Atheism is Freedom

Stem Cell Enhancers?

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:17:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:55:00 +0000

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:

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.)

11 thousand porn films are made a year. (This number seems actually accurate!)

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)

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.)

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

noreply@blogger.com (Flimsyman) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:41:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:18:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:09:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:18:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:12:00 +0000

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.

Swamped

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:31:00 +0000

Okay, so I'll admit it: I am freaking SWAMPED with busy right now! I am:

Studying for the rather intimidating NBCOT (National Board of Certification in Occupational Therapy) exam, so I can become a registered occupational therapist. This exam costs $500 to take, and if you fail, you have to pay again and wait 45 days before you can have another go at it.

Studying for my new job. I have to do a lot of training, and all of it is online, long, and involves taking tests over the material.

A fellow skeptic Zi Wang and I wrote this 2-3 hour workshop over divination with dowsing rods and pendulums. We're giving the workshop in a few hours. A friend of mine who is a budding director is going to videotape much of it to make a little promotional video, and it's expected that we will be giving workshops like it all over the country in little skeptic hubs.

I think I have writer's block or something! I think this happens to everyone who blogs at some point.

I've got some somewhat bizarre things going on in my personal life, unrelated to skepticism.

Flimsy and I are planning for our wedding!

I've got an interview for another job position.

I submitted the revisions of my manuscript (of my biomechanics research) to the journal.

One of the things surely on my mind is that if I write blog posts, I will be taking away time for something else, especially studying for this big scary exam. So this is why the blog posts have trickled down to almost nothing lately. Sorry guys!

Evidence of the Afterlife; I'm Skeptical - Introduction, Pt. 2

noreply@blogger.com (Flimsyman) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:06:00 +0000

This is possibly the most important portion of the Introductory chapter. Here, Jeffrey Long looks at the twelve most common aspects of a NDE, according to his research. These are:

1. Out-of-body experience (OBE): Separation of consciousness from the physical body.
2. Heightened senses.
3. Intense and generally positive emotions or feelings.
4. Passing into or through a tunnel.
5. Encountering a mystical or bright light.
6. Encountering other beings, either mystical beings or deceased relatives or friends.
7. A sense of alteration of time or space.
8. Life review.
9. Encountering unworldly ("heavenly") realms.
10. Encountering or learning special knowledge.
11. Encountering a boundary or barrier.
12. A return to the body, either voluntary or involuntary.

He goes into a bit of detail for each.

1. Out-of-body experiences. This is exactly as it sounds like. I find that many, many people put stock in out-of-body experiences, so I might address this topic more closely on its own, in a brief post later. Long claims that:

The NDERF survey asked 613 NDErs, "Did you experience a separation of your consciousness from your body?" In response, 75.4 percent answered "Yes."

My first question is, why only 613? Long is very happy with the fact that he has over 1300 stories from people who have submitted the online form, which does ask about out-of-body experiences. If he has the results from 1300 people, why does he include less than half than number in his statistic? More than one question in the online form addressed out-of-body experiences; yet he only includes the number for this one question. Why?

2. Heightened senses. Long claims that 74.4 percent of respondents indicated that they had "More consciousness and alertness than normal."

3. Intense and generally positive emotions or feelings. Responding to, "Did you have a feeling of peace or pleasantness?", 76.2 percent claimed "Incredible peace or pleasantness." Responding to, "Did you have a feeling of joy?", 52.5 claimed "Incredible joy." He mentions that a few people's NDE are "frightening." He refers the reader to an end note, which refers the reader to a portion of his website, which contains a small section about frightening NDEs. All he states in the actual book is that frightening NDEs are "beyond the scope" of his book.

Encountering frightening moments during a NDE is not rare. The NDERF survey asked “During your experience, did you consider the contents of your experience (NOT the possible life-threatening event that led up to the experience) to be:”, followed by the options of “Wonderful”, “Mixed”, or “Frightening.” Of the 613 NDErs responding to this question with a NDE Scale score of seven or higher, 62.5% selected “Wonderful”, 33.8% “Mixed”, and only 3.8% “Frightening.” The finding that about one in three NDEs selected “Mixed” is surprising. It has not been widely appreciated that such a high percentage of NDEs have such an apparent mixed emotional component.

You'd think this would be important information, especially as he uses these twelve points to . . . well, you'll see.

4. Passing into or through a tunnel. 33.8 percent of respondents report an experience of this nature.

5. Encountering a mystical or brilliant light. 64.6 percent report such a thing.

6. Encountering other beings, either mystical beings or deceased relatives or friends. 57.3 percent report encountering other beings during their NDE.

7. A sense of alteration of time or space. 60.5 percent report this.

8. Life review. Only 22.2 percent report experiencing something like this.

9. Encountering unworldly ("heavenly") realms. 52.2 percent of respondents had such an experience.

10. Encountering or learning special knowledge. When asked, "Did you have a sense of knowing special knowledge, universal order, and/or purpose?" 56 percent answered "Yes." 31.5 percent said that they seemed to understand everything "about the universe." 31.3 percent said that they seemed to understand everything "about myself or others."

11. Encountering a boundary or border. 31 percent of respondents claim to have encountered some kind of boundary or limiting physical structure.

12. A return to the body, either voluntary or involuntary. The online form asked, "Were you involved in or aware of a decision regarding your return to the body?" 58.5 percent answered, "Yes."

The main point I want to make about these is that a huge part of his argument is that NDEs are very, very consistent. As we look at his argument in-depth in later chapters, keep these bits in mind . . . the most common elements of NDEs still only show up as inconsistently as above. Many of them, like the out-of-body experience, are well-explained by modern neuroscience. Keep in mind how inconsistent these elements are observed as we look at his arguments about how "consistent" NDEs are.

Evidence of the Afterlife; I'm Skeptical - Introduction

noreply@blogger.com (Flimsyman) — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:50:00 +0000

The first part in our new in-depth book review of Evidence of the Afterlife, The Science of Near-Death Experiences by Jeffrey Long and Paul Perry.

The Introduction is, ironically, one of the longest chapters of the book (which isn't saying much; the book is only about 200 pages long and no more than 300 words per page). It gives a very summarized overview of what Long considers to be his very strong evidence for the afterlife. Since he goes over these arguments and evidence in much greater detail in the rest of the book, I'll just comment, briefly, on some of the most note-worthy here.

He mentions that at the time the book was published, the data was from "more than 1300 people who had a near-death experience." Long's website now claims it has received over 2000 such testimonials. Yes, ALL of the data used in this "research" was submitted via an electronic form and testimonials from people who simply visited his website and claim to have had a near-death experience. Readers, expect periodic lessons on the scientific method throughout these review posts.

We can comfortably dismiss the entire book on this basis alone. How can Long not see what a spectacular sampling bias this would create? I'll get into this in greater detail later, as he addresses this criticism directly at one point.

Entertainingly, he moves straight from the mention of the volume of testimonials and the method by which he collected them into this interesting claim:

More than 95 percent of respondents feel their NDE was "definitely real," while virtually all of the remaining respondents feel it was "probably real." Not one respondent has said it was "definitely not real."

Isn't it obvious why this isn't saying anything? Sampling bias. Everything about the website screams in very emotional language that NDEs are evidence of the afterlife. We would absolutely expect it to attract people who have little doubt that their NDEs has showed them a glimpse of the afterlife. If a faith-healer had a website that stated everywhere that testimonials prove his healing power, and invited people who have been healed by him to submit their testimony via the website (and the website screens out anyone who they believe to be "fake"), we would absolutely expect the vast majority of the testimony to claim that the healing was "real." This wouldn't be evidence for the "healings" at all. It is also deceptively worded. Nobody is debating that there were no NDEs. Of course there were "real" NDEs. What we are skeptical of is the claim that this constitutes any decent evidence of an afterlife.

A considerable portion of his writing is not evidence or argument, it's Long talking about how wonderful NDEs are, how much they change people's lives, what good news the existence of an afterlife is, etc.

The "scientific" principle that Long has used to "prove" the existence of the afterlife through NDEs is: "What is real is consistently seen among many different observations." He frequently states outright that NDEs are incredibly consistent. Again, I'll address this in more detail later, when he makes his full argument that consistent details prove that NDEs show us the afterlife. For now, I'll just say that he's quite wrong about NDEs being very consistent in their detail, even using his own data, gross sampling bias and all.

He specifies that he uses a definition of "near-death" to be "so physically compromised that they would die if their condition did not improve." That language is kind of vague, isn't it? Next, he says that "The NDErs studied were generally unconscious and often apparently clinically dead . . ." Sigh. "Generally" unconscious? "Often apparently" clinically dead? One of his first major arguments is that people experience things during a NDE, even though they shouldn't be able to, medically speaking. Yet he can only say that they're "generally" unconscious?

Here's a hilarious bit; he claims in the book to have nine distinct lines of evidence proving the existence of an afterlife. He says that the convergence of nine lines of evidence builds a much stronger case than only one. Well, yes, Dr. Long, but you haven't shown any of your evidences yet. He even does the math for us:

For example, suppose we had only two lines of NDE evidence. We may not be 100 percent convinced that these two lines of evidence prove an afterlife, but perhaps each line of evidence by itself is 90 percent convincing. Combined, these two lines of evidence by mathematical calculation are 99 percent convincing that the afterlife exists.

He even gives an end-note referring us to the back of the book, where he gives us an even more simplified version of the math, reaching the same result. The argument here is that if just two lines of evidence can give us 99 percent certainty of a claim, how convincing are nine lines of evidence? I find this suspicious; Dr. Long hasn't even given us his evidence yet, and he's already given us a suggested percentage rate of how convincing his arguments could be, and then tried to show how (because there's nine of them) they should rationally create virtual certainty! Let's not jump the gun here, Dr. Long. I'll take a look at your actual evidence first. You'll understand if I carefully mentally discard your self-serving 90 percent figure for now, right?

Next; Dr. Long talks about the twelve common attributes of NDEs, and what he's found out about them in his research.

Random Poetry: Night Ghost

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:00:00 +0000

The clock

flashes 12:00

and I know

it's really 3:47 am.

The night did not wake me.

A sound

I picked out from other sounds of

the walls, the wind, the cars moving by

echoes in my head as if

on repeat.

I consider fear,

but roll over

and wait for the morning.

It was only my coat

Sliding from my bed as I kicked it.

Our Newest Book Project!

noreply@blogger.com (Flimsyman) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Some of the most fun and illustrative content that Ziztur and I have dived into on this blog were our grossly in-depth book reviews; You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think, by Ray Comfort, and the classic Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. Well, we decided that it's high time we started in on a new book.

Thus, Evidence of the Afterlife, The Science of Near-Death Experiences, by Jeffrey Long and Paul Perry. This book has only been out since January 19, and became a best-seller almost immediately. An in-depth review of this book appealed to us for several reasons. For one, its cultural appeal is incredibly broad. The arguments and evidence in this book, as well as a thorough, critical examination of it, are relevant to Christians, atheist, spiritualists, and everyone in between. The arguments here are unique. Ziztur and I have beaten all the old arguments for the existence of God to death, but an argument for the afterlife, based on near-death experiences, is something we haven't carefully looked at on the blog yet.

A few interesting notes: Jeffrey Long seems to have assembled the data for this book by simply accepting people's near-death experience testimony via a form on his website (at least, that's what it says on the Near Death Experience Research Foundations's website).

Evidence of the Afterlife is by far the largest scientific study of NDE ever presented, and is based on researching over 1300 NDEs shared with NDERF.

Of course, Ziztur and I, being curmudgeonly skeptics who care about science, would point out that claiming a "scientific"conclusion based on anecdotes submitted to a website is as unscientific as it gets. It would be very difficult for the authors to screw up the scientific method any worse if they actually tried. We could reasonably dismiss the entire book's conclusions based on a sampling method as grossly biased as this, but of course we're going to take a closer look.

Look for us to dive into Jeffrey Long's specific claims and arguments soon. If reading this kind of "evidence" and "science" makes you a feel slightly ill, laughter is the best medicine. Thus, I leave you with the words of Tim Challies, a Christian reviewer of best-selling books, and his thoughts on this evidence of the afterlife.

The accounts are too common and too consistent to ignore entirely. So we see that such experiences do appear to exist and that they seem to lead directly away from what the Bible teaches us. What recourse do we have, then, but to state with some confidence that these experiences are somehow a trick of Satan?

I get email: Brad Harrub’s Student

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:00:00 +0000

I got this email a few weeks ago!

Ziztur,

Well, I just finished my 4th seminar with Dr. Harrub, and I think we agree on one thing... He can pack in the information. You may or may not agree with any or all, but your name popped up in a google search and I wanted to find out what were you top 5 issues with Dr. Harrub. I was looking for some of your blogs on his subjects.

I do have some questions, and I know you don't have to reply, but would you help me out with this question?

Are there only three possibilities for the universe beginning?

1. It didn't begin but always was..

2. It came into existence from nothing...

3. God created it..

You know I picked number 3, what do you think?

Will you carry on a conversation with me?

I didn't really want to be so formal. So here are some things about me. Last year I spent some time in St. Louis installing Glow Golfs in several malls around St. Louis. (I don't think they made it, putt putt that glows in the dark.) I did enjoy my time there. I am married and have two children. I probably would agree that environment growing up had a big influence on my life. You grew up as you wrote in a secular home and I grew up in a Christian home. I would imagine both of us grew up in loving families. I totally think ziztur is cool and shows a positive relationship in your family. You're probably tired of me by now... So, if you don't mind when you have time drop me an email. I would look forward to your thoughts.

Humbly seeking the truth.

P.S. I would definitely check out my posts on Brad Harrub's seminars - they are some of my best stuff!

I get email: homeopath

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:36:00 +0000

Today this email appeared in my inbox:

Respected Madam,

(I hope that you are the same person who did sleeping pill experiment)

The otherday, I watched the video of your experiment on homeopathic sleeping pills.

First of all, let me appreciate you for your interest in the evidence based medicine. As per the experiment done by you, the homeopathic sleeping pills can't induce sleep in a humanbeing. I fully agree with you. But, let me tell you the truth that, there are several patent preparations (combinations) marketed as homeopathic medicines. These are actually not homeopathic as per the principles of homoeopathy. The genuine homoeopathic medicines are totally different from these combinations and mixtures. Let me tell you the truth that, homoeopathy has suffered a lot from these non homoeopathic medicines.

A medicine becomes homoeopathic when it is selected on the basis of homoeopathic principles. Recently one scientist in India took a homoeopathic medicine and reported that the medicines could not produce any symptoms on him. This clearly proves that he was not susceptible to the medicine he had taken. If a group of people take the same homoeopathic medicine, only a small percentage of them will have the symptoms and others will not respond immediately. On the other hand, taking the same medicine repeatedly on regular interval can produce the symptoms in many, but here also a few will not be affected.

we can classify homoeopathy in to classical and modern homoeopathy. The classical homeopathy is the genuine one and the other is just an imitation of modern medicine, ie, suppresing the presenting complaints of the patient.

I am practicing homoeopathy since 8 years. Initially, my results were not satisfactory. But, after learning the real homoeopathy by joining BHMS (Bachelor of homoeopathic medicine and surgery), my results are excellent. Now I get different varieties of cases including the failed cases coming from the hands of modern medicine.

While going through your experiment, I feel that, instead of taking a "homoeopathic" patent preparation, you could have taken a genuine homoeopathic medicine for the experiment. The other option is (which will be the best and easy method for you), you notedown your own symptoms in detail and take a suitable homoeopathic medicine from a trained homoeopath or a group of homoeopaths. I am sure that this will prove the efficacy of homoeopathy.

After watching your video, many homoeopaths might have called you as skeptic or a critic funded by some allopathic drug manufacturing company. But, I am not in that category. I feel, if you experiment homoeopathy in a proper way, you will become the ambassador of this system; because most of the famous homoeopaths were once had critical attitude towards the same.

Eagerly waiting to get feedback from you.

Kind Regards.

Dr Muhammed Rafeeque, BHMS, PGNAHI.

Family Homoeopathic clinic

Kerala

India.

www.familyhomoeopathy.com

For Good Reason

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:42:00 +0000

Hey! Did you guys know that D.J. Grothe and the JREF have started a new podcast called For Good Reason?

They have already released their first episode, and I dare you to listen to it. It's awesome! The first podcast features Jamy Ian Swiss and James Randi.

Also, you'll hear me on there for a few seconds every week.

Cooking With The Host: Christ Crispies

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:17:00 +0000

Ingredients:
3 sleeves communion wafers
½ bag marshmallows (5 oz)
1 ½ tbsp margarine or butter

Supplies needed:
1 medium saucepan
Wax paper or greased pan
Long-handled spoon

Directions:

Melt butter and marshmallows in saucepan over medium heat, being careful not to burn. Once marshmallows are melted, remove from heat and fold communion wafers in. Stir to coat. Allow Christ Crispies to cool for a few minutes. Using greased spatula or fingers, shape bundles of wafers into attractive mounds. Cool. Makes 15-20 treats. Enjoy with wine.

Nutritional information: Provides 50 calories, 10mg sodium, 345g blasphemy*, 10 g carbohydrates, 7g sugars. Not a significant source of piousness.

*Not recognized by the FDA as a nutritional supplement.

Debate night!

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:00:00 +0000

Last night, my friends and I (which consisted of nearly the entire St. Louis ring of skeptical bloggers!) had a small debate night at my apartment in St. Louis. 9 People attended, and 2 groups of people debated 2 topics.

The first was a debate between Pastor Keith and War_On_Error. Their topic was "Does God Lie?" The debate dissolved into a group discussion before it finished, mostly because P. Keith and War more or less agreed! That's okay though, because instead of talking about whether or not god lies, we talked about the real point of the debate. The real point of showing that god lies (or deceives, if you are bothered by the word lie) is that people can be mistaken about what god wants. Out discussion was on whether or not it might be better (from a standpoint of convincing some people that they don't have a "special knowledge" trump card) to have a conversation about how hard Biblical interpretation is. If we can convince people that Biblical interpretation is hard, then maybe we can convince them – for example – that someone doesn't have absolute proof by mandate from their god that they should vote down civil rights for homosexuals.

Next, Saint_Gasoline and Inquiring Infidel debated the Kalam Cosmological argument, with Inquiring Infidel pretending to be William Lane Craig. While they were debating, I kept thinking that since lots of people don't know what "M-theory" and "string theory" mean in any detail, that Saint Gasoline, with all of his appeals to physics, would sound like, "blah blah blah blah" to Inquiring Infidel-Craig's more macro approach. I did think it was kind of amusing that Infidel-Craig brought up Hilbert's Hotel, calling such a notion absurd, when god is basically equally absurd, at least in the, "god is timeless, eternal, and ultra-powerful" sense. We speculated that a timeless being could not have thoughts, because thoughts entailed a time structure. Alas.

For the March debate night, Andrea_The_Nerd and I are debating gay marriage. The second debate is still up for grabs.

The debate night for April will be couples debate! Andrea and War will debate debating ("debaters are great!" vs. "debaters are wankers!") while Flimsy and I will be debating marriage ("Marriage is awesome!" vs "Marriage is for suckers!")

Also, the best part of debate night is Debate Kitteh! She decided to hang out on the lectern for the entire first debate, playfully batting at people's notes.

Once of these days, I swear, we'll move to more public debates.

What if atheists left America?

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:00:00 +0000

This video is an interesting premise - what if all atheists left America, like some Christians want?

Dragon's Den ownage.

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Here is an entertaining video in which the guys of Dragon's Den completely smash to smithereens all hope that this snake-oil salesman had of hawking his bullshit. Way to go!

A nail in the anti-vax coffin? Maybe...

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:25:00 +0000

I have two links of importance today regarding the anti-vaccination hubbub.

The first is a Discover Magazine blog entry on the full retraction of the Lancet Vaccine research article - the article that got the anti-vax movement really started.

The second is news that Andrew Wakefield, the primary author of the study, has been found guilty of medical misconduct and will likely lose his license. There is a long list of evil this man has done in the name of his own agenda, and it is good to see justice served.

This is probably not the final nail in the coffin of the anti-vax debate. I wish it were, for the world would be much safer if everybody got their vaccines.

Borba Skin Skeptic

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:47:00 +0000

The other day I was at Walgreens with Flimsy when I passed the section of open-air refrigerated drinks and became puzzled as to why an employee would accidentally shelve shampoo or body wash alongside Mountain Dew and Arizona Tea.

Upon closer examination, I realized that the shampoo-like bottle that had caught my eye was not in fact shampoo, but some kind of drink. Obviously, this is exactly the kind of thing that the makers of Borba Skin Balance Water want to happen, and I will shamefully admit that I totally fell for their unusual packaging – square with a square cup on top, clean simplistic labeling, and a certain opaqueness to the plastic bottle as to almost make the inner contents glow. Whoever designed this packaging is clearly brilliant.

Borba Skin Balance Water, at $2.99 a bottle, hurts your wallet like many other bottled drinks. I grabbed the Guanabana Fruit – Firming bottle, which reads on the front "Designed to promote skin's natural Smoothness * Elasticity * Nourishment"

The side reads, "HEALTHY SKIN FROM WITHIN BORBA SKIN BALANCE WATER FIRMING contains a revolutionary cultivated bio-vitamin complex along with a scientifically designed blend of nutrients intended to promote the skin's natural support system, helping to nourish and tone the skin. BORBA SKIN BALANCE WATER is formulated to work with your body's chemistry to promote healthy skin. This on-the-go, skin-care infused beverage combines simplicity and nutrition with the goodness of water. It's water with benefits."

"FIRMING – GUANABANA: the guanabana fruit, native to the Caribbean and South America, is known for its rich, aromatic flavor and nourishing benefits. Guanabana contains a healthful blend of nutrients, intended to promote more beautiful skin."

More text explains that it has "4 essential b-vitamins" that it is "infused with green tea and grape seed extract", that you can drink it daily to "enhance skin care from within", and that you can alternate it with the other flavors for "multiple skin care benefits".

On the other side, it says that it is calorie free, aspartame free, has no preservatives, 0 grams of carbs, is free of sodium, and has natural flavorings. A message from Scott-Vincent Borba reads, "There's more beauty within you. It lies in wait, on the other side of your skin. Borba Skin Balance Water activates your beauty while hydrating your body, bringing the natural attraction of your skin to the attention of the world. You're just a sip away from a more gorgeous you.

So, I'm skeptical that this drink could improve my skin and dude, what do you mean, "It's water with benefits?" It's as if the writer of this label were claiming water had no benefits unless it has vitamins in it. Unfortunately, the bottle only makes rather vague claims about what the contents are capable of doing. They don't mention any clinical proof, so I can't email them and ask for said proof. Darn! There is a great article in the NY Times about Borba – published back when Borba made specific claims about their elixirs. At one time, bottles of FIRMING claimed it was "scientifically proven to improve elasticity by an average of 24 percent." The NY Times article also cites some specific information on the independent studies, stating that they are available on the Borba website. I can't find them, though. If there were good research proving that this product made your skin prettier, it would be wise to promote it.

My opinion with skin supplements is the same as with any other supplement - as far as I am aware, your body likes to maintain homeostasis and so if you have an excess of a particular vitamin, you simply pee it out, just like if you have an excess of water. If you have too little of a vitamin, then you have a clinical deficiency. Most people don't have vitamin deficiencies, so most people won't really benefit from 500% of your daily value of Vitamin B-12.

At least it tastes okay and comes in an amusing package, I guess.

Meeting my peeps!

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:21:00 +0000

One of the things I did in Buffalo, NY was meet Malimar, one of my very regular commenters!

See? Here's the proof.

It's so much fun to put faces to the people I communicate with. Plus, Malimar has the most entertaining combination babyface-insanity-mutton-chops-luxuriant-flowing-hair ever. He's nice! He even smells nice, ha.

My apologies for the Worst Picture Ever in the history of my blog – I didn't take my camera with me, so this picture is from my Blackberry.

Pants on Fire

noreply@blogger.com (Flimsyman) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:00:00 +0000

I stumbled upon this article from Bodie Hodge of Answers in Genesis from a couple months back. It asks the classic yet seemingly simple question of whether it's ethical to lie to Nazi soldiers in order to save a hiding Jewish family.

For most of us, including the vast majority of Christians (which I'll get to in a moment), I think that this is a pretty easy answer - the simple act of lying is nowhere near as unethical as directly endangering the lives of innocent people. Amazingly, AIG disagrees:

The most common example sent to me was envisioning the Holocaust and being placed in the position of lying to potentially protect someone’s life. Like most, if placed in such a difficult situation, it would be very difficult. In fact, I could never be sure what I would do, especially if it were a loved one.

Ah, it would be much easier to endanger the life of someone that you didn't know very well. Good to know.

But consider for a moment that we are all already sentenced to die because we are sinners (Romans 5:12). It is going to happen regardless. If a lie helps keep someone alive for a matter of moments compared to eternity, was the lie, which is high treason against the Creator, worth it?

It would be like sitting in a cell on death row and when the guards come to take your roommate to the electric chair, you lie to the guards and say you don’t know where the person went—while your roommate is hiding under their covers on the bed. Does it really help?

So there we have it. Knowingly causing the death of one or more innocent people is insignificant to offending God. As he points out, scripture is pretty clear on these priorities, after all.

I don't think I need to explain in much detail what's so wrong with this worldview. Thankfully, Hodge himself admits that such an action seems wrong to him, and that he's not at all certain what he would do if he found himself with such a choice. I sincerely hope that he never finds himself in such a position, and that if he does, he chooses the ethical course, and discards his God's wishes entirely.

He offers some other examples:

Stephen in Acts 6–7 preached Christ, and men came against him. This culminated with a question by the high priest in Acts 7:1 who said: “Are these things so?”

At this point, Stephen could have done a “righteous lie” to save his life so that he could have many more years to preach the gospel. However, Stephen laid a long and appropriate foundation for Christ—then preached Christ. And they killed him.

Obviously, I strongly doubt that this story took place exactly as it is portrayed. If we give it the benefit of the doubt, however, I still think that it's a pretty easy answer, especially considering that Hodge concludes that good came from Stephen's death - his martyrdom to the Christian cause.

Martyrs can be a source of great good, if a person's life is given in service to a worthy cause. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War and abolition of slavery, various civil rights movement, etc. are all good nominees for such causes.

I don't think that making people Christian is such a cause.

To put it bluntly, Stephen lost his life for almost nothing. Whatever positive effect could have occurred as a result of his death, I conclude that such hypothetical benefits are not greater than his worth as a person, and the lives of his family and friends.

I find it telling that Hodge specifically states that the good that would have come from Stephen lying to save his own life would come from his continued preaching and proselytizing. There's no mention of Stephen's own worth, or the effect on his loved ones.

Also, do I even need to say it? While we (arguably, potentially) have a right to choose to be a martyr, even in a cause of questionable worth, we clearly have no right to martyr other people to our cause. He could have even responded to the Nazis-hunting-for-hiding-Jews example with something about the value of those lives as martyrs to the cause of rallying support for the Nazi's defeat. He doesn't, though, he only considers the value of their lives vs. his religious doctrine.

Later in the article, even more disturbingly, he himself has to resort to lying outright about a passage in Exodus, to desperately try and prove his point that God always condemns lying, even to save innocent life (!).

In summary, Pharaoh has decreed to the Hebrew midwives that they put to death all male children that they deliver. They disobey, and when Pharaoh asks them why the cock they've got all these newborn Hebrew cocks running around, the midwives tell him that the Hebrew women are just giving birth really, really fast, too quickly for the midwives to show up. God wholeheartedly approves of this falsehood, and blesses the midwives for it by multiplying the Hebrew people.

Hodge claims that the midwives did not lie. His alternate explanation of the passage is that the midwives simply told Hebrew women that their sons would be in danger unless they managed to give birth very quickly, on their own, without a midwife, and they somehow managed to do so. Okay, okay, stop laughing. He also suggests that the midwives just took a really long time to get to a woman in labor. Of course, this would also mean that the midwives basically lied to Pharaoh (can anyone really claim with a straight face that deliberately dragging their feet and then claiming that Hebrew babies are like greased lightning would not be completely deceptive?).

Both possible explanations suffer from one glaring drawback, hence the clear fact that Hodge has lied about what the Bible says; the Bible passage clearly states that the midwives didn't simply show up late: "But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive."

This leads me directly to my main point - the Bible contradicts itself on this matter (no surprise there, I suppose . . .), but we have a Christian who, I think, knows what's right, as shown by his hesitation to hand over an innocent family to be murdered. However, he has concluded with all his rational faculties that the opposite is true - that lying to Nazis is a greater evil than letting an innocent family die. People, both religious and nonreligious alike, are quick to point out that many people would oppose gay rights based on their own bigotry regardless of whether they had religious doctrine to fuel it. That is absolutely not what we have in this case - Hodge has reached this grossly immoral conclusion exactly as a result of his religious doctrine.*

*Note that this last paragraph is completely philosophical in nature, and actually only represents what I sincerely hope to be the case. It is entirely possible that Hodge is, in fact, a violently bigoted closet-Nazi anti-Semite. I suppose we'll never know . . .

CFI report

noreply@blogger.com (Ziztur) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:00:00 +0000

So today is the end of my second day at CFI. My brian is a little burned out at the moment, primarily due to lack of sleep (it's odd sleeping in a house by yourself when you're accustomed to sleeping in a shotgun apartment with 2 cats, 1 dog, and – most importantly – 1 Flimsyman.

My first day at CFI, I literally spent 8 hours talking with Joe Nickell on topics ranging from how unskeptical some atheists can be to how awesome it is when one comes across a rare bottle of "clairvoyant medicine" at an antique shop. We yammered at length about the ethics of investigation, and why skeptics need to avoid being armchair-ivory-towerists and actually get out into the world and participate actively in skepticism. Joe further convinced me that investigation should occur in the real world as much as possible.

Another thing we talked about at length is his Skeptiseum, and awesome, yet somehow sort of unknown – skeptical museum of the paranormal. The Skeptiseum features exhibits on alternative medicine, cryptozoology/mythical creatures, ghosts and spirits, miracles, pseudoscience, psychic phenomena, superstition, UFO's and aliens. In person, the Skeptiseum is a quirky collection of strange and mysterious items mixed in with a sizable collection of books in Joe's personal library. It's one of those things tucked away that I think needs more exposure.

My second day at CFI (today) was spent researching the holy grail relic the Sacro Catino. The Sacro Catino is a famous object preserved in Genoa, Italy, that has a spurious history. People at one time apparently believed it was carved of a large emerald, though most modern scholars believe it is merely glass. I'll assuredly write more about it later, but at the moment we're still trying to piece together a decent historical account of the thing.