• Home
• About
• Articles
• Evolution

Vampire Forensics presents the lore and myth of vampires with an eye for science, particularly anthropology, psychology, physiology and, more to my liking, archaeology.

I have always enjoyed stories and movies about vampires. At age four, I was hooked on Dark Shadows, a bad soap opera that featured gothic ghouls like vampires, werewolves, and ghosts. But it was Barnabas Collins who made blood sucking cool. I think I was a vampire for Halloween more than once and always considered the vampire to be the king of Hollywood monsters. The Mummy, the Wolfman, all the ghosts, witches, and zombies -they all bowed to the vampire. Even the word itself looks sinister: vampire.

Now, in my studies of anthropology and archaeology, I was simply beside myself to discover Vampire Forensics. Mark Collins Jenkins presents a side of vampirism that I hadn’t previously considered and I suspect I’m not alone. Mixing pop culture, ancient mythology, and the evidence of physical remains and modern forensics, the author paints a picture that is both engaging and interesting; both entertaining and informing. Jenkins begins by highlighting vampires in pop culture, such as the novels of Anne Rice and Whitley Streiber as well as Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend. He then moves quickly into pathological explanations for vampirism that might explain the origins of superstitions and myths that erupted as “vampire epidemics” that coincided with 18th century outbreaks of disease or petulance, such as rabies and the plague.

What follows is a style of writing that compels the reader to turn page after page as he moves fluidly from historical records of sociopathic criminals and their gruesome behaviors, forensic and physiological evidence, and and the myth and lore associated with vampires in early historical accounts.

Consider this paragraph (pp. 32-33):

This litany of latter-day vampirism seems inexhaustible indeed. But it may have reached its grisly apogee in 1980, when 23-year-old James Riva, using gold-plated bullets, shot and killed his 74-year-old disabled grandmother. Riva then drank her blood as it spurted from the wounds. He had attacked her, Riva later claimed, because the voice of a vampire had instructed him to do so. Riva further declared that he himself was a 700-year-old vampire who required his grandmother’s blood to survive, only to discover that she was too old and dried up to serve that purpose. In 2009, he came up for parole. It was denied.

Compare with this one (pp. 127-128):

The tuberculosis bacillum, with justifiable exaggeration, might be said to consume the life force of its victim, overwhelming the victim’s will to live. Yet the pathogen has also evolved to spread via contagion, feeding off a new host before its old one dies, and so on down the line. Take away the understanding of microscopic pathogens, however, and what is left? A mysterious life force consuming one person after another, and believed powerful enough to act from afar — even from the grave.

And contrast with this one (p. 124):

Back on the knoll near Griswold, when the archaeologists had opened the coffin labeled “JB-55,” Bellantoni was momentarily taken aback. The skeleton looked like no other he had seen: These bones had been rearranged in a classic skull-and-crossbones pattern. This grave had been desecrated, apparently many decades earlier.

And you get an inkling of what you might expect from Vampire Forensics. One of the central stories in the book is that of ID6, a skeleton excavated from a from a 16th century mass grave that resulted from the plague outbreak in Venice, Italy that began in 1510. Half the population of the city was infected with the plague by 1576, most of them dying from it. Graves were opened and reopened in order to dispose of the bodies. 400 years after the fact, archaeologist Matteo Borrini excavated the remains, and happened upon the partial skeleton of an elderly woman who had a brick shoved, post-mortem, in her mouth. The mystery led Dr. Borrini to the legend of the “chewing dead,” which was held by superstition to mean that a corpse would exhibit vamipire-like behavior of eating neighboring corpses.

That ID6 was thought to be a “chewing corpse” or Nachzehrer (“after-devourer”), was likely fueled by the superstitions held by people of the day, understandably frightened by the horror of the plague. Perhaps the blood on a death shroud near the mouth, flowing during the decay process and the bloating from gases, giving the appearance of having just gorged on a meal of fellow corpses was enough to cause some poor grave digger to take no chances and, thus, ram a brick in its mouth before reburying in hopes that the vampire might starve to death.

As an archaeologist and anthropologist who’s primary interest is in the ancient beliefs and superstitions of people in prehistory and early history, I found Vampire Forensics to be informative and inspiring. For me, the approach was fresh and I learned a few things. As a fan of vampire lore in both mythology and pop culture, I found the author’s work to be as entertaining as any modern thriller and it was difficult to put the book down and do other things… like sleep or work.

If your interested in Vampire Forensics, follow this link to the book at Amazon or check the link in my sidebar, just click on the book cover.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (readersread.com)
• New Vampire Books for Teens (connectwithyourteens.blogspot.com)
• Why vampire movies always break all the vampire rules. (slate.com)

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-03-05

• Cleaned out my blog roll and updated some links at Hot Cup of Joe; I really do need to figure out my "Articles" page #
• Evolution vs Intelligent Design: I couldn't resist responding to a comment on an old post http://goo.gl/mVZ2 #

Powered by Twitter Tools

The Dating of Iron Nails

Image via Wikipedia

A recent story making it’s rounds among those who fancy an interest in archaeology, history and “biblical” versions of both carries the headline “Archaeologists find crucifixion-style nail from the time of Jesus.”

My first thought was this would be cool. There are so few nails found that can be attributed to actual crucifixions, so this could provide some additional insight into the manufacture, style, etc. I was eager to read of a context that places the nail in the ground, perhaps with a talus or piece of wood still attached like that of the poor fellow’s heal found back in the 1970s^[1]. His nail was bent, making it difficult to remove from the wood and foot. Its thought that the economic demands on Romans resulted in the removal of nails after the death of crucifixion victims for re-use.

But, as it happens, this nail wasn’t found in an original context. It was “discovered in an ornate box at a fort,” possibly from the period of the Crusades. The first crusades didn’t begin until almost 1200 years after the alleged time of Jesus. Still, the nail could be from his time. But there’s no mention of how the nail was dated. Only that it dated from the time of Jesus.

One way, might be to test the patina on the surface of the nail. If the nail still retained original organic material or blood residue, this could possibly be dated. Similar dating has been done to rock art, but I’m not sure how the oxidation involved with iron might affect such an effort.

The Mirror says the nail is smooth, indicating that it had been handled by many people over a long period of time.

Darn. The patina idea wouldn’t work anyway. It was worn smooth.

The newspaper quotes Christopher Macklin of the Knights Templar of Britannia as calling last summer’s find “momentous.”

But there’s no mention of why it might be “momentous.” I’m still scratching my head and wondering why something “momentous” wouldn’t be mentioned by the “archaeologists” involved or why The Mirror wouldn’t be specific on this. It might be from the alleged time of Jesus. It might not.

He said evidence the nail had been handled a lot “indicates it was of great interest to many people” and that he believes the original Knights Templar thought it was a genuine artifact from Jesus’ crucifixion.

Rational clarification: evidence that the nail had been handled a lot indicates it was perceived to be of great interest.

We know that the Crusades were an attempt to “retake” Jerusalem and the “Holy Land.” We know that thousands upon thousands were killed in the name of superstition in an attempt to do so. We also have evidence that humans are willing to propagandize their political and religious positions, and what better way to do it than with a “holy relic” that rallies and inspires people? Why shouldn’t we believe that it is at least just as likely that the nail is every bit as fake as the shroud of Turin?

Moreover, of what significance is a single nail with no provenance or context outside of a fort that belonged to a 13th century military arm of a religion bent on controlling the minds of humanity?

I’d be more interested in the box it came in.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Shroud Of Turin Reproduced; Italian Group Says Relic Is Man-Made, Fake (huffingtonpost.com)
• Jesus Christ’s ‘death certificate’ found on Turin Shroud (telegraph.co.uk)
• What More Proof Do You Need? (lukeford.net)
• Some things just don’t make sense (new.exchristian.net)

1. Haas N. (1970) Anthropological observations on the skeletal remains from Giv’at ha-Mivtar. Israel Exploration Journal, 20:38-59 [↩]

Robert J. Braidwood: More Than Just One Man

Robert and Linda Braidwood

One cannot study prehistoric archaeology without encountering the name Robert J. Braidwood. An innovator of archaeological method and inquiry, Braidwood pioneered new ways of investigating the prehistoric past. He found an interest in that unique period of human history that marks a transition from hunting and gathering into food production through agriculture (Redman 1978; Harms 2003; Zeder, et al 2006).

Braidwood began his career in archaeology in the 1930s when he signed on for field work near Baghdad and soon began working with James Henry Breasted, founder of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago where Braidwood would finally become Professor Emeritus (Harms 2003). Soon after World War II, Braidwood began to set new standards in archaeological methods for discovering the past in and around the “hilly flanks of the fertile crescent,” region of Mesopotamia and the Levant east of the Zagros mountains where there are slopping hills and fertile plains (Braidwood and Howe 1960; Braidwood et al 1983). It was here that Braidwood and his colleagues established a multidisciplinary approach to investigating the past, employing the use of scientists and researchers from cross-disciplines to examine floral and faunal remains as well as geology and culture history (Braidwood and Howe 1960; Braidwood et al 1983; Watson 2003).

One of the best known sites associated with Braidwood is Jarmo, a neolithic village in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains in Norther Iraq. Braidwood’s research questions centered around food production and, through his multidisciplinary approach, he was able to reveal a culture that domesticated sheep, goats, and dogs, grew both emmer and einkorn wheat as well as barley and lentils, and innovated the use of microliths to create sickle blades for harvesting wheat (Braidwood and Howe 1960; Braidwood et al 1983). Patty Jo Watson, friend and colleague of Braidwood, remarked of his approach to archaeology, “Braidwood’s interdisciplinary archaeological research at and about Jarmo became a double-barreled theoretical-methodological paradigm that still underlies the practice of prehistoric archaeology in and well beyond the Hilly Flanks (Watson 2003: 238).”

Theories of agriculture have found various favor since V. Gordon Childe first introduced, in 1928, his Oasis Theory of the rise of agriculture. Childe suggested that the dessication as a result of retreating glaciers forced people who were previously residing in rich and fertile regions into oases or refugia of habitation where people, plants and animals were forced to become familiar with each other, naturally giving rise to domestication of plants and animals by people. Braidwood appears to have drawn much of his inspiration from Childe’s work and very nearly enrolled in the University of Edinburgh’s doctoral program “under Childe’s supervision” (Watson 2003: 236). Even though he didn’t study directly under Childe, Braidwood assigned Childe’s books and articles for his students, regarded him highly, and acknowledged Childe’s work through his own. Braidwood referred to Childe as “one of archaeology’s few very great synthesizers” (Braidwood 1958: 733) and noted that he had a “natural gift for seeing the woods as well as the trees” and as having an “incredible grasp of detail” (734).

But Braidwood wasn’t beyond critiquing Childe’s theory, noting that a not so insignificant problem is that humans had experienced previous interglacial periods that created refugia and oases of habitation during dry spells and yet these did not result in the advent or discovery of agriculture as a means of food production. Braidwood’s interdisciplinary team found that paleoclimate conditions among the Hilly Flanks was not dry at all but conducive to agriculture with annual rainfall in the late Pleistocene that produced an “open deciduous forest, with oaks predominating but with occasional evergreens” (Braidwood and Howe 1960: 169). While Childe focused primarily on climate and environment as factors in sparking the agricultural revolution, Braidwood included human cultural elements, suggesting that the “presence of innovative cultural mechanisms for the introduction of agriculture” (Redman 1978: 96) was vital for an agricultural revolution. This meant for Braidwood that the invention of tools like grinding stones, better stone tools like microliths, and living structures that are all “related [to] developments of a fixed sedentary life and its permanents architectural forms for both living and storage space” (Braidwood et al 1983: 129).

But Braidwood wasn’t immune from critique, even though he clearly built upon Childe’s work in a positive and progressive manner. Lewis Binford took an alternative view to the advent of agriculture as a part of human culture (Binford 1968) and, while he congratulated Braidwood for recognizing the weaknesses in Childe’s theory, he went on to point out that Braidwood’s “nuclear zone,” while more likely and acceptable since it considers human culture and technology as part of the equation, doesn’t go far enough as an explanation. Binford accuses Braidwood of resorting to a vitalist approach and, thus, “unacceptable as an explanation. Trends which are observed in cultural evolution require explanation; they are certainly not explained by postulating emergent human traits which are said to account for the trends” (322).

Binford goes on to posit his own theory, which is one that incorporates demography as a likely factor in why humans moved from hunting-gathering to food production strategies for subsistence. Binford argues that populations have equilibrium states in which the size of the population is optimal to sustain the culture and will rely on donor and recipient systems to maintain equilibrium. As populations grow and more groups occupy a region, groups begin to impinge on each other, upsetting equilibrium states, invoking selective pressures that, in the case of prehistoric populations, led to developing food production strategies to cope with forced sedentary lifeways.

That Binford was able to critique Braidwood’s work at all is still a testament to the extensive investigation and research that Braidwood and his colleagues applied to the question of food production and prehistoric life just prior to and during the emergence of agriculture. The methods and achievements of Robert J. Braidwood still remain noteworthy and their legacy is one that is worth sharing with each new generation of archaeologists.

But Robert J. Braidwood was hardly a single person. Married in 1937, his wife Linda was a “constant companion” (Harms 2003) and perhaps his closest colleague. Their 66 year partnership and collaboration produced many “important firsts” in the field of archaeology, such as “the oldest sample of human blood, the earliest example of hand-worked natural copper and the oldest known piece of cloth” (Harms 2003) and Gil Stein, director of the Oriental Institute, remarked that “[t]hrough the years, it is impossible to disentangle Bob Braidwood’s contributions from those of his wife, Linda. The two of them were true intellectual partners in addition to their deep personal commitment to each other” (Harms 2003).

Robert J. Braidwood and his wife Linda both passed away on the same day, just hours apart, on January 15, 2003.

Notable Publications

Braidwood, Robert J.

1958 Vere Gordon Childe, 1892-1957. American Anthropologist, New Series 60(4):733-736.

Braidwood, Robert J., and Bruce Howe

1960 Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, no. 31. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Braidwood, Linda, Robert J. Braidwood, Bruce Howe, Charles A. Reed, and Patty Jo Watson, Eds.

1983 Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 105. Chicago, Illinois: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Braidwood, Robert J.

1957 Prehistoric Men, 3rd Edition. Fieldiana, Popular Series, Anthropology, 37. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Natural History Museum.

Braidwood, Robert J.

1960 The Agricultural Revolution. Scientific American 203:130-148.

References Cited

Binford, Lewis

1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archeology. L. Binford and S. Binford, eds. Pp. 312-341. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.

Braidwood, Robert J.

1958 Vere Gordon Childe, 1892-1957. American Anthropologist, New Series 60(4):733-736.

Braidwood, Robert J., and Bruce Howe

1960 Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, no. 31. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Braidwood, Linda, Robert J. Braidwood, Bruce Howe, Charles A. Reed, and Patty Jo Watson, Eds.

1983 Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 105. Chicago, Illinois: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Harms, William

2003 Robert, Linda Braidwood, Pioneers in Prehistoric Archaeology. Electronic document. The University of Chicago Chronicle 22(8). http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/030123/braidwood.shtml.

Redman, Charles

1978 “The Origins of Agriculture: A Giant Step for Humankind.” In The Rise of Civilization: from early farmers to urban society in the ancient Near East. Pps. 88-140. Redman, C. Freeman.

Watson, Patty Jo

2005 Robert John Braidwood: 29 July 1907 – 15 January 2003. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 149(2 June):233-241.

Zeder, Melinda A., Daniel G. Bradley, Eve Emshwiller, and Bruce D. Smith

2006 Documenting Domestication: Bringing Together Plants, Animals, Archaeology, and Gentics. In Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Melinda A. Zeder, Daniel G. Bradley, Eve Emshwiller and Bruce D. Smith, eds. P. 1. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Turkey: Archeological Dig Reshaping Human History (starting-points.blogspot.com)
• Turkish temple older than civilization (kottke.org)
• Europe’s First Farmers Came from Afar: New Clues Shed Light on Genetic Ancestry of Modern Europeans (spittoon.23andme.com)
• The impact of the diffusion of maize to the Southwestern United States (scienceblog.com)

If it quacks like a Quack…

Image via Wikipedia

The quack, Christopher Maloney, has left two comments on my blog. The first was a copy/paste of an open letter to PZ Myers… I’m not sure why he posted it on my blog. The second was this:

Wow, you are quick to condemn and slow to apologize. Haven’t you looked at PZ’s revisionist “oops, I burned the wrong guy. Oh well, carry on.” The only thing worse that a thoughtless minion is a slow thoughtless minion. By the way, I have ample scientific data to refute you on my website under, you guessed it, “quackery.”

A noisy duck who just can’t seem to hide like a cockroach. Perhaps you could show me how?

Apologize? Sure. I’m sorry you’re a quack. The world has enough of them. I’m sorry the State of Maine’s standards are so low as to allow the undereducated to refer to themselves as doctors. And I’m sorry for the good citizens of Maine who see that title as an indication of someone they should trust rather than an empty appeal to athority that it is.

Maloney is whining above about not being the one that actually had Hawkins’ blog censored from Wordpress. Personally, I don’t see how it matters. It was clearly because Hawkins called him a quack and not a doctor. Whether it was one of his co-quacks “in South Carolina” or himself really doesn’t matter. What matters is that quackery is seeking protection from the law from being exposed for what it truly is: pseudoscientific, quackery.

Which brings us to Maloney’s other comment above, which is that he has “ample scientific data to refute” me on his website. My core contention is that Christopher Maloney is not a doctor but a quack. So, let’s test that assertion.

What does it mean to be a doctor? “Doctor” is a short-hand way of saying you hold the highest degree of an academic university. Does Christopher Maloney? If you ask him, I’m sure he’d say so. And he’d probably believe it. He lists a “[f]our year medical degree from National College of Naturopathic Medicine” as his claim to fame for his “doctorate.” Sorry buddy, but a non-accredited (by any organization that isn’t simply being self-congratulatory) is hardly grounds for laying claim to a “doctorate” or being able to refer to yourself as “doctor.” Regardless, the appeal to the authority presumed in the title is one that is designed to deceive. He’s banking, quite literally, that when people think of “doctor” they’ll think of what they should: “physician.” He even states in his bio that “I occasionally prescribe pharmaceuticals” but this is another slight of hand. The law in Maine specifically prohibits “naturopathic doctors” from prescribing anything that you cannot already purchase over the counter. In otherwords, they cannot prescribe prescription drugs!

Also, they’re limited in scope as to what they may refer to themselves as. It would seem that, according to Main law, Maloney is in violation. The list of things he may refer to himself as includes: “naturopathic doctor,” “naturopathic doctor,” “naturopathic,” “naturopath,” “doctor of naturopathic medicine,” “doctor of naturopathy,” “naturopathic medicine,” “naturopathic health care,” “naturopathy” and the recognized abbreviation “N.D.” Use of the title “physician” by the licensee is prohibited.

No where does it say that Maloney or other quacks can use the title “doctor” by itself. Indeed, it must be followed by or preceeded by some form of the pseudo-term “naturopath.” Instead, he claims the honorific “doctor followed by his name. Only then does he include “naturopath” or “N.D.” In fact, he lists as a colleague, “Hagney Tim Naturopathic Physician,” who is even more clearly violating the law.

But this is all semantics. True doctors, the kind who actually obtain quality educations, and can call themselves “physicians” adhere to a code of ethics. One that requires that they employ evidence-based medical practices.

So what about Maloney and his “medical” claims?

On his site we can find, “Homeopathy provides a novel option for intervention with the added benefit of no drug interaction and minimal side effects.” He follows it up with an obscure Duke University study with a tiny sample size and questionable methodology. Like most quacks, he cherry-picks his data and makes no mention of the numerous studies of homeopathy that have shown it to be inefficable. Nor does he mention on that page that homeopathy amounts to just giving the patient water since the “active ingredient” is dilluted mathematically to a point at which not a single molecule of it remains in the water.

In the article he wrote that I linked to in the previous post, Maloney is making a clear effort to scare people off from using evidence-based medicine -real medicine- in favor of elderberry and garlic. In his canned responses that he’s spamming the web with, Maloney is claiming that he only meant to provide an alternative in lieu of vaccines that weren’t available while “the kids were dying” in Maine. I’m betting a search of public records records far fewer deaths of H1N1 among children than lightning strikes and bear attacks for the year he’s referring to. So this argument doesn’t hold up. Maloney was scaremongering and, to top it off, he’s now trying to appeal to the authority of medicine again.

So note the hypocrisy: he wants to be called a “doctor” because he knows physicians are important and smart people; and he now suggests that vaccines are a good idea, but his site and his writings are full of anti-vax propaganda.

Maloneymedical.com is a good exercise in observing pseudoscience. Maloney makes many anti-establishment, anti-medical claims and criticizes evidence-based medicine, but he’s quick to cherry-pick those medical results and data that might agree with his claims. In short, hypocrisy.

Sure. There’s some truth behind many of the methods “naturopaths” use. A healthy diet, for instance, is a good idea. I’m all about adding bioflavonoids to the diet. I like my resveratrol too. Preferably with a vintage of 2004 or 2005.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Christopher Maloney: still a quack (scienceblogs.com)
• Alt-Med proponent’s true colours shine through and it ain’t pretty (seantheblogonaut.com)
• Scott Gavura: Naturopathy a prescription for quackery (network.nationalpost.com)

Christopher Maloney is a Quack

In the state of Main, where “naturopaths” can call themselves “doctor,” a nut exists that makes the following pseudoscientific claims:

Parents waiting for vaccinations can provide their children with black elderberry, which blocks the H1N1 virus. A single garlic capsule daily cuts in half the incidence and the severity of a flu episode for children.

Claims that are completely unfounded and potentially dangerous in that a child who is genuinely in need of a vaccine that would thwart a virus she could come in contact with, might not get it because a parent believes erroneously that “elderberry” and “garlic capsules” will be as effective. Well-meaning parents who love their children are being duped by asshole quacks like Maloney who seem to care more for their egos and pocketbooks than the lives of children.

Maloney pretends to be a doctor. And the state of Maine pretends to “license” he and other quacks. But the story doesn’t end there. Normally you can find Quack Maloney at www.maloneymedical.com, but it doesn’t seem to be up. Perhaps because its suffering the Pharyngula effect. Perhaps there were embarrassing things mentioned that need to get cleaned off first, like wild, unsupportable claims. Maybe he’s cleaning house of some of the more nonsense claims before pressing his “actions” against bloggers like author Michael Hawkins who, in the words of PZ Myers, dared to criticize him by pointing out that “[n]aturopathic medicine is pure bull.” Which it is. Hawkins also stated, rightly, that naturopaths are underqualified and do not deserve the title of “doctor.” Which they don’t.

In fact, naturopaths who call themselves “doctor” devalue and diminish the term for those who have actually attained medical educations. To further quote Hawkins, these quacks “cherry-pick evidence, often lie and misrepresent facts.” For his efforts, Wordpress was pressured, apparently by Quack Maloney, to edit his content followed by censoring his blog.

Let’s be clear: Maloney is “naturopath.” Naturopaths are not doctors. Maloney is not a doctor. He’s quack.

I’m putting this on my own domain, but I’m also going to post it to my Wordpress blog, which I still have even though I moved to my own domain over a year ago. Nuts like Maloney cannot stand to be questioned in the public eye. They fear the light of science and reason like cockroaches fear the light of the refrigerator door but rather than scurry off to dark corners, some will try to silence reason with cowardly tactics like the one Maloney employed on Hawkins through Wordpress.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Christopher Maloney is a quack (scienceblogs.com)
• Stay vigilant on H1N1, U.S. advises (cbc.ca)
• Study Finds Children Twice as Likely to Catch Swine Flu (shoppingblog.com)
• My child is getting the H1NI Vaccine, why isn’t yours? (svmoms.com)

Shroud of Turin? Probably Not a Death Shroud of Jesus

The death shroud held by the Vatican and occasionally displayed, commonly known as “The Shroud of Turin,” has long since been demonstrated to be a fraud from antiquity. The provenience is unknown; the cloth dates to the 14th century; the pigments in the “image” are ocher and vermillian (i.e. paint); the facial image is unrealistic for a cloth draped around a skull; etc.

Another death shroud was discovered recently in the Old City of Jerusalem that dates to the alleged time of Jesus and is, apparently, the first shroud from the period found in Jerusalem. Shimon Gibson, the archaeologist involved in the discovery, will be publishing full study results later this year, and I’ll be sure to give the paper a once over, perhaps summarizing it here.

What was significant to those that research the Turin shroud is the nature of the textile itself. The new shroud is a two piece ensemble: a linen head-wrap;  and a wool body wrap. In addition the weave of the newly found shroud was a simple two-way weave, whereas the Turin shroud was a complex twill weave.

Several of the media reports I’ve seen include a headline that suggests that the Turin shroud is not of Jesus’ time, implying that this is a conclusion reached by the archaeologists studying the new find. It certainly renders more unlikely that the Turin shroud is genuine, but this is a conclusion that would be safer to arrive at for the other reasons I mentioned above rather than the style of the cloth. So far, there’s a sample size of one from the period that Jesus was supposed to be alive, and that’s the recent sample. We have only that to go on and it would be scientifically incorrect to compare it with the Shroud of Turin since we don’t know that the new find is typical of death shrouds of the day.

Still, the recent discovery is a remarkable find and I look forward to reading the paper describing it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• ‘Jesus-era’ burial shroud found (news.bbc.co.uk)
• DNA of Jesus-era shrouded man in Jerusalem reveals earliest case of leprosy (scienceblog.com)
• Shroud of Turin reproduced (boingboing.net)
• Italian Group Claims to Debunk Shroud of Turin (time.com)

Mike Adams Pretends to know the Minds of Skeptics

Image via Wikipedia

In a recent article on the inter-webs, Mike Adams, self-proclaimed “health ranger” and an editor at NaturalNews.com, pretends to know something about skeptics.

Wow.

In a word: fail.

In his opening paragraphs he says,

skeptics” claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth. Everyone who disagrees with them is just a quack, they insist. Briefly stated, “skeptics” are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. They are opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic care, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer and therapeutic touch.

“Sole protectors?” “Intellectual truth?” Hyperbole much?

Yes, most skeptics are in favor of science-based medicine, which is what vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy have in common. They’re all based on science and evidence to support their efficacy. Are they without faults? No. Of course not. But their faults are generally well understood and physicians who make use of them are always ready to revise their protocols accordingly and appropriately.

Are we opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicines, chiropractic care, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer and therapeutic touch (crap like reiki)?

Perhaps. I’m partial to nutritional supplements that make sense. I try to have broccoli and brussel sprouts now and then. Perhaps some cauliflower. Definitely asparagus. Love that stuff. And nutritious! Supplements that come pre-packaged and unregulated in little pills at $29.95 for 250? Nah. Thank you, but I’ll pass.

I’m not all that knowledgeable about massage therapy, but it seems okay. I got a massage once while I was overseas. It wasn’t unpleasant and it seemed to help a sore muscle or two.

But I see no good reason to accept “energy medicine” (whatever that is) or chiropractic or homeopathy (water with a memory? Bollocks). Herbal medicine. Maybe. If I was stranded in the wilderness and couldn’t get to a Walmart pharmacy for real medicine. I’d rather have some sudafed or ibuprofin than an untested, weak herbal remedy. At least they work and you don’t have to worry about who prepared it (some unlicensed, unregulated, undereducated nut probably).

Prayer? Why? No demonstrated efficacy for that. In fact, studies conducted by the religious and funded by the religious found that out.

So, in just the opening paragraph or two, Adams was completely and utterly wrong about skeptics. Buddy, you would first have to be a skeptic to know how they think. I’ve been gullible before, I know what that’s like.

What about his other claims? Adams claims that skeptics aren’t skeptical about a few other things. I’m going to answer them one-by-one. The first dozen or so, anyway. I didn’t want the spam I’d likely get from natural health nuts from registering on his site.

• Skeptics believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective (even if they’ve never been tested), that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will, and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given. So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and “good for your health.”

Untrue. Skeptics (at least the ones I know) believe in the efficacy of science-based medicine, which means that they would not support untested medicines (including vaccines). Yes, all people should receive vaccines -there’s no good reason not to prevent diseases like polio, rubella, measles, and chicken pox. Small pox was eradicated by vaccination. Polio is all but a memory in the U.S. thanks to vaccination. But I know of no skeptic that would agree that taking “900 vaccines all a the same time” is ether necessary or wise. Nor is it evident that even a sizable minority of skeptics believe someone should receive vaccines against their will. But, then, my children should be able to attend public school knowing that their peers are vaccinated and the children of anti-vax nuts are not permitted to attend.

• Skeptics believe that fluoride chemicals derived from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants are really good for human health. They’re so good, in fact, that they should be dumped into the water supply so that everyone is forced to drink those chemicals, regardless of their current level of exposure to fluoride from other sources.

This is an example of a false premise. It simply doesn’t follow that because fluorine is present in an industrial plant that it should necessarily be unhealthy for my toothpaste or my water. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be drinking any water since it contains hydrogen and oxygen, both found in the same coal plants along with various carbonates, such as that found in soft drinks.

But at least it gives us an idea of the sort of intellect we’re faced with. I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with Adams that skeptics believe that they are the “sole protectors of intellectual truth,” but its clear that he isn’t concerned with it to begin with.

• Skeptics believe that many six-month-old infants need antidepressant drugs. In fact, they believe that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time: Antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping drugs and more — simultaneously!

I think he’s just making shit up now. Like I said earlier, skeptics believe in science-based medicine and evidence-supported treatments. I see no evidence from Adams that the above sentiment is held by even a single skeptic.

• Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines.

Again, he appears to be making it up as he goes along. What he presents here is a false dichotomy, which is to say that either the body can defend itself or it cannot. The answer is something very different, which is to say that the immune system of the human body protects us behind the scenes every day, which, believe it or not, Adams, skeptics are aware of (scientists, after all are necessarily, skeptics). But, occasionally, the immune system is inadequate or ineffectual. Thus medicine. If this weren’t the case, no one would ever die of small pox, anthrax, rubella, or even diptheria.

• Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis. (They are opponents of natural childbirth.)

Again with the hyperbole. “Medical crisis?” Medical risk, definitely. And, as with all risks that can be mitigated through science and technology, why take unnecessary chances? Sure, natural childbirth happens all the time. People are pretty good at it as evidenced by our evolutionary achievements. But we also evolved to have brains and the wherewithal to put them to use and, low and behold, infant mortality in the United States is at an all-time low. Why? Give you a hint: it wasn’t natural childbirth.

• Skeptics do not believe in hypnosis. This is especially hilarious since they are all prime examples of people who are easily hypnotized by mainstream influences.

This is mostly an ad hominem, so there’s little reason to do anything but respond with a well placed ad hom: dumb ass.

Now… that felt good.

• Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness. They do not believe in the mind; only in the physical brain. In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves are mindless automatons who have no free will, no soul and no consciousness whatsoever.

Tempted as I am to again respond with dumb ass, I’ll refrain (I used to know the term for that sort of insult where you claim to refrain from a particular insult but, by making it known, have done the insult anyway… damn if I can remember now).

I won’t pretend to know what “consciousness” is. I’ve read some good works that have explored it, but they all end with questions and directions that research should go or still needs to go. Francis Crick’s The Astonishing Hypothesis and Daniel Dennett’s Consciousness Explained are both worth reading. Neither of these preeminent author/scientists presented any reason that consciousness must be something other than material substances gone wild (neurochemical processes in the brain), but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the brain is the key since its about the only organ that has never been removed or lost where “consciousness” is still retained by the patient. The brain is a material object, after all. Believers in an immaterial mind or “soul” or whatever else they claim “consciousness” to be have yet to outline any suggestions that are reasoned or rational for their claims. They’ve provided no reasonable mechanisms other than a material brain to explain “mind” or “consciousness.”

• Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).

I really don’t know what the hell he’s going on about here. I do tend to take my steak closer to the rare side than well done, but I’ve yet to try it straight off a grazing cow. I’m thinking there’s probably not enough difference to warrant getting it that fresh.

• Skeptics believe that pesticides on the crops are safe, genetically modified foods are safe, and that any chemical food additive approved by the FDA is also safe. There is no advantage to buying organic food, they claim.

I’m skeptical of pesticides. Which is why I wash my vegetables (most of which are still “alive” by any scientific definition of the word, since if I place them in water, roots would quickly develop.

• Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration. Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).

I’ve honestly never given it much thought. Water from my toilet is probably cleaner than water from a natural spring, given the nature of peculated toxins and chemicals from nearby sewage treatment plants, land fills, and highway and agricultural runoff. I still wouldn’t drink either without filtration or chemical treatment if I had a choice.

• Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking…)

Read my bit about brussel sprouts and broccoli above.

It would seem that Mike Adams is fractally wrong about what skeptics think, believe, or understand.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sometimes, I think we break the crazy people (scienceblogs.com)
• CAM Paper Part I: Introduction (cclcmstudent.blogspot.com)
• Americans spend $34B for alternative medicine (ctv.ca)
• Back to the Golden Age before modern medicine? (scienceblogs.com)

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-01-15

• wants to read Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. Wielenberg – http://bit.ly/7Xcynu #

Powered by Twitter Tools

Social Security for illegal immigrants?

There is an email going around in that urban legend fashion so popular with non-thinking and irrational conservatives who regularly drink the Rush Limbaugh / Fox News Kool-Aid that claims to be driving a petition to appeal to Obama (”regardless of whether you like him or not”) to veto a bill to give social security benefits to “illegal aliens.”

This, of course, is not what is happening or what the bill in question is about. What the email is about is fear-mongering and deception. What the bill is regarding is giving social security benefits to American citizens who were once illegal but now legal immigrants. Not aliens. Citizens. True, they weren’t born in the United States. True, they were once considered “illegal,” a loaded term to be sure. But they have since obtained their citizenship and have probably been productive, tax-paying (if not income, certainly sales taxes) citizens. Many of them have children who are natural born Americans who have been paying into the social security system for years.

Citizens. Not “illegal aliens” as the deceptive email suggests.

Check it out your self: http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/socialsecurity.asp

Related articles by Zemanta

• Glenn Beck thinks non-citizens shouldn’t be counted in the Census (crooksandliars.com)
• I know Chuck Norris could kick my ass but… (trueslant.com)
• Diversity! Justice Sotomayor Is Lauded for Using The Term “Undocumented Immigrant” in a Supreme Court Opinion (minx.cc)