Stem Cell Enhancers?

This morning I was at the Ethical Society with Flimsy, giving a presentation on the book Evidence of the Afterlife. Our presentation went well, and afterwards I was approached by a nice woman who I have seen occasionally at book clubs and other skeptical events. She told me about this revolutionary new group of products called StemEnhance, StemFLO, and StemSPORT can cure a bunch of diseases and is being produced by a Nobel Prizewinner.

I listened intently, but admitted that I was skeptical of the claims she was making. She handed me a sheet of paper with information and some pamphlets, which I promised to research further.

StemEnhance is purported to be a "natural stem cell enhancer", taking advantage of the media hype over the ability of stem cells to renew themselves and differentiate into different specialized cell types. The company claims that its products (which are marketed for humans and pets) is:

The world's first-ever natural stem cell enhancer… the only nutritional supplement in the world proven to support the natural release of your own adult stem cells from your bone marrow! StemEnhance consists of a patented natural 5:1 concentrate of an edible aquatic botanical known as Aphanizomenon Flos-aquae (AFA for short) that contains two proprietary components, Migratose and Mobilin. AFA grows in a unique, pristine environment in the northwestern United States and it has been safely consumed for over three decades.

The whole idea behind taking green algae pills to enhance stem cell circulation is due to speculation by the creators of StemEhance that adult stem cells can repair organs and tissues by "migrating" around the body to various locations. My acquaintance told me excitedly that the makers of this product won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for their work, but unfortunately I think she was given bogus information. The information she gave me read:

"Stem cells are immortal. The problem is detaching from bone marrow and attaching to the damaged organ. The 2008 Nobel Prizewinner irradiated stem cells turning them green and let them repair muscle."

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 2008 was awarded to Osamu Shimomura, of the Marine Biological Laboratory and Boston University Medical School, Martin Chalfie of Columbia University, and Roger Y. Tsien of the University of California, San Diego "for the discovery and development of the green fluorescent protein, GFP." The green fluorescent protein was important not because it could "repair muscle" but because it glowed and thus could be used to watch previously invisible biological processes and has aided in stem cell research. The 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to researchers who discovered HIV.

So let's see if this research [1] is as impressive as it sounds, shall we? The research article in question is unfortunately not available to the public, but I took it upon myself to track it down so that I could read it. The study consisted of an in-vitro (test tube) and in-vivo (in the body, with real human subjects) test. In-vivo test consisted of twelve subjects who consumed either StemEnhance or a placebo, had their blood drawn at 30, 60 and 120 minutes after consumption while sitting quietly. The study did not explain how the subjects were blinded, but did describe the placebo pills as looking identical to the StemEnhance pills and being made of dyed potato flakes. The study also did not explain how the researchers were blinded. The researchers tested the blood samples by looking for 6 different markers of stem cells. One of those markers was called CD34⁺.

The results were that "only the analysis of CD34⁺ showed a significant difference upon consumption of StemEnhance… ingestion of StemEnhance resulted in an 18±3% increase in the number of circulating CD34⁺ cells, maximizing at 60 min after ingestion… Questionaired completed by the colunteers on every experimental day revealed that three of the colunteers met criteria for exclusion (e.g., significant lack of sleep, severe anxiety) on at least one experimental say. Exclusion of these volunteers in the analysis resulted in a 25±1% increase in the number of circulating stem cells."

So, their analysis is based on 9 subjects. That is barely enough for a pilot study, especially for substances taken internally. Additionally, the CD34⁺ marker tested for hematopoietic stem cells – cells that can become blood cells but not other types of tissue cells. There is more important information missing from this paper: How were the subjects distributed into placebo and StemEnhance groups? Was the split even, with 6 in the placebo group and 6 in the StemEnhance group? Of the three participants that were excluded, from which groups did they come? This information is essential to research papers. Additionally, the authors say that the difference was significant, but they do not give the actual numbers. They also do not address effect size, which is also essential to research. Giving the effect sizes would allow readers to determine if the differences in these two groups are large enough to detect a real phenomenon. Their P value was set at P<0.05, which is acceptable for preliminary pilot studies. This value is unacceptable for establishing anything beyond that there may be an effect. More rigorous studies are needed to establish if there really is a real effect, and further rigor is needed to establish if that effect is clinically relevant. This product, therefore, is no breakthrough as the pamphlets would suggest.

I am unimpressed by this research. It lacks rigor and transparency found in reputable research. The increase in CD34⁺ is tiny. As another blogger put it:

OK, the extract treatment shows an increase CD34+ cells. A whopping increase from 0.062% to 0.085% (which of course is billed as a 30% increase). Now take a look at the placebo treatment. No increase, just as they claim, but the initial percentage of circulating CD34+ cells is already as high as AFTER StemEnhance treatment. Can anything meaningful be taken from this result? If you continue to read the paper, you'll find that the increase is quite transient, peaking after 60 minutes but lasting no more than 2 hours and that the effect in one person on 16 different test days can vary wildly (from a 300% increase in CD34+ to a 4% decrease).

So this study shows a teeny tiny, but statistically significant increase in circulating stem cells for about an hour after you swallow algae pills. The stem cell circulation then returns to normal. Will this increase in stem cell circulation offer miracle cures? Will consuming fresh clover cure heart disease? There is no evidence of either. Additionally, the researchers in the study (Jenson and Drapeau) are the same people who created and market this product, which means there is a serious, damning conflict of interest.

The chief science officer and brainchild of the company, Christian Drapeau, estimates that the company has sold 425,000 bottles from November 2005 to May 2007 and sells approximately 50,000 bottles per month. At $60 a bottle, that amounts to 25 million dollars of algae pills sold in 2 years and $300,000 in product sales a month. If the product sales have held steady since 2007, that means that they've sold over one hundred million dollars worth of product. That's a pretty substantial conflict of interest. That's over one hundred million dollars worth of product that has not been proven to help people, ever. There is no evidence that this product is safe or that it will improve one's health. In fact, if the product really does what it claims to do, it could "activate dormant cancer cells" according to Kerry Grens at The Scientist. Drapeau is also the former director for R&D at Cell Tech International, another algae company that was sued for making deceptive claims and false advertising. They lost the suit.

Part of StemTech's success at hawking algae pills is their business structure. They operate using a Multi-Level Marketing structure. Multi-Level Marketing, or MLM is similar to a pyramid scheme, and such business models have been subject to criticism and lawsuits. I probably don't need to explain why MLM's are bad news, but if you need more information you can always check out the website MLM watch.

It makes me angry that such a nice lady has been victimized by this company's MLM dubiousness. It bothers me that people can make claims about miracle cures without proving it first. There is no such proof from the makers of this product. My acquaintance was very excited about this product and told me about how there might be some good business opportunities for me if I were to be interested in the product. This is probably not the answer that she wants to hear, though.

[1] Jensen GS, Hart AN, Zaske LA, Drapeau C, Gupta N, Schaeffer DJ, Cruickshank JA. Mobilization of human CD34+ CD133+ and CD34+ CD133(-) stem cells in vivo by consumption of an extract from Aphanizomenon flos-aquae--related to modulation of CXCR4 expression by an L-selectin ligand?  Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2007:8;189-202

Faith Infiltration: Jubilee Church Pt II

In our last blog post, I wrote about the Jubilee Church and how I think that if their goal is to make society better, they are going about it in the wrong way by demonizing pornography. This is part II of our Faith Infiltration. Would you believe it or not, we're not done talking about porn yet!

After apparently making up some statistics about porn, the pastor went on to say that porn will not "spice up your marriage" and that all we had to do for verification was ask any psychologist. Any psychologist will supposedly tell me that porn trains men to be lustful and selfish.

Of course, this is probably true if we ask any Christian psychiatrist or psychologist who has a preconceived notion that porn watching is wrong. I think the negative effects of porn are more due to the political panic over porn than the actual porn watching. The trouble is that there is so little research that isn't conducted by researchers with an ideological bias that I can't clearly weigh the evidence. So instead, I'll go with analogy:

My lovely Fiancé Flimsy enjoys painting miniature wargame figures. He spends (or would like to spend) hours each week doing this. While at work and at home, he looks at pictures of painted miniatures on the internet. He reads books about miniatures. Occasionally, he forgoes a night of spending time with me to paint miniatures.

Because I grew up in a society in which it is (mostly) okay to paint miniatures, this is no big deal. But if I grew up in a society in which painting miniatures was seen as immoral or bad and I agreed with society, the situation would be much different. If I believed that mini painting was bad, and the rest of society agreed with me, I could easily believe that mini painting might destroy our marriage, demand that Flimsy stop, and watch our relationship crumble in a self-fulfilling prophesy. This would not be due to the fact that mini painting is inherently wrong, but due to my beliefs about mini painting.

If we look at all of the reasons why porn is bad, either those reasons – when subjected to objective evidence – are not true, or they could apply equally as well to anything else Flimsy engages in. Part of the reason that porn has such a negative impact on relationships is because of what we've been led to believe about porn. In the same way, part of the reason why miniature painting might have a negative impact on our relationship is due to what I've been led to believe about mini painting.

Unfortunately, there is a serious paucity of research of the effects of porn on couples who happily consume porn together, or couples who do not care if their partner consumes porn. The best we can say from the available research is that some of the supposed societal impacts are not true (such as the claim that porn leads to increased sex crimes) and some of them are perhaps due to societies perception of porn and self-fulfilling prophesies. For example, the pastor at Jubilee church claimed that porn causes men to view women as objects, but this is objectively untrue, according to researchers. Similarly, I am certain that porn leads to divorce, but mini-painting could just as well lead to divorce if I were led to believe that he didn't love me if he wanted to spend time crouched over small pewter figures with tiny little paint brushes until he got arthritis.

The pastor also threw out several more statistics: that 90% of women only do one porn video before they stop, and that 90% of women in porn videos claim to have been sexually abused as a child. I tried to look up these statistics but unfortunately I cannot find the study by which they originate – just statistics quoted without citations. Perhaps part of the problem is that scientists have trouble locating funding to do research on pornography. Just imagine trying to propose a study to an IRB board in which your participants come to the lab to watch porn. The people who are most likely to get funding are not researchers who view pornography neutrally, but researchers who are part of organizations that are ideologically opposed to pornography. The whole issue of pornography is so ideologically driven that I am absolutely overwhelmed to try to find objective sources of information about it. I think the best correlation is that while porn access is easier than ever and porn has become much more accessible via the internet, we have not seen an increase in violence, divorce, sex crimes, misogyny, or any of the other badness supposedly associated with porn consumption. Instead, porn is repeatedly demonized, and those who use it made to feel victimized by the rhetoric.

After the topic of porn seemed fairly well exhausted, the pastor moved on to divorce, throwing out some more statistics:

40% of people in marriages engage in adultery,

20% of couples have "emotional affairs",

67% of marriages end in divorce (Sorry, this is total nonsense. It's more like 41%),

Children of divorced families are 2 times as likely to divorce as adults, and 3 times as likely if both partners are divorced.

Does anyone else think that these statistics sound a little off?

The pastor went on to say that the reason divorce is so prevalent is because the enemy has a plan to destroy marriage by making everyone go off "one-fleshing" before they are married, and getting you to attach to as many people before marriage as possible so that the "Velcro" of your love becomes overused and weak. Therefore, we should make our pre-marriage relationships as "brotherly" and "sisterly" as possible because – duh – screwing your sibling is icky. Premarital sex is bad, and we should be thankful if our pre-marriage relationships don't end up working out, because it's obvious that if they don't work out, it is because god has a plan for us to find that perfect special someone. The good news is that we can get hope and grace from the god we cannot escape.

After this, the pastor told his audience that his god doesn't care "what your deal is," he will still forgive you. A song began to play, and people began to pray earnestly. As we left the sanctuary, we saw a young couple huddled together in what looked like some serious prayer.

Instead of hearing a fresh new perspective on sex from a Christian perspective, I felt as though we were spoon-fed the same clichés about the evils of premarital sex. The church is billed as being different, but to me they seem like the epitome of stereotype.


 

 

Faith Infiltration: Jubilee Church

A few weeks ago, Flimsy and I accompanied some other local St. Louis bloggers to The Jubilee Church. Jubilee was running a series of sermons on S.E.X., so of course we had to check it out. We heard about Jubilee via several billboards in the St. Louis area featuring the words, "XXXPOSED CHURCH." The accompanying website explained that, "Contrary to popular opinion, God is not against sex—He's 100% for it! He created sex and meant for us to enjoy it. He even gave us special instructions that will maximize our enjoyment if followed, but if ignored will produce pain and hurt. This is why we have decided to set aside four weeks in our sermon calendar to address the topic of sex."

Woohoo! How could we pass this kind of thing up?

Jubilee Church (which is part of the Newfrontiers movement) is set inside a rather Spanish looking building, complete with a Spanish tile roof and stucco walls. Though the building seemed rather large, the sanctuary was surprisingly small and intimate. My guess is that it tightly held about 200 people. The congregation consisted of a racially-mixed group, most of which were around their 30's. The sanctuary had a very auditorium-like feel to it, having a center stage and bland walls that lacked any kind of religious décor or pictures on the walls.

Someone stood at the front of the stage and told everyone – as the music began - to remember that they can't do anything of their own power and can only accomplish things through Jesus by being born again. He also told the audience to open their hearts to the message and to be "set free in your thinking."

The worship team performed this song, which causes the hairs to stand on my neck even though I am not a believer. If I were a Christian I would totally be into this:




While the song went on, people lifted their hands up and held them there, singing along. It was then that I noticed a very young sign language interpreter at the front, interpreting to what appeared to be one person, who nodded along. The song ended, and a video was launched. The video (parts of which can be found here) featured the PG-13 warning before diving into scenes of St. Louisans being interviewed about sex. The interviewer asked people questions like, "Have you ever been hurt by a sexual relationship?" and people answered. Most people told stories of having negative experiences with sexual relationships. The video ended, and the sermon began.

The pastor opened by telling everyone that god is a fan of sex – in face he is The Fan of sex, because he invented it. "Culture," he said, "assumes god is a killjoy – that Christians are sexual prudes, or Ned Flanders, or judgmental." The implication, obviously, is that "culture" is wrong – Christians aren't prudes, like Ned Flanders, or judgmental.

God, the pastor explained, wants sex to occur within certain constraints: within the "blood covenant" of marriage and as the act of two souls becoming "one flesh." If you're doing it right, your marriage will be one in which companionship, passion and intimacy occurs. When we go outside this ideal, "little foxes" come in and ruin the vineyard that is a marriage. Marriage is hard – said the pastor – because a good relationship is hard to maintain, the devil hates everything that god loves, and so the devil will attempt to distort everything to keep people from experiencing god. Because life starts with and ends with a marriage (to god), god loves marriage, and the devil hates all the things god loves, the devil is obviously going to try to destroy your marriage.

Personally, I don't see any evidence that the devil is mucking things up. Instead, a lot of what I see (and even Christians agree…) is that marriage fails due to these things: lack of honesty, lack of communication, lack of intimacy, lack of trust, and jumping into marriage too early in a relationship, inappropriate expectations, etc.

Apparently last week the Pastor addressed all of the bad things that men do to muck up a marriage, and so this week he focused on the ladies. He started out by saying that ladies should not be selfish with intimacy. If a lady pretends to "have a headache" (obviously, what he meant is when women don't really feel like having sex, so they make up an excuse not to) she is being self-centered, and she needs to learn to serve and think of one-another. The Pastor explained that he was not advocating that a woman be treated like a piece of meat, just that withholding oneself for selfish reasons is one of these "foxes" he was talking about.

The problem I see with this scenario is dishonesty and lack of understanding. Most people enter into marriages with the expectation that their sexual needs will be met. If one partner is not meeting the needs of another partner, this is obviously a problem, and it is also a problem if she is not honest about why she is not meeting those needs. There are better ways to solve this than to say, "quit being selfish", though. For example: he could masturbate. He could watch porn. He and she could agree on an open relationship. He and she could work on spicing up their sex lives. They could work on issues coming between them and sex. There are a multitude of things a couple could do in this situation, so much that I could probably start a whole new blog and write about just this issue. But the pastor chose to solve it in a different way:

Instead of talking through good ways to solve a problem like this, the pastor resorted to guilt: if you selfishly withhold sex and leave your husband sexually unfulfilled, he'll probably turn to porn because men "either fight or just quit." Specifically, the pastor cautioned that, "if you refuse your husband, you are training him to quit on you."

Enter discussion about porn.

The pastor threw out a bunch of rather interesting statistic about porn at this point:

1. It's a 14 billion dollar industry. (It's probably more like a 4 billion dollar industry according to Forbes.com and The Scientist and pro-porn group the Free Speech Coalition.)
   
2. 11 thousand porn films are made a year. (This number seems actually accurate!)
   
3. There are 22 times as many porn video releases as there are movie releases. (okay, that's probably true, but each porn title sells many less copies than a movie release)
   
4. There are more porn stores in America than Mcdonalds. (Are you kidding me? Citation needed! The only one I could find that even remotely came close was this college newspaper citing that there are more strip clubs than McDonalds. Or maybe this website saying there are more strip clubs in Tampa than McDonalds. This statistic appears to have been invented by the National Coalition in an unfindable document titled, "Pornography's Relationship to Sexual Violence and Exploitation." There are 13,383 MickeyD's in the USA. Since pornography stores are not franchised, it is difficult to pin down statistics on how many there are and it looks like no one has really done it, so I am confident in saying this number was pulled out of thin air for shock value. Maybe if you combined all porn stores, strip clubs, video stores that had an "adult movie" section, any store that sold sex toys or lingerie, you might have 13,383.)
   
5. 14% of men are addicted to porn, and 6% of women are addicted to porn. ("pornography addiction" is not found in the DSM and thus is not accepted by mainstream psychology as a disorder. Thus, it has no widely accepted "diagnostic criteria." For example in a survey conducted by Christian net of its readership, "porn addiction" was diagnosed by an affirmative answer to this question, "do you struggle with looking at pornography on an ongoing basis?" They concluded that 60% of men and 20% of women were addicted to porn.
   

It really bothers me when statistics are abused like this or simply made up and passed on as fact to people who place high value on information given by authority figures. After mentioning Bible verses to support the contention that porn is bad (looking upon a woman with lustful intent is the same as committing adultery in the heart, you can't dabble into sexual sin without being burned, etc) the pastor went on to talk more about the evils of porn. He told his audience that porn use inhibits one's ability to cope with reality. It leads to aggression, addiction, depression, loneliness, and detachment. It must become more graphic in order to excite the watcher, who will seek out porn depicting younger people. Role-playing and violence toward women are the obvious step once graphic porn is no longer satisfying.

What's wrong with role-playing, exactly? If two adults in a safe, sane, consensual relationship want to roleplay, who cares? Is porn really that dangerous? How about we look at some unbiased data?

Over the years, many scientists have investigated the link between pornography (considered legal under the First Amendment in the United States unless judged "obscene") and sex crimes and attitudes towards women. And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.

Few studies link the availability of porn to antisocial behavior and sex crimes. Even though the rate of porn use is going up in the US, Denmark, Sweden, and West Germany, the incidence of rape is going down. It is especially going down among people aged 20-34 – those most likely to use the internet and have ready access to porn.

Rapists are more likely than non-rapists to have been punished for looking at porn. Rapists and child molesters use less porn than "normal" males. The only real environmental correlation between sex-offenders is a strict religious upbringing.

That's right. Porn use has a negative correlation between sex offenses and crimes. If you want to reduce the number of sex crimes in a given community, it is better to give people open access to porn than to make people guilty for even thinking about it.

Obviously, anything that has the potential to be used has the potential to be abused, but it makes little sense to find people who self-describe as being addicted to porn, and then extrapolate that information to claim that porn is addictive. I could probably locate 100 people who are addicted to corned beef and ask them how this addiction has affected their lives and extrapolate that corned beef is addictive.

The pastor mentioned Ted Bundy. Okay, so Ted Bundy liked to look at porn. It's disingenuous to take the actions of one sociopathic serial killer, point fingers at a single aspect of his life (he was also active in his church…) and then blame that aspect of his life for his actions unless it is obvious that there is a clear correlation. Most of the link of Ted Bundy to pornography is due to an interview that he had with James Dobson (of Focus on the Family) before he was executed.

If Jubilee church really wanted to be "not Ted Flanders" they would look objectively at pornography statistics. Instead, they believe porn is wrong and evil, and so pick and choose their information to fit in with their preconceived notions. Given the reality of pornography, this can only hurt society rather than help it. That would be the moral thing to do.

Okay! This blog post has gotten long enough. Tune in for part II later this week.

Evidence of the Afterlife; I'm Skeptical - Website

An update to our review of Evidence of the Afterlife; The Science of Near-Death Experiences.  As it turns out, the book is extremely light.  I've been told that most books intended for a lay audience are written around a sixth-grade level.  If that's the case, Evidence is written at a third- or fourth-grade level.

There are interesting tidbits though; for example, on the Near-Death Experience Research Foundation's website, there is a little page titled "Skeptic's Corner."  My favorite article there is Debunking the Debunkers by Jody A. Long.

The entire "debunking" is done on the basis of straw-men and ad hominem attacks.  From the opening paragraph:

On one hand you have those who consider the experience as real (usually the experiencer), and on the other hand you have the nay-Sayers (the non-experiencers) who consider the experience nothing more than brain-chemistry.  In the middle of the road, are those who seek truth – the true skeptics.

Interestingly, this statement excludes both "believers" and "unbelievers" from the category of someone who genuinely seeks truth.  She manages to insult both believers and skeptics at the same time!

The first part of the article is just silly; Long defines "skeptic" as one who "habitually questions assertions or generally accepted conclusions."  Fair enough.  She also defines "cynic" as "one who believes all men are motivated by selfishness."  She then simply paints anyone skeptical of an afterlife as being "cynical" instead of honestly "skeptical."

. . . techniques used in the Lancet commentary such as implying that the whole experience was imagined or that the experiencer was fancifully filling in the gaps. What better way to discredit an NDEr than to assume they are lying about their experience or convince others that the NDEr is of unsound of mind?

I love how we go from "the experience could have been imagined, or your mind could have filled in the gaps" straight to, "you're lying or insane."  It's just grossly dishonest to say that our skeptical response to NDEs is to simply say that the person is lying.  Memory is highly fallible, as well; nobody is saying that you have to be insane to formulate false or unreliable memories, far from it, especially memories that you are highly emotionally attached to, or that came from an altered state of consciousness!

Whenever there are some glaring facts that don’t fit into a preconceived world view, these facts are conveniently ignored.  The most ignored facts that NDE cynics gloss over are those that occur in the out-of-body phase of the NDE.  There is no way possible that brain chemistry can be argued when a person is verifiably DEAD, . . .

This is the exact opposite of true.  The out-of-body experience is one of the most (or one of the only . . .) testable hypotheses of these claims about NDEs.  Thus, it's one of the easiest methods of falsifying Long's hypothesis, as we'll see in that chapter of his book.

Inventing false explanations can best be seen by Susan Blackmore . . .  While some of these explanations may be true for some of the reports, they certainly are not true for all accounts.

Of course, there's no reason given why there has to be some NDEs that these explanations simply don't work for.  Long simply states, as a matter of fact, that not all NDEs could be a result of these naturalistic "false" explanations.  She returns to this statement several times over the course of the rest of the article.

These are all examples that Long gives of tactics and rhetoric used by "cynics" as opposed to "skeptics."   It only gets worse, though, when she talks about what would be good evidence, presented by skeptics.

In a court of law, there are rules that allow people to testify (give their oral narratives) to the truth of the matter. . . .  Therefore, much of Susan Blackmore’s arguments against NDE would fail the relevancy test. When viewed in the context of the near death experience, the explanations lack probative value because false explanations do not tend to prove or disprove NDE since they only apply to a few of the NDE accounts.  Moreover, even if false explanations were allowed as evidence, they could still be excluded because false explanations tend to cloud the real issues; and ultimately, they are a waste of time since no single explanation or group of explanations that she gives results in a total explanation for all NDEs.

Long equates a skeptic's naturalistic explanations for NDEs to a testimony given in court, which is a really spectacularly bad analogy. Even ignoring the fact that she tries to name the same issue as two separate cases against the skeptic's argument, a testimony given in court is a specific account given about a one-time event, by a witness to the event.  It's not comparable to giving a naturalistic explanation for a large number of events at all.  I suppose one could still insist that NDEs are evidence of an afterlife, and that a skeptic pointing out naturalistic explanations for NDEs is "irrelevant," but you'd be wrong.  It's pretty close to the most relevant response possible, actually.

Long takes her courtroom analogy and runs with it, rightly acknowledging that their case for the afterlife is built entirely upon hearsay.  She rightly states that usually, hearsay is such a terrible excuse for evidence that it's inadmissible in a court of law (which is saying something, since the debate standards in a court of law are already far, far less rigorous than the standards for a scientific debate).  Amazingly, she claims that hearsay can be very good evidence:

However, even hearsay can be reliable in court.  Some of the exceptions that apply to NDE are called present sense impressions and excited utterances. The rationale of the rule is that the “element of spontaneity reduces the chance of misrepresentation to an acceptable level.”  Even more reliable is evidence obtained while a person is under the stress of the excitement caused by the event or condition, with the key being the spontaneity of the statements.

It should be obvious that this rule only applies when we're trying to get at someone's genuine impression of a situation (especially a situation that's not too complicated, where we can conclude that there's a minimal chance of them just being flat-out wrong about what happened).  Equally clear is how bad such testimony is when trying to determine the objective reality of a very amazing, complex situation.

If a man shot someone else, and was heard yelling at the time, "AAAAHHHH I SHOT HIIIIIIIIIIM . . .  SOMEONE HELP, I SHOT HIIIIIIIIM . . ." and later claimed that they didn't shoot him, then testimony of his yelling would be good evidence (for a testimonial anecdote, anyway).  Now, let's try and formulate an analogy that would actually be closer to a NDE.  If, on the other hand, a carnival ride malfunctioned and spun out of control, and someone managed to record the most terrified, hysterical person trapped on the ride (someone with a highly altered state of consciousness), and that person happened to scream something about the ride going two hundred miles an hour, would that be a good measure of the objective reality of the situation?

Here are some other choice statements:

Few NDErs have anything to gain by telling their story.  Most “skeptics” have books and reputations to defend.

Um, the Dr. Longs have books and reputations to defend.  Ziztur and I don't.  This is just a particularly bad ad hominem.

Other valid observations about anecdotal evidence is that it is mostly reliable in regards to every day things.  Over 90 percent of what we hear from others is accurate when dealing with life.  We talk to others about what they had for lunch, what is playing at the movies, or what happened on the way to work.  While some of this might be small talk, for the most part an anecdotal account, it is not deemed a false memory or hallucination. If anecdotal evidence were inherently unreliable, we would typically not believe a word anyone tells us.

I love this one.  Obvious response, right?  Extraordinary claims?  Duh?  Well, Long has an answer for that:

 I frequently hear that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. . . .  What constitutes extraordinary claims to one person may not be the same for another person.  What is extraordinary becomes a subjective term and open to interpretation.

And there we have it.  Because there's no absolute standard of an "extraordinary" claim, it's no more outrageous to insist that you have scientifically proven the afterlife than it is to state that you had the turkey at lunch today.  I don't think I need to point out why this doesn't convince me.

It is important to remember that just because something hasn’t been scientifically proven, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.  Many times, it is just a matter of developing technology to be sensitive enough to sense germs, viruses, other galaxies, microwaves, electromagnetic fields, or gravity.  There are many things that did not exist at various times in mans’ existence, yet they still existed. 

Therefore, it is more accurate to state, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to convince skeptics, but not necessarily to exist in objective reality.”

Let's clarify the old adage; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be accepted rationally.  This is exactly like the old anti-reason, pro-faith argument:  "There was a time when claiming that the earth was round was an extraordinary claim, and there was no evidence to prove that extraordinary claim true - did that mean that the earth was flat?"

The answer is simple; thousands of years ago, accepting a flat earth was absolutely the logical, rational conclusion based on the available evidence.  New evidence overturned that conclusion, yes, but the only reason that we know that this particular piece of knowledge was dead wrong was exactly because of that overwhelming weight of evidence.  It's absolutely ridiculous to assume that overwhelmingly-accepted-fact-X will someday inevitably be overturned with amazing evidence to the contrary.  Here's a claim; gravity doesn't exist.  An infinite number of invisible, suspiciously humanoid imps and fairies just really enjoy pushing matter together, according to it's mass.  We don't accept this claim, while we do accept that the earth is round.

It's really clear that you shouldn't make the "extraordinary, fantastic, seemingly impossible claims can still exist in spite of no good evidence" argument.  By definition, it's an admission that you have no evidence for your position.

That fact, and thus the reason why the Longs' so-called evidence is so unconvincing to skeptics, is well summed up in Dr. Long's own words:

Consider that just because a person can’t scientifically prove something does not mean that it is false or nonexistent.  For instance, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or life after death.

How on earth do you make a case for scientifically proving that there is an afterlife when you admit straight out that there literally cannot be any scientific evidence for or against your claim?

Check out this link, found at the bottom of the article (but only if you feel like weeping for the state of critical thinking skills and scientific education in the world).

Homeopathy for bigger boobies!

I admit it.

I wondered the other day if people might claim that homeopathy could be used for "breast enlargement", so I Googled in order to bring you this latest bit of skepticism.

I know, I know, homeopathy is such an easy target, but it must be done nonetheless.

According to the makers of Elegance Elixer, one can use dowsing to determine if a product will give you more boobage. Once you determine that their product is right for you, you can grow 1-4 cups over 6-12 months, all for the low cost of $109.00.

Here's how it works: first, you use dowsing to determine if the product is right for you. Their version of "dowsing" includes "manual muscle testing."

"Manual muscle testing", unfortunately, is an occupational therapy and physical therapy term that has been hijacked by alternative medicine. In OT and PT, manual muscle testing is a way of grading muscle strength. Basically, during a manual muscle test, a trained therapist applies pressure to a client's upper or lower extremity, and grades their strength on a scale: 0 (no muscle activity) 1 (trace activity) 2 (part moves through full range of motion with gravity eliminated) 3 (part moves through full ROM against gravity) 4 (full ROM with moderate resistance) 5 (full ROM with max resistance).

"Manual muscle testing" to alternative medicine practitioners means "tapping the body's innate intelligence and determining thereby the energy levels of life forces that control the body." To do alt-med MMT, you ask your body to show you a "yes" response, while pressing on a part, typically an arm. The body is supposed to resist the force you apply. You then ask your body to show you a "no" response, and while applying the same force, the body does not resist the force you apply.

So, instructions from Elegance Elixir first teach you how to do alt-med MMT, and then instructs you to ask yourself, "Is elegance Elixir a means for my fastest and healthiest natural breast enhancement?" and, "is it possible for me to increase permanently by at least 1 cup using Elegance Elixir?" and your body simply knows the answer somehow.

If your body answers yes, then you are supposed to either purchase an ebook ($25) or purchase the nostrum.

The words, "RISK FREE" are written several times on this website. Apparently "risk-free" means that if your MMT tells you that Elegance Elixir will not work for you, then you don't buy it. It does NOT mean that you can try it to see if it works, and return it if it does not work for your money back. If you buy the ebook, you cannot return it for a refund. If you buy the $109 elixir, then you must return the Elixir without opening it to get a partial refund. The $109 price tag includes the price of the ebook, which is not refundable.

You also can't just return the unopened product, either. You have to verify a "no" response with the company:

"This system is only for the serious customer and is estimated to work for 85%+ of the general populace. However, there are unscrupulous parties may just 'change' their minds about using the product and say they indicate 'no'. Verification keeps things honest. Also, if you are not accurate, we can provide information to get you on the right track! We want to make sure that we enable your success as much as possible. Keeping the instructions is consolation and also an enabler- no one else offers that. Again, you can use the information to see if any other products will work for you."

No one else offers you to keep the .pdf of the instructions? Really… well I'm sold.

I cannot believe how ridiculous the return policy for this company is. They also claim that their products are organic and registered with the FDA. We'll see about that.

Elegance Elixir is also featured on this abysmally transparent advertizing website called "Pills research" which claims that some of the bonuses are "instructions." Awesome.

The pills supposedly claim Fenugreek and Saw Palmetto. According to the principals of homeopathy, substances which cause symptoms without dilution will cure those same symptoms if diluted and potentized. This means that smaller-than-you'd-like boobies must be an underlying condition to cure. Fenugreek and Saw Palmetto must then (according to the principals of homeopathy and the "law" of similar) cause your breasts to shrink when taken without dilution.

Help?

I have a problem!

At the end of this month, Blogger (which I use to blog) will end FTP publishing (which I use).

I need someone to help redesign my blog for Wordpress. I have money! For you! If you help me!

Sex-offender chiropractors

Can someone please explain to me why registered sex offenders can practice (with limitations) as chiropractors, but physicians cannot?

Reader Miss Lou sent me this interesting article, saying, "Apparently if you are a sex offender in Minnesota, the state law says you can't be a physician but you can be a chiropractor. He doesn't even have to tell his patients!"

The long and the short of the article is that a chiropractor who engaged in egregious sex offenses on the clock, while practicing his trade, went to prison for 2 years, had his license revoked for 6 years, but was granted his license again – with limitations – so that he may continue to practice as a chiropractor.

This month, more than six years after revoking Fredin's license for the felony convictions, the state Board of Chiropractic Examiners granted Fredin's request to get his license back. To protect Fredin's clients, the board said he cannot treat any female patients without someone else in the room. Fredin is working in Minneapolis, but he can't treat patients until regulators approve his new location.

Why do I care? Well, because it seems that the regulations for chiropractors regarding registered sex offenders is much more lax then that of physicians and other medical care providers.

Under state law, many professionals -- including dentists, psychologists and nurses -- can't be barred from practicing after a criminal conviction as long as they can show licensing boards they were rehabilitated.

I wish I had a complete list of those who can't be barred.

However, there are no second chances at the state Board of Medical Practice, which regulates 22,000 health-care providers, including physicians, midwives and acupuncturists. In 1995, the Legislature passed a law requiring the board to yank the medical license of anyone convicted of a felony-level sexual offense.

Personally, I think that the standards of practice for chiropractic ought to be the same as the standards for any other medical profession. While I would contend that chiropractic is medicine, the field of chiropractic certainly acts like and in many cases is treated as such. I also wonder if these standards are limited to Minnesota or if one can find lax sex-offender standards for "medical" professionals in other states. Ah, to do research…

The Atheist’s Way: makes kids burn churches?

Sorry for the paucity of blog posts!

The other day I read on The Friendly Atheist and the news that there has been a recent rash of 11 church fires caused by arsonists.

This is, of course, very unfortunate. What I think is also unfortunate is the way some specific pieces of literature found in the home of the girlfriend of one of the arsonists has been handled.

Apparently much evidence was seized from the homes of the arsonists as well as the homes of anyone linked to the arsonists. One of the things seized was The Atheist's Way: Living Well Without Gods by Eric Maisel. This less than 200 page book has been the subject of news headlines everywhere: "Suspect in Texas Church Fires Reportedly Had Books on Atheism", Atheism books found in home of church fire suspect, "Atheist books indicated in charges of Arson."

Of course, my guess is that the main reason a headline might be written in this way is that it preys upon people's prejudices. Those prejudices being: Christians are good moral people and atheists are immoral, bad people. Christians (by the prejudicial definition) would never burn down a church, but atheists might. If you already think atheists are immoral, then headlines like these will only serve to reinforce your hatred and bigotry. Clearly, mentioning that an atheist book was found at the home of an arsonist is meant to lead the reader to believe that the books are linked to the aforementioned acts of arson. This is why we don't see headlines like, "Book on Cats found in home of church fire suspect" or, "Suspect in Texas church Fires Reportedly Had Bags of Ruffles."

What these headlines and most of the news stories associated with the arson do not mention is that 3 other books were also seized from linked homes.

If I were an investigator and I wanted to link a certain book to violence, I might read said books and see if any of the books advocate or promote violence.

I have a copy of The Atheist's Way, and can promise you that it does not advocate violence, arson, or anything other than upholding cherished values, and making your own ethics rather than parroting the ethics of someone else. The core of the book's moral philosophy is "expressing humanist values such as justice and fairness in a context of competing rights and interests, conflicting points of view, and complex circumstances." It advocates teaching moral philosophy to children by giving them the rare opportunity to think about ethics. I've also read about 20 books on atheism, and none of them advocate violence, arson, or the destruction of property. Ever. The only reason one might suspect that a book on atheism is linked to acts of arson can only be a matter of prejudice.

The other books, on the other hand, actually do advocate such violence. In these book, the main character – who is portrayed as someone readers should be as much like as possible, burns cities to the ground. He burns people to death. He explicitly commands that people be burned to death. The book also advocates praying that your enemies will burn to death.

If I were an investigator, I'd link the book that actually advocated setting buildings and people on fire to the arsonists rather than the book that advocates teaching children moral philosophy. 

So which book did these arsonists have three copies of? The Bible. In the bible, God burns cities, burns people, commands his followers to burn people, and advocates praying that your enemies be burned. This kind of thing just doesn't occur in an atheist book.

It makes me sad. Atheists are not bad people. They are not more likely to burn down a church than a theist. These headlines only serve to reinforce hatred towards people who are just people.