nothing to actually change things about which we complain. Oh, we do like to complain! We complain about the symptoms without bothering to address the causes.

Sure, we learn a lot. We love our guest speakers, blogs, podcasts, and magazines, but if we aren’t coupling that knowledge with educational outreach then aren’t we just bolstering the devoutness of the converted?

While there are many people out there doing a lot of good work, there seems to be a general apathy and lack of action in the science and skepticism movement. Why? Is it that we all have busy lives and are maybe a little lazy when it comes to ‘activism’? Is it because we think that what we’re up against is insurmountable? Because, as Mark Twain famously quoted, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”?

Even though the problems we’re up against may seem insurmountable, this isn’t about climbing a mountain to get to the other side; it’s about slowly chipping away at the mountain.

Even if one person is taught how to apply critical thinking in everyday life, then bravo us! If one person is saved the embarrassment and expense of being taken by a charlatan, then bravo us! If one person is saved from financial ruin by a ‘faith healer,’ then bravo us! If one person’s life is saved because they learned that Jenny McCarthy et al are full of crap, then bravo us! Isn’t that enough to warrant a little more action on our part?

Sure, showing up at a demonstration to tote signs and holler slogans may not be everyone’s idea of a good time. And not everyone can launch a campaign like that of Simon Singh and the Sense About Science folks — that takes immense time, energy, money, know-how, effort, and organization. It seems daunting. But there a hundreds of smaller, simpler ways in which people can get involved and make a real difference.

You can volunteer for your local science/rationalist/skeptical/humanist organization. You can write letters to the editor when newspapers or magazines get things wrong. You can write to politicians when they try to pass ridiculous laws granting, for instance, homeopaths the rights of medical doctors. You can spread the word — to friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and strangers via conversations, newspapers, blogs, radio stations, podcasts, and television — about things that the public should be aware of.

Here is a fuller, though not exhaustive, list of other ways that you can actually turn your sedentary agitation into purposeful action.

We can start slowly and start small, and over time we will chip away at the mountain of misinformation, the wall of woo, and make this world a more informed place.

To quote Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker, who just celebrated Newark’s first murder-free calendar month since 1966, “Don’t let your inability to do everything undermine your determination to do something.”

* This term is also borrowed from Cory Booker.

That statement is false because laws of nature simply cannot be broken.

If it appears that someone or something is in contravention of the laws of nature, then there are really only two conclusions that can be drawn: either your observations and/or conclusions are faulty, or the law has been misinterpreted and needs to be thrown out or modified.

Probably the classic case of this would be the realisation in the 19th century that Isaac Newton may have been wrong. His math was holding up pretty well and nobody was about to overturn calculus, but his physics seemed to be on shaky ground. Here is a simple review of his three laws of motion:

An object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force.

Force equals Mass multiplied by Acceleration (F=ma).

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

To illustrate how important a discovery this was, let’s look at how we have used it. Believe it or not, we can send people to the Moon, land them on it, and bring them back without going beyond the physics and math that Newton gave us over three hundred years ago! Notwithstanding many naysayers (and many of them should have known better), after Newton’s time, space travel ceased to be a strictly scientific problem and became one of engineering; the wooden ships of his day were not quite up to the task.

But when we explore such extremes as speed, time, and gravity, we find that Newton’s physics break down. New thinking is called for. Enter Albert Einstein and the theory of relativity, which in 1905 ushered in a new era of science. But Newton’s theories still apply for everyday events (if something as fantastic as a trip to the Moon can be categorised that way).

Now let’s get back to a little scientific larceny. Rather, let’s try, because that’s all that we can ever hope to do. You do not pay a price for breaking the laws of nature — you pay simply for trying. At best your ‘payment’ would be in wasted time and effort on a failed experiment, but such things are rarely fun. But let’s go for the extreme. And there will be blood!

Observe a Darwin Award nominee standing at the top of a cliff. He’s just taken the brown acid (bummer) and decides he’s an eagle. With one flying leap he launches himself into the air and finds out that the laws of nature are immutable. There are four forces working in the science of aerodynamics: lift, thrust, weight, and drag. The first two are what help you fly; the second two are what try to prevent it. In the case of our non-hero, simple biophysics tells us that the human body does not possess the muscular structure to give us sufficient thrust, our arms do not provide sufficient lift, and therefore our weight and drag will win out.

As our eagle wannabe leaps from the cliff his arms flap with furious futility but produce no discernible lift. The thrust is really only produced by the attraction of the Earth’s gravity well, which is directly below him. Lastly, drag and weight assert their rightful force and aid the downward acceleration. In other words, the subject of this drug-addled experiment does not fly, but plummets inexorably to his doom.

In this sad scenario no scientific laws have been broken, but no doubt a few bones have. In fact, all the way down to his untimely end he will be obeying the laws of aerodynamics to the letter; there is no way he can do anything else. No lift. No flight. He will then obey the laws that govern our biology as he exsanguinates on the beach and his brain (or a reasonable facsimile in this case) shuts down. Thus endeth the lesson.

An open and shut case, really. Human laws are subject to myriad interpretations and as society changes so do they. But the laws of nature are fixed; only our understanding of them changes as we discover more about the workings of the Universe.

As skeptics, we feel drawn to any cause, anywhere, where science and reason are under attack. Whether it’s government-abetted evolution denial in the southern United States, homeopathy mixing into mainstream culture in Britain, or fraudulent faith healers in Africa pushing fake AIDS cures, we use the Internet to inform and become informed about these issues.

Furthermore, we use the Internet to provide support to those who are personally affected by these issues and are in the trenches,” so to speak. It is that great ability to unite a relatively small, geographically diverse group into a loud, cohesive voice that is crucial to our success.

However, sometimes we may be guilty of farsightedness.

My introduction to the skeptical community only a few years ago was through the Internet, in particular the fabulous Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast and the Skepchick blog. Learning about the spread and influence of pseudoscience and the like captured my interest. While these blogs and podcasts are a great way to stay informed on topics of skeptical interest around the world, I realized that I was overlooking a lot of what was happening in my home town, Toronto, and Canada in general.

The last couple of years have seen gigantic growth in the size and influence of alternative medicine, with clinics and practitioners popping up everywhere and largely going unchallenged. As such, public perception has shifted and many people’s initial impression may be that there is validity to these practices, despite the fact that most of these modalities run the gamut from simply being unsupported by evidence to complete scientific implausibility.

Alternative medicine has also pervaded into the media, with daily and weekly papers running alt-health columns and, in my own community, a local television network even producing a show hosted by a homeopath who gives quack advice to people who may have legitimate medical concerns!

I have also documented a group calling itself Vote Fluoride Out that is gearing up to organize a campaign to stop the public health measure of controlled fluoridation of Toronto drinking water. Their information and arguments are steeped in pseudoscience, and they’re getting support from an unlikely local source (more on that soon).

As an example if acting local, take the New England Skeptical Society (NESS), which has done some great work investigating ghost hunters, particularly in New England. They took great advantage of their proximity and were able to actually meet Ed and Lorraine Warren, who are considered the progenitors of the ghost-hunting community. By taking part in some of their ‘ghost tours,’ NESS was able to do some great primary research and become local experts.

This is an example of how focusing on local issues will allow skeptics to become valuable information resources, not only for the skeptical community, but for our fellow citizens who may be oblivious to where the science stands on topics they encounter in their daily lives.

I hope that we, as Canadian skeptics, can turn more of our attention to what’s going on in our own backyard, as well as continue to stay informed about and support skeptical issues around the world.

In the next issue: The case for street-level skepticism.

http://www.news3news.com/wpo4.html

http://www.channel7daily.com/

You may notice that every link you click on takes you to the same product page, regardless of whether you want to check the latest hockey scores or the local weather. This is known as a microsite or landing page. It’s a pretty common practice to have ads pointing to such pages so that companies can market their products in a more enticing way than a puny banner ad allows. Most of the time landing pages present clearly branded messaging so you know you have clicked on the correct ad.

In the case of the examples above, the landing pages offer testimonials for products that shouldn’t exist yet and try to convince visitors to click on links to “free trials.” Clicking on these links will result in the actual product page. And then the fun begins.

The site that the faux news article takes you to (http://www.antioxwine.com), actually claims in the fine print on the Terms and Conditions page that the product it is selling may do nothing for you at all (although they have complete faith in it):

“D. We do not warrant or represent that Our Products will provide You with any particular benefits, or that Your results will match those of others who consume Our Products. Individual results will vary from person to person.”

The product page is designed very cleverly and is completely legal. It has an almost hypnotic way of advertising one product while selling visitors another by confusing them with two completely different but similar messages. It talks about Resveratrol and ResVmax, never once claiming that Resveratrol is present in ResVmax. Their actual claim is: “One pill = approx. 1000 glasses of wine,” without actually disclosing the exact ingredient they’re pumping you with at 1000 times a regular dose. There is actually no nutritional information on the site at all.

When buyers place their order they must provide their phone number, mailing address, and e-mail address. The purveyors now have enough information to pummel you with unwanted outreach. Again, in the Terms and Conditions they claim (in legalese) that they will send your information to third-party companies and offer you no opt-out preference. Most likely, they’re compiling a list of gullible people and selling it to the highest bidder to use in shady marketing schemes. If you want a lot more spam, junk mail, and intrusive phone calls, then simply buy this product!

The “free trial” will cost you a paltry $3.95 for shipping and handling, but they really start price-gouging with their opt-out ordering plan. The extremely confusing ordering policy automatically charges CAD$240 per month if you don’t contact them within 15 days of placing your free trial order.

This company is based in England, so if the order takes 16 days to arrive, you will automatically be charged $240. If you don’t contact them to cancel the order, they will continue to charge you every month.

This is a common scam, but it is worth reminding folks to always read the fine print!

The treatment most commonly associated with this issue is the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). The furor began in 1998 after an unfortunate set of circumstances which led the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, to publish an article by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. I say ‘article’ rather than ‘research’ because the study may have had a (literally) fatal flaw – Dr. Wakefield was doing a study that was paid for by a group of parents of autistic children. These parents were looking for evidence that would aid them in a lawsuit against the makers of the MMR vaccine, which they were convinced had caused their children’s autism.

Immunization rates in Britain plummeted as a result of the article, with 25% of children not receiving the medication. A resurgence in the infection rates of these diseases followed, and in March 2006 a 13-year-old boy became the first person to die of measles in the UK in 14 years.

Since that time many of Wakefield’s collaborators have retracted their conclusions with a signed statement. The editor of The Lancet has said he never would have published the article if Wakefield’s conflict of interest had been known to him. As a result, vaccination rates in Britain have gone up to 85%. However, that is still lower than the 95% recommended by authorities as the minimum needed for herd immunity to keep those diseases at bay.

One would think that the purveyors and promoters of naturopathic medicine would be the last to accept any findings that the MMR vaccine is safe, but as skeptics we must keep an open mind to everything, and that includes giving credit where credit is due. The following can found on the web page of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CCNM) after searching “vaccine”:

Association of autistic spectrum disorder and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: a systematic review.

Citation:

Wilson K, Mills E, Ross C, McGowan J, Jadad A. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2003;157(7):628-34.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for and against the existence of an association between autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of the medical literature to identify all controlled epidemiological articles examining for an association between ASD and the MMR vaccine. We extracted data from the articles on the characteristics and objectives of the study as well as evidence of an association.

RESULTS: Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. One study found no difference in the rates of ASD and the MMR vaccine in children who were vaccinated and those who were not. Six studies examined for evidence of an increase in ASD associated with an increase in the MMR vaccine coverage, none of which showed evidence of an association. Four studies examined if a variant form of ASD was associated with the MMR vaccine, none of which showed evidence of an association. Eight studies attempted to determine if there was a temporal association between developing ASD and receiving the MMR vaccine. Of these, 1 study identified an increase in parental concern in the 6-month period following vaccination with MMR in one of its analyses. The results of all other studies showed no association between ASD and the MMR vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS: The current literature does not suggest an association between ASD and the MMR vaccine; however, limited epidemiological evidence exists to rule out a link between a rare variant form of ASD and the MMR vaccine. Given the real risks of not vaccinating and that the risks and existence of variant ASD remain theoretical, current policies should continue to advocate the use of the MMR vaccine.

This is a direct quotation from the article cited, so it doesn’t represent anything original on the part of the CCNM. It is, however, a rather powerful statement when you consider who is reprinting it. We all enjoy the odd gotcha” moment, so when someone tells you that their favourite alt-med de jour is against vaccinating children, you can refer them to the CCNM and demonstrate that even they don’t buy it.

But modern skepticism demands that we question what we are asked to believe or to practice. It demands we base our beliefs and practices on the best available evidence, and be prepared to give these up when they are shown to be unsupported or are surpassed by better supported alternatives. In short, it considers the world scientifically.

Critical inquiry can be applied to all matters of life from the most mundane (what brand of detergent should I buy?) to the most profound (is there a purpose to life?). In practice however the skeptical movement has focused on paranormal claims and pseudoscience. This is what modern skeptics have become best known for dealing with.

To get an idea of what modern skepticism is about, let’s look at some of the interesting issues skeptics have addressed. The subjects that skeptics have investigated can be divided into two main groups:

A. PARANORMAL BELIEFS AND PRACTICES

Paranormal means “beside the normal” or “parallel to the normal reality”. It includes phenomena that are supposedly supernatural and are held to be unexplained by science — sometimes even unexplainable by science. Examples, in no particular order:

Ghosts • Astrology • Fortune telling • Psychics • Faith healing • Dowsing • Communication with the dead • Crystals • Spoon bending • Channelling • Past lives • UFOs • Alien abductions • Clairvoyance • Auras • Telekinesis • Bermuda Triangle • Weeping statues • Shroud of Turin • Nostradamus • Near-death experiences • Astral projection • Pyramid Power • Bible Code • Effect of the full moon • Prophecies • Tarot cards • Psychic detectives • Mediums • I Ching • Fairies • Atlantis • Palm reading • Crop circles • Psychic surgery….

B. PSEUDOSCIENCE

“Pseudo” means fake, so this category is about fake science — things that have been given an aura of scientific legitimacy but nonetheless are unscientific, illogical, or not supported by the evidence:

Parapsychology • Homeopathy • Naturopathy • Iridology • Creationism • Cryptozoology (Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Nessie) • Recovered memory • Facilitated communication • Chiropractic • Aromatherapy • Velikovsky • Perpetual motion machines • Graphology • Ancient astronauts • Spontaneous human combustion • Biorhythms • Iridology • Therapeutic touch • Face on Mars • Moon landing myth • Reflexology….

Some of these items, such as UFO claims and Nessie sightings, can straddle both categories, depending on how they are being put forward. Some UFO buffs, for example, claim that the unidentified flying objects are extraterrestrials visiting earth in spaceships, which may be a dubious claim but is at least scientifically possible and empirically verifiable, while others hold that UFOs are psychic manifestations, which puts them in the paranormal camp.

Then there are some things that do not easily fall into either the paranormal or pseudoscience camp.

C. GREY AREAS

In this miscellaneous category we can lump phenomena that are not necessarily paranormal or pseudoscientific but have been scrutinized by skeptics, as well as issues about which skeptics as a group are undecided whether they should come under scientific examination. Examples:

New science • Religious claims • Cults • Hypnosis • Assassination conspiracies • Psychoanalysis • Psychotherapeutic drugs • Political claims • Effects of prayer • Holocaust denial • Racism • Cold fusion • Placebo effects • Life after death • Morality….

According to some skeptics, such as myself, every belief or practice faced by human beings can and should be subjected to critical scrutiny. Other skeptics make exceptions for experiences that they consider outside the empirical sphere, such as religious experiences or moral questions.

In either case, we generally restrict our inquiry to claims that are testable. It is difficult to see, for example, how we could test the hypothesis that a Supreme Being exists, although we can certainly examine evidence that is put forward to support the claims for the existence of a god.

Whether or not we can find conclusive evidence for or against all claims, we can at least seek whatever evidence is available to help inform our decision making. That’s the skeptical approach.

Since the founding of CSICOP in 1976, and with the growing number of localized skeptical groups, the skeptic finds more ways to state his or her case. The broadcast and print media, along with other forums, provide more opportunities for us to be heard. For some of these occasions, we have the luxury of carefully planning and crafting our response, but most of the time we have to formulate our response on the spot. Regardless of the circumstance, the critic’s task, if it is to be carried out properly, is both challenging and loaded with unanticipated hazards.

Many well-intentioned critics have jumped into the fray without carefully thinking through the various implications of their statements. They have sometimes displayed more emotion than logic, made sweeping charges beyond what they reasonably support, failed to adequately document their assertions, and, in general, have failed to do the homework necessary to make their challenges credible.

Such ill-considered criticism can be counter-productive for the cause of serious skepticism. The author of such criticism may fail to achieve the desired effect, may lose credibility, and may even become vulnerable to lawsuits. However, the unfavorable effects have consequences beyond the individual critic, and the entire cause of skepticism suffers as a result. Even when the individual critic takes pains to assert that he or she is expressing his or her own personal opinion, the public associates the assertions with all critics.
During CSICOP’s first decade of existence, members of the Executive Council often found themselves devoting most of their available time to damage control—precipitated by the careless remarks of a fellow skeptic—instead of toward the common cause of explaining the skeptical agenda.

Unfortunately, at this time, there are no courses on the proper way to criticize paranormal claims. So far as I know, no manuals or books of rules are currently available to guide us. Until such courses and guide books come into being, what can we do to ensure that our criticisms are both effective and responsible?

I would be irresponsible if I told you I had an easy solution. The problem is complicated, and there are no quick fixes, but I do believe we all could improve our contributions to responsible criticism by keeping a few principles always in mind.

We can make enormous improvements in our collective and individual efforts by simply trying to adhere to those standards that we profess to admire and that we believe that many peddlers of the paranormal violate. If we envision ourselves as the champions of rationality, science, and objectivity, then we ought to display these very same qualities in our criticism. Just by trying to speak and write in the spirit of precision, science, logic, and rationality—those attributes we supposedly admire—we would raise the quality of our critiques by at least one order of magnitude.

The failure to consistently live up to these standards exposes us to a number of hazards. We can find ourselves going beyond the facts at hand. We may fail to communicate exactly what we intended. We can confuse the public as to what skeptics are trying to achieve. We can unwittingly put paranormal proponents in the position of underdogs and create sympathy for them, and, as I already mentioned, we can make the task much more difficult for the other skeptics.

What, then, can skeptics do to upgrade the quality of their criticism? What follows are just a few suggestions. I hope they will stimulate further thought and discussion.

1. Be prepared.

Good criticism is a skill that requires practice, work, and level-headedness. Your response to a sudden challenge is much more likely to be appropriate if you have already anticipated similar challenges. Try to prepare in advance effective and short answers to those questions you are most likely to be asked. Be ready to answer why skeptical activity is important, why people should listen to your views, why false beliefs can be harmful, and many similar questions that invariably are raised. A useful project would be to compile a list of the most frequently occurring questions along with possible answers.

Whenever possible, try your ideas out on friends and “enemies” before offering them in the public arena. An effective exercise is to rehearse your arguments with fellow skeptics. Some of you can take the role of the psychic claimants, while others play the role of critics. Also, for more general preparation, read books on critical thinking, effective writing, and argumentation.

2. Clarify your objectives.

Before you try to cope with a paranormal claim, ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish. Are you trying to release pent-up resentment? Are you trying to belittle your opponent? Are you trying to gain publicity for your viewpoint? Do you want to demonstrate that the claim lacks reasonable justification? Do you hope to educate the public about what constitutes adequate evidence? Often our objectives, upon examination, turn out to be mixed. Also, especially when we act impulsively, some of our objectives conflict with one another.

The difference between short-term and long-term objectives can be especially important. Most skeptics, I believe, would agree that our long-term goal is to educate the public so that it can more effectively cope with various claims. Sometimes this long-range goal is sacrificed because of the desire to expose or debunk a current claim.

Part of clarifying our objectives is to decide who our audience is. Hard-nosed, strident attacks on paranormal claims rarely change opinions, but they do stroke the egos of those who are already skeptics. Arguments that may persuade the readers of the National Enquirer may offend academics and important opinion-makers.

Try to make it clear that you are attacking the claim and not the claimant. Avoid, at all costs, creating the impression that you are trying to interfere with someone’s civil liberties. Do not try to get someone fired from his or her job. Do not try to have courses dropped or otherwise be put in the position of advocating censorship. Being for rationality and reason should not force us into the position of seeming to be against academic freedom and civil liberties.

3. Do your homework.

Again, this goes hand in hand with the advice about being prepared. Whenever possible, you should not try to counter a specific paranormal claim without getting as many of the relevant facts as possible. Along the way, you should carefully document your sources. Do not depend upon a report in the media either for what is being claimed or for facts relevant to that claim. Try to get the specifics of the claim directly from the claimant.

4. Do not go beyond your level of competence.

No one, especially in our times, can credibly claim to be an expert in all subjects. Whenever possible, you should consult appropriate experts. We, understandably, are highly critical of paranormal claimants who make assertions that are obviously beyond their competence. We should be just as demanding on ourselves. A critic’s worst sin is to go beyond the facts and the available evidence.
In this regard, always ask yourself if you really have something to say. Sometimes it is better to remain silent than to jump into an argument that involves aspects that are beyond your present competence. When it is appropriate, do not be afraid to say “I don’t know.”

5. Let the facts speak for themselves.

If you have done your homework and have collected an adequate supply of facts, the audience rarely will need your help in reaching an appropriate conclusion. Indeed, your case is made stronger if the audience is allowed to draw its own conclusions from the facts. Say that Madame X claims to have psychically located Mrs. A’s missing daughter and you have obtained a statement from the police to the effect that her contributions did not help. Under these circumstances, it can be counter-productive to assert that Madame X lied about her contribution, or that her claim was “fraudulent.” For one thing, Madame X may sincerely, if mistakenly, believe that her contributions did in fact help. In addition, some listeners may be offended by the tone of your criticism and become sympathetic to Madame X. However, if you simply report what Madame X claimed, along with the response of the police, you not only are sticking to the facts, but your listeners will more likely come to the appropriate conclusion.

6. Be precise.

Good criticism requires precision and care in the use of language. Because, in challenging psychic claims, we are appealing to objectivity and fairness, we have a special obligation to be as honest and accurate in our own statements as possible. We should take special pains to avoid making assertions about paranormal claims that cannot be backed up with hard evidence. We should be especially careful, in this regard, when being interviewed by the media. Every effort should be made to ensure that the media understand precisely what we are and are not saying.

7. Use the principle of charity.

I know that many of my fellow critics will find this principle to be unpalatable. To some, paranormalists are the “enemy,” and it seems inconsistent to lean over backward to give them the benefit of the doubt, but being charitable to paranormal claims is simply the other side of being honest and fair. The principle of charity implies that, whenever there is doubt or ambiguity about a paranormal claim, we should try to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the claimant until we acquire strong reasons for not doing so. In this respect, we should carefully distinguish between being wrong and being dishonest. We often challenge the accuracy or the validity of a given paranormal claim, but rarely are we in a position to know if the claimant is deliberately lying or is self-deceived. Furthermore, we often have a choice in how to interpret or represent an opponent’s arguments. The principle tells us to convey the opponent’s position in a fair, objective, and non-emotional manner.

8. Avoid loaded words and sensationalism.

All these principles are interrelated. The ones previously stated imply that we should avoid using loaded and prejudicial words in our criticisms. We should also try to avoid sensationalism. If the proponents happen to resort to emotionally laden terms and sensationalism, we should avoid stooping to their level. We should not respond in kind.

This is not a matter of simply turning the other cheek. We want to gain credibility for our cause. In the short run, emotional charges and sensationalistic challenges might garner quick publicity, but most of us see our mission as a long-term effort. We would like to persuade the media and the public that we have a serious and important message to get across, and we would like to earn their trust as a credible and reliable resource. Such a task requires always keeping in mind the scientific principles and standards of rationality and integrity that we would like to make universal.

The top two in my experience are (1) “Skeptics don’t believe anything” and (2) “Skeptics think they know everything”. Strangely, these charges often come from the same sources.

The second charge, that we think we know everything, is often put in different words — that we are close-minded to other points of view. That we think our philosophy and methods have provided all the answers.

Well, let me make a tiny confession. We are close-minded at times. We do display blind faith in our methods at times. Sometimes we do think we know it all.

But when we act like this, we are not being very good skeptics. We are human and fallible and sometimes we get carried away. But our skepticism does not support this kind of mentality.

For there is a single answer to both misconceptions. Modern skepticism of the kind that Ontario Skeptics Society for Critical Inquiry (OSSCI) is based on is not about having a set of beliefs. There is no creed or platform or party line that one must swear allegiance to in order to be a skeptic. There is only a method. And that method is one of doubting and of evaluating evidence, of critically examining whatever are put forward as beliefs to believe or practices to practise.

Believers all

Many skeptics do indeed feel there is sufficient evidence and reason to justify believing in a wide variety of things. I doubt there is a single skeptic who does not believe in hundreds of things. You’ll find skeptics who believe in God while others are atheists. You’ll find skeptics who believe the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial life and you’ll find a few like me who are doubtful there is much other technologically advanced life in the universe. You’ll find a variety of political beliefs and diverse opinions on social issues held by individuals in OSSCI.

There are also many other mundane beliefs that people need to hold to get through every day. We believe gravity will continue to operate, our shoes are where we left them when we took them off last night, and our loved ones have not been replaced by ingeniously devised identical cyborgs. Some of us even hold such strange beliefs as that the Toronto Maple Leafs will win the Stanley Cup this year (as we have believed for many years past).

Now, it’s true you won’t find many skeptics who believe that aliens created crop circles, that Bigfoot exists, that tumours are cured by psychic surgery, or that John Edward really relays messages from the dead.

But the reason why you won’t find skeptics believing these is not that these beliefs are prohibited by some OSSCI central committee. Rather it is because there is a great deal of hard evidence and reason discrediting those beliefs, which skeptics have considered. If someone has some new evidence or reasons for supporting those beliefs or practices, then we would love to see it and, who knows, it might convince the skeptics.

You see, while modern skepticism does not entail any particular beliefs, it is an approach that can and does lead to beliefs. You might say there is this one requirement for membership in OSSCI, although “requirement” is perhaps too strong a word: what skeptics expect of each other is that they keep open minds and are prepared to consider evidence for and against.

The key words in our organization’s name are perhaps “Critical Inquiry”, which were added to take the emphasis away from “Skeptics” which has negative connotations to many people.

Skeptical of skeptics

This brings me to a third misconception or accusation I keep hearing. People ask, “Ah, but are you skeptical of skepticism?” Are we skeptical of the scientific method itself?

The answer is right in our Mission Statement. The second-last paragraph states baldly, that we are “committed to the constant evaluation of the scientific process as a method for establishing truth”.

How, you may ask, can we do this and then still support the use of the scientific method for evaluating claims of the paranormal or pseudoscience?

I think the solution to this seeming paradox is also in our Mission Statement. It is hinted at it in the quotation from Carl Sagan which accompanies the statement:

There is no other species on Earth that does science. It is, so far, entirely a human invention, evolved by natural selection in the cerebral cortex for one simple reason: it works. It is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything.

The scientific method, the approach of open-minded skepticism, is the best, most powerful, most reliable tool available. Nothing else has been so effective. Nothing has brought humanity so much understanding of the world or helped us advance as far. However, if there is something defective about this approach, we want to know, so we may improve our work. Or, even better, if there is a more effective method, again we’d love to hear about it.

I might point out how difficult this would be however. For to prove another method is more effective than science and skepticism, one would have to present a comparison of results. One would have to open one’s mind to new hypotheses, set up tests, check and double-check the test for fairness, and determine which produces the best results.

And what do you call that process?

Right, it’s science. It’s the skeptical approach and the scientific method.