Survey of possible graveyard site along a highway destined to be four-laned.

What’s a water dowser do when his method is demonstrated time and again to be nonsense on stilts? Turn to dowsing for graves, I suppose. It wasn’t mentioned if the dowser who worked for Mississippi landowner about to lose a strip of pastureland to a new highway project used a forked stick or metal rods, but one thing is clear, he didn’t actually find any graves (click “A Grave Matter” for the story).

But that hasn’t stopped MDOT from sending out a CRM team to clear the area. It’s their due diligence, after all. If all they had to go on was a “dowser’s” word, I would say they should dismiss it out-of-hand and get on with the highway project. Imminent domain can be a pain in the butt when you’re a landowner, but at least he isn’t loosing his home. And the highway addition will benefit the whole of society in his area. Not to mention they probably offered him reasonable compensation.

But since there were some anecdotes from local residents, the CRM survey is the right thing to do (plus, it means some archaeologist are gainfully employed!). The landowner hired an attorney to intercede on his behalf and they’re complaining that the equipment used is a single-antenna GPR (ground-penetrating radar) instead of a dual-antenna.

“The research is pretty clear that the dual-antenna system gives you a better depiction,” the attorney said. “The rules have been changed, so it’s frustrating.”

The dual-antenna is probably nice to have, but not necessary for something as straight-forward as locating graves. The single-antenna GPRs are also called monostatic since they use the same antenna to transmit and receive the electromagnetic (EM) wave, whereas a dual-antenna GPR is considered bistatic since it transmits on one antenna then receives on another. Both have their advantages, the monostatic probably being the easiest and fastest to use. The bistatic GPR works a little slower, but it’s datasets are somewhat smaller and give better resolution. Bistatic is what you want for the precision of locating pipes and cabling under city streets. Monostatic is plenty sufficient to find a few graves. But the CRM team was also using a magnetometer, which could be very useful if gravestones are buried.

That the landowner used the services of a “grave dowser” is laughable, but the response of MDOT and the CRM team to the possibility of genuine cultural resources was appropriate. Particularly since there was some apparent anecdote suggesting an otherwise undocumented graveyard was present as well as some alleged “Indian mounds.” Clearly the landowner is hoping to deflect the project away from his own property.

Bad news mister landowner… if they find a graveyard that isn’t Native American, they’ll very likely just move it. The good news is, major highways are good for picking up cans so there’s a potential opportunity for income!

Related articles

• A Map-Dowsing Competition? We Can Do Better Than That (randi.org)
• Some of us have the dowsing rod talent. (icanhascheezburger.com)
• The JREF brings Dowsing Workshop to Capital (randi.org)

He didn’t say that in those exact words, but he might as well have. In a recent interview with the Jewish Channel, Gingrich a professor of history until he failed to gain tenure, referred to Palestinians as an “invented” people^[1].

So are they an “invented people?” In as much as any nation is an artificial construct, sure. Gingrich cites the dominance of the Ottoman Empire, which flourished until 1923. Gingrich said in the same interview linked above that the Palestinians were simply Arabs who had a chance to go wherever they wished. I suppose the Palestinians were not expected by Gingrich to have any ancestral routes. Perhaps he sees Arabs in general as all nomadic and without legitimate ties to any region. If so, this view would be a bigoted one on his part.

So the Palestinians did not have a nation during the dominance of the Ottoman Empire. Neither, for that matter, did Israel. This nation was invented by the United Nations in 1948^[2]. In fact, the United States was a nation invented by a handful of rebels, referred to as terrorists by the British, in 1776. Indeed, the nation and the American people that emerged from the terrorist actions of the 1700′s had no ancestral ties to the land they now occupy. The people that do have ancestral ties to these lands were murdered, marginalized, moved and made an insignificant minority so the Europeans could invent a nation -a new people called Americans- in the increasing dust and ash of British Empire.

Unlike Americans and the British Empire, Palestinians did, in fact, exist prior to the Ottoman Empire. Robert Drews describes the role the Palestinians played as part of the “Sea Peoples” described on the Medinet Habu, an Egyptian temple of Ramesses III (1198-1166 BCE). Originally referred to as the “Philistines,” the Assyrians called the region of modern Palestine “Palashtu” or “Pilistu“. The word, , “Palestine” itself comes from the Greek word  (in my head I just sounded remarkably like Toula’s father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding). It was probably first used by Herodotus in the 5th century BCE. The Byzantine Romans called the region “Palaestina”^[3].

While the Arab people did, indeed, reside in this region; and while they were, indeed, largely pastoral, that in no way implies that they do not have an ancestral tie to Palestine. The term “Arab” as an ethnonym may have been used by Shalmaneser III who mentions a king named Gindibu of mâtu arbâi (Arab land). And biblical mythology mentions the Aravi (Arabs) who were Semitic tribes that lived in the deserts between Syria and Arabia. The Philistines probably weren’t Semitic peoples originally, but they definitely were absorbed into the local Semitic cultures by the end of the 7th century BCE. The place-names mentioned above stuck and, thus, Palestine is a real region and the people who ancestrally call this their home are really from there.

So, if Palestinians are an “invented people,” then equally, too, are the Americans and the Israeli’s. Neither the United States or Israel existed prior to 1776 and 1948 respectively. If we accept Gingrich’s fallacious (and dare I say bigoted and ignorant) claim that Palestinians are an “invented people,” then he must also apply that to the very nations he portends to support with that rhetoric. Indeed, it would seem that the Palestinians have a far better claim to the region than either the Israeli’s (Jews who were moved there following WWII) or the Americans (Europeans who committed genocide on Natives in the 17th and 18th centuries). The Palestinians, as a people, have been residing in Palestine since before Christianity and Islam and probably since before Judaism.

Sorry Newt. You don’t get to rewrite history to suit your own bigoted desires.

1. http://marker.to/5WoiGA
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
3. Drews, Robert (1995). The end of the Bronze Age: Changes in warfare and the catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C.

I am not responsible for any keyboards for those who tried reading this with their morning hot cup of joe!

If you’ve never visited xkcd, you should!

And so does Walmart and several other mainstream retailers.

Allergy season has hit my family pretty hard this year, my daughter the most. The congestion and post-nasal drip she’s experienced has caused a terrible sounding cough and now she’s experiencing an ear ache, probably related to the mucus congestion. Motrin, anti-histamines, and decongestants for kids all seem to be working, but I started thinking a topical ear drop that can relieve pain might be handy in the middle of the night when the pain seems to settle on the ear she’s sleeping on.

So I checked CVS. They’re a big, national pharmacy chain. I expected the best set of choices and professional advice.

Boy was I wrong.

What I found was initially hopeful. I pulled  a product called “Similasan” from the shelf and headed to the checkout after I read “Earache Relief” on the front in big, bold letters. About half way to the cashier, I stopped and headed back to the shelf it came from, tossing it haphazardly to the approximate spot it originally sat.

In small print, on the back, the label read, “Homeopathic medications work effectively with no known side effects and no known drug interactions. Gentle enough for children. Strong enough for adults.”

The ingredients: “Active Ingredients: Chamomilla 10x , Mercurius Solubilis 15x , Sulphur 12x. Inactive Ingredients: Glycerin.” And, of course, water. The water comes from the previous ingredients, which no longer exist since they were diluted to the point at which they are no longer chemically significant in the water they are diluted by. At 24x, a solution has about a 60% chance of having just a single molecule of the original substance (assuming one mole was used). So you can get the idea that once you dilute beyond 1 part substance to 100 parts water, you get a result that has little effect.

To put this in perspective, the EPA allows drinking water to have arsenic at a ratio of about 10 parts per billion (in homeopathic terms, this a is 6x dilution). This is good, since “mercurius solubilis” is homeopathic-speak for diluted mercury.

So where does the $13,000.00 come in?

A 10.0 ml bottle of slightly soapy water costs $10.49. Don’t believe me, go online to CVS pharmacy and check for yourself. The math works out to about $13,846.00 per gallon. For slightly soapy water.

There has never been a study that followed scientific controls which shows any efficacy of homeopathic “remedies.” It is snake oil. A rip off.

CVS should be ashamed.

Here’s an excerpt from the email response I received when I inquired about it:

Thank you for contacting us regarding the problem you recently experienced with Similasan Children’s Earache Relief Ear Drops.

At CVS we make every effort to sell only the highest quality products in our stores. As a result of your comments, we will request that the manufacturer investigate the problem you have experienced and take the necessary action to prevent a recurrence in the future.

We ask that you please return the unused portion along with the packaging and your original receipt; you will be refunded with the form of payment used to make the purchase.

A search on the CVS website reveals 13 products with the term “homeopathic” in the description. Walmart has 5 products, and Walgreens has 10 products.

Related articles by Zemanta

• CVS Profit Rises on Prescription Program at Stores (Update2) (businessweek.com)
• CVS settles Indiana complaint over 2 pharmacists (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• New troubles for CVS Caremark (money.cnn.com)

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)

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 authority 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) degree 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, at the time of this writing, in violation. The list of things he may refer to himself as includes: “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 chemically 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 shows 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)

… is the charge by several other bloggers. In the state of Main, where “naturopaths” can legally call themselves “doctor,” Maloney 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 apparent quacks like Maloney who seem to care more for their egos and pocketbooks than the lives of children.

According to the common understanding of the term, Maloney pretends to be a doctor. And, in the state of Maine, he can legally refer to himself as one with certain limitations. But the story doesn’t end there. Normally you can find 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 Maloney or another, to edit his content followed by censoring his blog.

Let’s be clear: Maloney is “naturopath.” Naturopaths are not doctors in the sense that we might commonly think. Maloney is not a doctor except in the state of Main where he can legally include the title “doctor” next to his name with certain limitations. He’s quack. For most people, a doctor is equivalent to a physician, but Maloney and other “naturopaths” are definitely not physicians.

Quacks 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)

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)

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)

If so, this is good news for consumers. Frauds like Kevin Trudeau have been peddling their snake oil to anyone willing to shell out the bucks, often under the ironic guise of being “consumer watchdogs,” protecting consumers from “the establishment” and “big pharma.”

Trudeau is the obvious con artist extraordinaire among the CAM crowd, but there are many more, often operating websites that are put together that resemble personal blogs but are designed to be money-making machines where click-thrus earn advertising revenue or, more to the point, the blogger gets a kick-back, free sample, or payment for favorably reviewing a product. The latest FTC ruling will affect these bloggers by demanding disclosure of these “freebies and payments” and will ensure that hyped up claims must be backed.

The Federal Trade Commission on Monday took steps to make product information and online reviews more accurate for consumers, regulating blogging for the first time and mandating that testimonials reflect typical results.

The FTC will require that writers on the Web clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products. The commission also said advertisers featuring testimonials that claim dramatic results cannot hide behind disclaimers that the results aren’t typical^[1].

In case you were wanting to look at the official federal guidelines, here’s the PDF file straight from the .gov itself.

Only time will tell if it has any appreciable affect on scam sites and unethical bloggers of homeopathic nonsense, chiropractic, anti-vaccine nutters, and other assorted CAM proponents. Perhaps this will give skeptics and skeptical bloggers a tool in countering these scams and potentially harmful blogs and sites if we have the ability to report potential violators and violations of FTC guidelines.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Internet Polices Itself on Blogger Advertising Better Than the FTC Ever Could (usnews.com)
• FTC demands disclosure on sponsored posts. (blogavenues.blogspot.com)

1. FTC: Bloggers, testimonials need better disclosure [AP via Google]