Why we can't win.

I normally label articles like this as being an opinion piece. This time I'm not, because it's not really just my opinion. It is unfortunately a fact of life for the critical thinking/scientific skepticism communities, and I believe most of us have known this for years.


I have recently began responding more often to various pseudoscientific and blatantly false claims, such as one I've seen a couple of times recently. (I've been doing this partly because bad information aggravates the hell out of me, and partly because I want people to be able to look at all the information without any sort of fear mongering and come to a conclusion based on the data.)  This one in particular reads: "The FDA has changed the name of aspartame to AminoSweet!" First of all, the FDA doesn't name products, they only give guidelines on the labeling. As well, it was one company that is based in Japan that is changing the name, not every manufacturer on the planet. I pointed these two facts out, simply trying to point out the post was false, and try and give anyone that actually reads the comments a starting point to find the real information. Shortly after, the original poster came back with a comment that stated the FDA still allows poisons to be put into our food, and aspertame is a neurotoxin according to FDA investigator Arthur Evangelista (who is a former FDA investigator) I have written about aspartame before, and I am passingly familiar with some of the claims that folks make about it. Especially the neurotoxin claim. I pointed out that water and oxygen, when applied directly to a neuron, will act like a neurotoxin, killing it. The someone else asked to see water and oxygen tumors and posted pictures of the rats used in the highly flawed Seralini GMO/RoundUp study. I asked him what genetic line the rats came from, and he said GM Corn. WHAT THE HONEST FUCK!?! I asked about the rats and he says GM Corn? I pointed out that the genetic line of rats used in research are going to affect the way the study turns out. If they had used rats designed for diabetic research, the study would have shown drinking RoundUp causes diabetes. "Sorry Mr. Brimley, your diabetes wasn't a genetic issue. You shouldn't have been drinking RoundUp and eating GMOs while filming Cocoon." I pointed out the study that he has decided to use to refute aspartame was highly flawed. I did make an error here and not point out it had nothing to do with the original statement. I was just so surprised by it, and I was in full "learning moment" mode that I tried to show how that was wrong as well. Luckily, there was another member of Oklahoma Skeptics Society reading the thread, and he had good info that he added to the discussion. It basically ended with several statements that I've heard way too often lately concerning a surprisingly wide variety of topics, and I'm going to address them. Unfortunately, these statements demonstrate why critical thought will never completely prevail over superstitious thinking and bad information.

Before I go any farther, I have to mention that this is only the most recent example of a common trend that I have been seeing for a long time. 

Scientific Consensus

The first was "Why is it when a "scientist" (I added the quotes because they are rarely dependable or reliable scientists) has a finding that isn't part of the consensus, he's labeled a fear monger?" The simple answer is....because they are. If you have 1 scientist that reports a finding saying a common food or medical treatment is dangerous, sends out press releases before peer review, and they promote their findings, (and alternative products on occasion) and they claim it has very extreme effects, and no other group can reproduce it in any meaningful way, then yes, they are trying to scare people away from something that, at the least isn't harmful and at best is highly beneficial. This is the definition of a fear mongerer. The reason that there is a scientific consensus is because the findings are relatively consistent and can more than likely be trusted as fact. Granted, I am not really a fan of Monsanto, mostly due to their legal practices, but I fully believe that GM products are going to be the major contributor to feeding the planets growing population, especially with climate change altering growing cycles. But once again, the Seralini study had nothing to do with the initial conversation, it was a weird combination of the Gish Gallop and Moving the Goalpost. This entire tactic (invoking bad studies, wild claims about the dangers, and the Gish Gallop Goalpost) are often used by climate change deniers, the anti-vaccine crowd, anti-GMO advocates, creationists, and many other proponents of pseudoscience. Especially the ones that either have some sort of religious or political spin to them. They also tied in a conspiracy theory saying Monsanto is covering up any negative studies. Once again, way the hell off the original topic, which was misinformation about a products name change. Plus I doubt Monsanto has bought off 99% of the agricultural and food scientists. But people that rely on the "rebel scientists" are generally very distrustful of any sort of large establishment, such as governments and international companies. They tend to feel that governments and governmental agencies, such as the FBI, the CIA, the NIH, the FDA, the CDC, and the NWO (I had to throw that one in because a lot of these people believe there is an evil global conspiracy), as well as large companies, will lie and mislead the public for some nefarious purpose. They will think that the one person that works outside of the system and finds something no one else ever has is the only one telling the truth, and if you dispute the claim of the person, you will often be called a shill, a sheeple (damn I really hate that word), or naive. They will also tell you you need to open your eyes and do research. Which happened during the course of the original thread. When I said I do research things, and that is why I wanted to know what genetic line the rats were, and what the protocols used for his study were (which I already knew), the other person quit replying. I have to wonder if he went and actually looked into it a little deeper from sources other than NaturalNews and Mercola, or if he rage quit. My money is on rage quit.

Why do you care what we do?
Another statement that was made during the discourse, and I am paraphrasing, was  "Why does it matter if we don't want to eat this stuff? Why do you care what we do? Everyone should be allowed to keep things out their bodies they don't want!" I agree wholeheartedly! If you want to avoid consuming something, by all means, do it. More for me. Especially you have a legitimate reason for avoiding them. Say you have PKU, then yes, you have to avoid aspartame, and for good reason. But just because you're scared of something after visiting some Woo Woo sites, you really shouldn't be posting misleading and false statements purposely designed to scare people into doing the same. The original post was created specifically to invoke a fear response from people that are already wary of big companies, chemicals, and the government. It was set up as a warning that the scary gubberment is letting Big Chemical try and sneak one past the unsuspecting and gullible people. These damn things are the meme equivalent of the guy on the corner with the sign that claims the world is ending soon. They are false, there is no evidence, they often smell a bit funny, they get creepy after a while and seem to follow you around the internet.

I won't believe your "Science"
You want to piss me off, say "You can show me all the studies and science, and I'm still going to believe what I want." This is basically the last thing that was said in the thread, outside of being accused of starting a fight, and me reiterating my initial position (and I actually received a sort of, almost apology) These anti-science sentiments have been getting more and more vocal in the past few years. When you say this, basically what I hear you saying is "I don't care how reality works, I'm going to make up my own thing so I can feel comfortable and justify my life choices to myself."  This sort of thinking is the cause of so many problems when it comes to the results from research. Some people won't believe any research unless it jives with their previously held beliefs. Then, anything that disproves that is part of some huge corporate/governmental/military cabal bent on global domination and the complete subjugation of the population. And yes, it does escalate that quickly. The most aggravating part of this type of thinking is that the more evidence you provide, the more that people will dig in and hang on to their beliefs. This is called The BackFire Effect and you can read more about it on The Skeptics Dictionary. These are the type of people that, as critical thinkers, skeptics, humanists, and scientifically literate people, we need to convince the most to look at all the information. Yet, and let's be honest with ourselves, we know that nothing we do will convince them to look at other evidence. You can try and convince them, but as soon as you push a little too hard, suddenly you're a bully, you're hassling them, you're blinded to the truth, etc. If someone presents me with evidence that is contrary to what I feel is a fact, admittedly my first response is to dismiss it. But then I realize that my personal bias' have kicked in, and I will look at their evidence and try to keep an open mind. And my opinion has been changed by doing this. I have rarely seen anyone from the pseudoscience side of things do the same. (And they call skeptics close-minded?)

Conclusion
The best way to deal with a fight you can't win is normally to just walk away before the damage is irreparable. However, we just can't do that here. As several other people have pointed out in the past, skepticism in the intersection of scientific literacy and consumer protection.

We can't just say "Screw you guys! I'm going home!" We have to continue the good fight and yes, it is a battle on multiple fronts with various opponents using different tactics. (And yes, I know that the phrasing I'm choosing makes skepticism sound fairly combative, but when peoples lives are at risk, then yes, it is a fight.) Instead of focusing our time and energy on the hardcore, full tilt woo woo bullshit believers that we know are never going to change, let's focus more on the fence sitters and the general public. Let's try and provide good information that people can look into and come to an informed decision themselves. It may not always be the right decision, but at least they will be using all the available information. As a whole, people are sensible, rational creatures that do respond well to facts, and when presented with all the available information, generally they will make an informed choice, politics not included. We also need to work harder to inform the general population on what makes a study good or bad, how to read a scientific paper, and how to properly interpret data for themselves instead of relying on others to do it for them. (Remember when only the clergy could read the bible and the congregations had to rely on the priest to tell them what it meant?)  We also need to show people how to distinguish blatant propaganda and scare tactics from factual information. This is why critical thinking and scientific literacy need to be core classes in elementary schools. Until then we will always be dealing with James Randi's "Unsinkable Rubber Duckies"

  

 I didn't reply to the initial Facebook post to be a self righteous dick. I simply intended to put accurate information out to help people make an informed decision. Of course, by the end, I seemed to be the bad guy for attacking their beliefs, though that was never my intention. I just have an issue when people seem to rely on Facebook memes to make decisions concerning their health and nutrition.

Recent Podcast appearance!
This isn't related to the topic but I really wanted to promote it. I am a contributor on a podcast called the Unseen Podcast. It is primarily devoted to astronomy, astrobiology, and space exploration (I have no idea why they let me on, but they did) We recently did our Halloween episode, and I was the host. We had: C-Webb from The Paranormal Skeptic Academy podcast, David Flora from the Blurry Photos podcast, Mike Bohler from The Skeptics Guide to Conspiracy (and he's also a regular contributor on Unseen), and Paul Carr, the main host, and Marsha Barnhart as panelists. We spoke about cryptids, conspiracy theories, evidence, UFOs, played the drinking came created by yours truly, and got really damn silly. If you've ever wondered what I sound like, are a fan of C-Webb, Blurry Photos, or Mike Bohler, you should really check it out. You can find The Unseen Podcast Episode 31 here! Thanks for reading, and hopefully listening to the episode. I am hoping to start my own skeptical podcast, with my wife and son as co-hosts, in the next couple of weeks, though I will still be a regular contributor to both the WOW! Signal podcast and the Unseen Podcast.

Letting the other side of reality talk. (Opinion)

Before you get too far into this post, I'm going to warn you ahead of time that it is largely my opinion on the matter, and in no way reflects anyone else's views. I have started to put (Opinion) in the titles if the post is in fact an opinion piece and contains very little research. This is so that people that read my posts for the research I put into it don't feel cheated when reading an opinion piece, and the maybe 1 person that reads these because they are interested in my thoughts.

I have been hearing the murmurs about giving both sides of an issue equal time and press, so that people can have a chance to make an informed decision. (I largely feel that the increased pressure for equal time is due to the up coming presidential race debacle)  In some issues, I completely agree. Give all the candidates equal time to make the promises they know they can't keep. Let companies have equal amounts of commercial time to make their claims about how their products can improve your life. This is fine. This is republican democracy and capitalism at work.

When it comes to the science vs pseudoscience arena however, I don't think that the quacks, hucksters, and other bullshitters should have an equal amount of time to try and convince people that their particular flavor of pseudoscience works. Granted, I do think that it is important to listen to the believers to try and learn how and why they think that crystal healing, reiki, or homeopathy works. I also know that it is important to review and check anyone's evidence, both scientists and pseudoscientists. But to give a homeopath, or any other promoter of pseudoscience an equal, or greater amount of exposure is a detriment to society, as well as being intellectually dishonest.

 For decades, these alternative treatments, quantum whatevers, and ancient or all natural products have often been shown to be at least less effective than actual medicines and treatments, if not more dangerous, especially when mixed with actual medicine. Not just experimentally, but in actual instances outside of the lab. Unfortunately,  you often hear about someone forgoing medical treatment and trying some type of alternative medicine, and paying the price, not just financially, but with their health, and sometimes their life. And yet, the stories that make it into the media outlets are the "miracle cures" and "mysterious recoveries" that "have doctors baffled". BULLSHIT! The only doctors that might be baffled by these occurrences are the people that are promoting this crap, and their bafflement comes from the fact that it looks like their treatment worked. This is a tactic often used in the media, as well as with the alt med crowd. It makes the article more interesting, and casts doubt on the entire medical establishment. However, you will never hear them admit that sometimes diseases will spontaneously go into remission, regardless of the type of treatment that the patient was receiving. You also never see them talking to actual medical experts to find out if they are actually baffled or if it's just a bit of media hyperbole.

There are websites, magazines, and television shows that seem to go out of their way to not just denigrate science and actual medicine, but to make people frightened of it. Which in turn drives up sales of their products. I am not saying that every single person that promotes some form of pseudoscience is just doing it for the money. There are a few that actually believe that they are helping people by offering alternatives, though these are far and few between. Most of them have their own things to sell and view everyone else as competition. They will even invent problems that don't actually exist in order to create a demand for something no one thought they needed. All that they manage to do is cause people to believe that scientists have no idea what they are doing, or that they are hiding something. Of course the fact that actual science can be revised or proven wrong while pseudoscience rarely changes adds to that, and the snake oil promoters use that fact also, which in turn gets them more publicity.

Basically, what I have been trying to say through my little rant here is that the pseudoscientists should never be given equal representation to scientists, especially in the media. All this does is muddy what may already be complicated issues, and it gives them a legitimacy that they neither have, nor deserve. If there is anyone associated with the media that reads this, I do have a couple of suggestions. The first is give both sides time equal to the amount of reliable evidence. Not anecdotal, not customer testimonials, not arguments from antiquity or the naturalistic fallacy, or arguments from popularity. Whoever has the most reliably reproducible results from actual testing should get the lions share of media time. I sure as hell don't mean all the "clinically tested" claims that you often see on a variety of WOO based products either. All that means is that they were tested, possibly in-house, and it doesn't say anything about the efficacy of the item. A second suggestion is, if you do a story on some form of pseudoscience, and are looking for balance, don't just give the expert or the skeptic a 5 second sound bite at the end. This doesn't help anything, because people have already heard what they want to, and have stopped paying attention.(I'm looking at you History Channel, Animal Planet, and Dr. Oz!) You can also start with a disclaimer saying that the following story or statements has yet to be scientifically verified.

With that being said, I would also like to say that it important as a critical thinker, science advocate, skeptic, rationalist, or however else you would like to be labeled, or have labeled yourself, to actually listen to the believers of pseudoscience. This can help you understand why they believe what they do, and possibly give you a way to show them other evidence for a more rational explanation. Not to humiliate or belittle them, but to show them that there are other possibilities that are much more likely. I am also not saying that the pseudoscience crowd can't express their opinions and views. They just need to be aware that when they do, there will be those that demand evidence and have the knowledge and ability to refute their claims.

The Four Horsemen of Derp!

In most peoples everyday life, there are a few websites that they visit on a regular basis. Things like Facebook, Instagram, Pornhub, BuzzFeed. You know, normal sites. In the skeptical world, we have Wikipedia, Snopes, the C.D.C., and PubMed. In the dark realm of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and new age weirdness, they have their own flavor of preferred information. And the ones I'm going to talk a little bit about today could possibly be called

The Four Horsemen of Derp!

InfoWars

This site, along with AboveTopSecret, is one of the primary purveyors of conspiracy theories on the planet. Their tagline is "Because there is a war on for your mind" Rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it. If you go to the site, and I highly recommend you don't, one of the first things you'll see are ads for various liver cleaners, anti-fluoride campaigns, and very odd supplements, on top of links to brilliant articles like "Herbicide Resistant Insects are Destroying GMO Crops Like Never Before"(seriously, that one is on there, I thought it was an Onion article) There are also a bunch of conspiratorially flavored "news articles" blaming almost everything on Obama, atheists, and anyone that's brown. It's a deep rabbit warren of actual news stories with a seemingly slightly plausible conspiracy spin to them. (They should use that as the tag line) This site is part of the Alex Jones media empire, and he uses it, just like his radio show, to promote his particular flavor of crazy. It almost feels like an "End of Days" vibe, with everything going to pieces all around us. If you look at a lot of their advertisers, you'll quickly notice a common theme. They're trying to get your money. That and they tend to be geared more towards the survivalist type of consumer. You know the type, guys (and a few gals) with more guns and ammo than some small countries. They also normally have a bunker, which may be an actual bunker or a converted basement or tree-house, full of MRE's and canned food and water and they also seem to have a perpetual nervous twitch. These people also seem to tend towards the sovereign citizen brand of lunacy. I often see very large trucks with lift kits blowing past me on the highway with InfoWars stickers all over them, as well as people wearing their merchandise with slogans like "9-11 was an inside job!" If you hear about a crazy anti-government conspiracy, or that the world is about to collapse and the New World Order is going to take control, odds are, either InfoWars is covering it, or they started it. 

Mercola

This one is probably the grandaddy of the Alt Med sites. This one was started by Joseph Mercola, who is an osteopathic physician. He just happens to give advise on every other facet of health. His site tends to have articles that basically say "Don't listen to your doctor, listen to us instead!" All over the site you'll find ads for..wait for it....Dr. Joseph Mercolas health products. *gasp*. He sells a variety of supplements, vitamins, and books, all from his company. I know that it's his website and he can do whatever he damn well pleases,  But at least he could try and make it look like he was supporting other Woo-mongers. This is just greedy. He also has an ad that claims his is the #1 health website in the world. I'm not going into that one too much. The internet and search rankings is a finicky mess as it is. He has a sitemap at the bottom with a section called "Special Info Sites" that cover all of the following delightful topics:

• Aspartame
• Cancer
• Fitness
• Fluoride
• Fructose/Sugar
• GMO
• Mercury
• Nutritional Typing
• Pets
• Vaccines
• Vitamin D

Voice-over: No, I don't think these alt-med folks are trying to scare the shit out of people. These are just topics that are controversial and so people are looking for non-biased, informative and easy to understand data. 
No, they're trying to scare people. Plain and simple. On top of that, they're trying to make a profit doing it. Some of these guys make me think of the Ferengi from Star Trek. The site is kind enough to let you know that every purchase helps to fund a variety of charities and organizations. Charitable giving, wow! Ok, so maybe he's not as bad as I thought. Let's see, what are the groups that are getting a cut of the money. They include:

• Campaign for Mercury Free Dentistry
• FluorideAlert.org
• National Vaccine Information Center
• Institute for Responsible Technology
• Rabies Challenge Fund 

You get the general idea. The money from the sales of pseudoscience products are going to fund pseudoscience groups. What really makes me sick about a lot of the alt-med crowd is that they have a tendency to discourage their clients from continuing treatments from an actual M.D. and use whatever snake oil they're selling. This puts people in danger, both financially and physically. Financially because this shit isn't cheap, and you have to keep coming back for more (drug dealer business model) and physically because they aren't actually getting help. Sure, these websites will have anecdotes and testimonials from customers that they helped (the disease or problem either went away on its own, or wasn't there to begin with). The reason you rarely see any negative statements is because the dead don't have anecdotes.

Natural News

Mike Adams, Health Ranger!, is the purveyor of the Beautiful Sunshine that is Natural News. This one site has it all. Conspiracy theories, health claims, anti-government rhetoric, promotion of alt-med, phrases like Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Brother, and on and on and on. One such headline claimed "The Department of Homeland Security still Controls what you Read" (Ironic, if it's true). There aren't as many ads on here as I've seen on other pseudoscience sites, but there are a damn lot of articles that try and make science sound evil and corrupt, and yet promote themselves as the only truly scientific authority on a variety of topics, ranging from women's health to genetics, and from nutrition to pharmaceuticals. However, this site, like so many others of its ilk, is just trying to scare people into buying their particular flavor of Woo. Mike Adams, Health Ranger!, tends to be a bit more vocal and aggressive than most other supporters of alternative medicine and organic food. As some of you know, not too long ago, Mr. Adams, Health Ranger!, made a comment basically saying it would be fine if someone were to kill proponents of GMOs. Then suddenly, there was a website, putting a hit on various scientists and skeptics. He claimed to have nothing to do with it, but a bit of internet detective work traced the site back to the same computer he used to manage the Natural News site. To be honest, I'm not sure what has been done about this, or if anything can be done. What I do know is, if you piss off Mike Adams, Health Ranger!, you might end up on an actual list.

There are so many flamin' bullshit loaded sites that choosing only 4 was not easy. I could have used MUFON, CryptoMundo, BFRO, or any number of other sites. I basically decided on my top 4 based on fitting with the 4 horsemen theme, popularity, influence, lack of scientific reliability, and danger. So based on all of this, and the fact that she really pisses me off, I present to you the last of the 4 Horsepeople of Derp!

Food Babe (Admit it, you knew this one was coming!)
Vani Hari is the Food Babe. Plain and simple. This woman lives the role. She famous for saying "If you can't pronounce it, don't eat it." Also, she has said that chemicals don't belong in food. Apparently, she doesn't realize that if you break anything down, at some point, it's all chemicals. That's basically what your body does. Her site has a lot of ads for her books (she has more than 1, what the hell!) and booklets, as well as a couple of ads for various supplements. It is basically her blog, which admittedly looks a hell of a lot better than mine. I'm not shy. She has a tendency to throw the word "toxin" around a lot. I don't know what toxin she's talking about. She never names it, just that it gets in your body. She is notorious for raising 9 kinds of hell about food additives that she thinks are bad for you, and bringing the full weight of the "Food Babe Army" (which makes me want a "Skeptical Okie Army". I'm sure we'd  be way cooler.) against any company and using public opinion to make them change their products, all because it scares her. At the top of her page, right below the picture of her holding a magnifying glass looking at a package of...something, she has a few selection for her readers. They include Investigations, Recipes, Travel, Eating Guides, and of course Shops. Her current front page has a recipe for raw coconut macaroons, This simple food can help Acne, Eczema, Digestive Issues and More! and 3 Things Doctors say You Should Do...But Shouldn't. Here again is that distrust of the medical field that seems to pop up in all these sites, except for InfoWars. I will bet you, if any of these yahoos were to break their arm (I'm not saying it should happen, and I don't wish them any harm), they would be at a hospital in no time asking for a doctor to help them. The Food Babe site is actually a lot cleaner and easier to navigate than a lot of the other pseudoscience pages I look at while doing research for the blog. It's not as cluttered with ads and links, and is pretty straight forward. However, it doesn't change the fact that she is pushing her own brand of B.S. on an unsuspecting public. Ms. Hari says that she researches her claims, and she might. But like most people, both believers and skeptics, she tends to let her bias get in the way. She doesn't want to listen to the other side of the issue, and if someone calls her out and backs up their claim with evidence, she seems to have a tendency to just pull the blog post instead of admitting she was in error. She probably isn't as dangerous as Mercola or Natural News, but due to her influence in main stream media, she does have a tendency to make relatively simple issues way more complicated and difficult than they need to be.

All of these sites, as well as the thousands of others, have a few things in common. They have merchandise they want to sell. They have something they want to say, though I don't know if they actually believe what they are saying or if they are just trying to make an easy buck. They have a very devoted, almost to the point of rabid, following. They all promote some form of junk science or misinformation in a form that makes it easier for large numbers of people to grab onto it and believe it; If you want to keep a bit ahead of what the next weeks conversation at work or when visiting relatives is going to be, take a look at these sites. Just be sure not to read too much at one time. You've seen the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, right? When everyones faces melt. I'm pretty sure that may happen if you spend too much time that far into the Woo side of life. I just thought that I would introduce you to a few of the promoters of the crap that gives critical thinkers and skeptics such headaches. So with that pleasant thought, I shall take my leave. 

Until next time, Be Good, Be Skeptical, and Be sure your phone is charged.

The Skeptical Okie

Mosquitoes....Natures syringes.

Hello loyal readers. The Skeptical Okie seems to be back in business, at least for now. I've got a doozy this time, so lets jump right into it.

This is the topic of the post. Recently at work, I met a very interesting , uh... gentleman? One aspect of my current employment is that I deal with people from every aspect of society. The intellectuals, the uneducated, the rich, the poor, the famous, and the unknown. We had a gentleman come in, and by some odd twist of the universe, I had to speak with him. Actually, there wasn't anything odd about it. He was either scaring or creeping out the other employees, so I got nominated to assist him. Due to the fact that there is a legal matter involved, I can't disclose much information about this person, except to say he was in his 70's, and on a fixed income. (These had no relevance to the case, but are actually fairly important to the reason I'm writing about him.) While I was trying to get all the pertinent information, this fellow began going on a rant about how he doesn't have to worry about any diseases. He said, and I quote, "I take 5 grams of pure vitamin C every day! I ain't got to worry about no damn disease!" I am going to paraphrase the rest of his story, due to the fact he kept repeating himself, and his liberal use of the word fuck, as well as other various combinations of cuss words and racial slurs aimed at the Irish, Germans (which I am a good bit of both) and Hispanics. Now, keep in mind that I am just trying to get his name, age, contact info, and the when, where, and how concerning his incident. He then told me that his doctor told him he had a condition (he tried several times to pronounce it and couldn't. I have no idea what his condition was supposed to be.) He didn't like his treatment option, which was a high level dose of antibiotics. He went to another doctor and got what this guy kept calling a "Super Shot". the doctor then told him to take pure vitamin C and it would cure him. He said he gets it in powdered form, and adds it to his morning orange juice. Something tickled my memory at this point, but I couldn't quite recall what it was. He emphasized that he took 5 grams of vitamin C everyday. I'm looking at him thinking "Why haven't your kidneys shut down yet?" I said that I believe the daily recommended dose is much, much less than that, and that doses that high could have some serious health problems later. I asked if he had spoken to his doctor about taking it, and he told me he had dumped him because he wouldn't tell him what he wanted to hear. Then he told me that he also doesn't have to worry about getting sick because of mosquitoes. I look at him and politely asked him "(What the fuck? was in my head but out loud I said) How does that work?" He informed me that mosquitoes are natures needles. They fly around and they bite someone that's sick. Then they bite someone else and give them just a little bit of the disease. From there, as he put it, "It's science". The person naturally builds up an immunity to whatever the disease is. I asked him what about Malaria, West Nile, Heartworms, Dengue, and Yellow Fever? These are all transmitted by mosquitoes. He then told me that, no, something else does this. What, he didn't know. The only disease that mosquitoes can spread is AIDS. AIDS isn't caused by people humping (his word), or blood, or kissing, it's the damn mosquitoes. I told him I really don't think the virus could live in a mosquito long enough to be transmitted, but he was adamant that it would. While he was saying this, I began sketching the lovely piece of art you see at the top of the page as a way to cope with the massive amount of Woo coming my way. I pressed him for the rest of his relevant info regarding his incident, showed him to the front of the building, and went back to finish my report. I can't understand how one person can know so much wrong. I've been stewing on this for a little bit, partly so I can research it, and also partly due to some legalities and protocols at my place of employment.

So now I'll share what I've found. Starting with the bit about vitamin C, according to the Mayo Clinic, the recommended daily dose is 65-90 mg per day, with an upper limit of 2,000 mg. I've done the math, and 5 grams = 5000 mg. So he is basically taking 21/2 times the upper limit of vitamin C. Some of the symptoms of a mega dose like this are :

• Diarrhea
• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Heartburn
• Abdominal bloating and cramps
• Headache
• Insomnia
• Kidney stones

(You can find this info from the Mayo Clinic HERE)
The last couple of years, mega doses of various vitamins, especially C, have been the popular thing to be offered by a lot of the Alt Med crowd. The problem is, unless you have a nutritional deficicency due to an illness or a genetic condition, most Americans easily get all the vitamins they need in just their diet alone. No need for supplements. Increasing your daily intake of any vitamin rarely does you any good, your body will just get rid of the excess in your waste. So it is literally money down the toilet.

The thing that tickled my mind about being familiar finally fell into place. Around the same time, there was a former doctor going around Oklahoma City offering what he called the Jesus Shot for $300 dollars, and former and current military got a discount. He claimed it would cure you from pain for the rest of your life. His description of the shot sounded similar to what other people had described, and I think he got swindled by the same quack.You can read a bit more about it from the Raw Story HERE. There is also an article from one of our local news affiliates, News9, but I really didn't want to link to it. The comments on the article are very disheartening. Person after person either claiming that his treatments worked for them or someone that they know, or else they are begging, literally begging to know where he is now so they can get the "Jesus shot" to help manage their symptoms. It's pretty damn depressing.

Finally, about mosquitoes transmitting AIDS, Looking through PubMed, I didn't find anything saying that it could be transmitted by this route. From what I could find, outside of a few fringe sites, everyone pretty much agrees that you can not get AIDS from a mosquito. First off, the virus is incapable of reproducing in any arthropod (mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, etc). Secondly, The viability of the virus outside of a human host is extremely short. The virus would most likely die between feedings. You can read the abstract from the NCBI HERE.

So, in conclusion, this guy was severely deluded or mislead, and possibly putting himself at great risk from trusting quacks and hearsay. This is one of the major reasons that the skeptic community and movement exist, to protect people from charlatans, misinformation, and misconceptions. Relying on Woo and pseudoscience can be costly ($300 a pop for a "miracle shot?) and dangerous (not going to real doctors).  We need to pick our battles, yes, and I know that if someone is a true believer in some form of pseudoscience, you are not going to change their mind. But I will still attempt to at least give these people some additional information to hopefully get them looking at a more science based approach to their problems.

So until next time, Be Good, Be Skeptical, and be sure to tip your waiter.

The Skeptical Okie.

Baby Quackery!

Greetings everyone, I'm back!!!!

I know it's been a while since I've written anything on here. There are so many things I want to write about that I tend to stress myself out trying to figure out how to approach it, as well as by the time I can get around to it, most of the skeptical and science podcasts and writers have already covered it, so I think "What other information could I possibly add? I'm just a skeptic with a little, poorly written and opinionated blog in Oklahoma." Due to recent developments, as well as a request from my wife, my muse has finally returned. (I hate it when they go AWOL). Something anyone that is expecting a child will notice is all the odd advice and products aimed towards new parents. There are a ton of different things out there, so I won't cover them all. I'm just going to look at a few that have caught my attention recently.


Homeopathic Teething Medicine
Recently it was brought to my attention that Orajel is now offering a homeopathic version of their teething gel, with the added label of "Belladonna Free". The name of this product line is Orajel Naturals. The reason for this is because in 2010, Hyland's, a very popular manufacturer of homeopathic baby medication, had a recall of their teething tablets due to" FDA notified consumers that Hyland’s Teething Tablets is being recalled because the tablets may pose a risk to children. The tablets are manufactured to contain a small amount of belladonna, a substance that can cause serious harm at larger doses. For such a product, it is important that the amount of belladonna be carefully controlled. FDA laboratory analysis has found that Hyland’s Teething Tablets contain inconsistent amounts of belladonna. " (From the FDA website. The entire article is here) This is actually rather ironic in that a homeopathic medicine actually had a detectable amount of a substance in it, other than sugar and water. For those that don't know, belladonna, also known as deadly nightshade, is a poisonous plant that, to be honest, can have medicinal effects in the proper dosages. If the dose is wrong, however, it is extremely toxic, with symptoms including, according to Wikipedia: dilated pupils, sensitivity to light, blurred vision, tachycardia, loss of balance, staggering, headache, rash, flushing, severely dry mouth and throat, slurred speech, urinary retention, constipation, confusion, hallucinations, delirium, and convulsions.  Death is also a possibility, with a sufficient amount. Of course, the dose makes the poison, and generally, in homeopathic medicine, there are no active ingredients in the final product. (For more information on homeopathy, see my post here). I have personally had an issue with Hyland's for years because of the homeopathic baby medicine, and now Orajel, which has always had a pretty good product, is jumping on the homeopathy bandwagon. I imagine that if a person were inclined to contact them and ask why are they selling these alt med products, they would probably give the standard line of "People want it". I'm really getting tired of hearing that bullshit line. You know what? People want tanks. People want to set things on fire. People want to do lots of shit that really isn't good for them. We don't, as a society, let them do this things. Why should companies be able to sell products that don't work and just say "people want it"? I know a few of the readers out there are saying "What about X pharmaceutical company?" With the big companies that actually make real medicine (and yes, I know a lot of them have gotten into the homeopathic and naturopathic products) have years of testing and re-testing before a product gets to market. Yes, there are occasionally bad batches, or unforeseen side effects, but as a whole, they are fairly dependable, and actually do something, other than draining your wallet. A major issue with homeopathic medicines is that there is very little regulation or oversight. The fact that this isn't even close to the first time that actual medicine (or in this case, poison) has turned up in homeopathic medicines should demonstrate the lack of controls. So, to all the new or expecting parents out there (and I know you guys are getting tired of everyone throwing advise at you) stick with the real Orajel or similar products when junior starts teething. Just be careful and use it only when it's absolutely needed.

I'm going to try and keep it short (if you have a new baby you may not have gotten this far) and only discuss one other topic that I see a lot, and to be honest, pisses me off. 

RANT WARNING
Baby Chiropractic
Don't. Just fucking don't do it. There is absolutely no reason that a baby or toddler should ever be taken to a chiropractor. (which I plan on doing a stand alone post on soon) Your childs  reoccurring ear infections, colic, autism (yes, some do claim to treat autism) or other childhood issues will not be mended by fixing the subluxations in the spine. What can happen is permanent damage to the spine or neck, strokes, or death. As I've said in the past, chiropractors may be able to help with some back pain, but not much else. To top it off, a respectable chiropractor won't touch a baby due to the extreme risk of permanent injuries. There are, of course, chiropractors that claim they specialize in treating children. They always seem to have a ton of clients, and lots of great recommendations that they successfully treated this problem or that. If you want to read some truly horrible stories, just Google the following: Child, Chiropractor, and Injury. There are constantly stories cropping up of children being crippled or worse because a treatment by a chiropractor went wrong. Chiropractic is rarely an answer to an adults problems, and never to a childs problems.

I'm just going to say Be good, Be Skeptical, and Be sure to rotate your tires.

The Skeptical Okie

Margaret Sanger, a lesson in research and picking your battles.

This week, I'm just going to jump straight into the topic because it has got me so pissed off.  Lately, I've been seeing a certain picture popping up on my Facebook feed.  I'm sure some of you have probably seen this one too.  It's:

I have made the mistake a few times of pointing out that the quote on the picture is taken completely out of context from a book that Margaret Sanger wrote in 1922.  The first time I did, someone had mentioned what a horrible person she was for wanting to kill babies.  There were also a few comparisons to Hitler in the thread.  I did a little looking, mostly in Wikipedia and WikiQuote.  This quote comes from chapter 2 of her book "Woman and the New Race".  I found that she was talking about extremely large families where the infant mortality rate and the mothers chance of dying in childbirth increases with every child.  In 1922, the mortality rate among the youngest children of large families was as high as 70%.  Many times, the children died from starvation, typhoid ,or tuberculosis.  I also pointed out that Margaret Sanger was against abortion.  She promoted contraceptive use to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. After making my point, the person that posted it said she hadn't realized this.  She just wanted to show what a wicked person Sanger was and the next day, we had a calm, rational, and informative talk (in real life no less) about the topic.

 The next time I saw this, I simply said read the Wikipedia article or the Snopes article on it and I was thanked by several people.(Rationality for the Win!)

  The most recent appearance of this horrible amalgamation of photograph and quote, everyone in the comment thread was screaming (a lot of them seemed to have gotten their Caps Lock stuck) about how she was a racist.  I simply pointed out that the quote is taken out of context, and in fact, she helped set up the first womens health clinic in Harlem.  Then it got strange.  One person said he could prove she was a racist, as he had been in the Anti-abortion movement for nearly 40 years, and yet he offered no proof.  The next one pointed out that she was a eugenicist, and accused me of basically being insensitive.  At this point I realized that no matter what I said, all it was going to do was incite a flame war.  I don't have time for that crap.  All I tried to do was point out that an organization was taking one sentence from one book she wrote nearly 100 years ago and are using it in their marketing campaign.   If you look hard enough, you can pull the same damn stunt with Gandhi, Mother Theresa, or even your own parents.   I'll admit, she did believe in eugenics,and so did Winston Chuchill, Theodore Roosevelt, John H. Kellogg, Alexander Graham Bell, and George Bernard Shaw. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics and en.wikipediaorg/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States. )   The fact that most of the people seem to be missing is that in 1922, eugenics, which is essentially a human breeding program to improve the species, was a popular idea.  In fact, in the United States, there were 32 states with eugenic programs for criminals and people with mental and/or physical disabilities.  North Carolina didn't end theirs until 1977 and Oregon performed their last mandatory sterilization in 1981.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#United_States and en.wikipediaorg/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States. )  Concerning the claims of racism, while she did view African Americans to be inferior, she did work with W.E. B.Du Bois to set up the first womens health clinic in Harlem. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger )

I found all this info in about 2 minutes, and yes, a lot of it does come from Wikipedia.  There are more "Sanger is evil" articles than there are "Sanger was a normal early 20th century woman" articles, but with a bit of looking, I was also able to find relatively unbiased biographies of her and corroborate them with the Wikipedia article, which also has links to the articles external sources.  She's not an angel, but she's not some spawn of hell either.  She was simply a woman that was doing what she could to help other women during a period of our history when what we consider strange ideas about race and sexuality were considered normal.

By todays morality, and yes, morality does change, she would be viewed as a bigoted, racist woman.  However, when you put the quote in the picture into context with the time it was written in, her views were the norm.  What this organization, the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) is trying to do is to apply the morals of 2014 to a statement from 1922.  It doesn't work.  As people and cultures change, so does the moral fabric of society.  20 years ago, homosexual men were either a joke or plot device in movies and television shows.  Now they are just another character.  In 1968, on the episode titled "Plato's Stepchildren"  Captain James T. Kirk kissed Lt. Uhura.  The day before it aired, an interracial kiss was unthinkable.  Now, most people don't really notice.  You can not apply something as malleable as morals to events that happened in the past.  The farther back the event occurred, the less that present day morals can be applied.   

And by the way, the ACLJ, from what I can determine looking at their website, is a christian law group that views freedom of religion and freedom of speech as inalienable, god given rights. (Their words, not mine)  So of course they would be anti abortion.  Some of the questions on their homepage are "Bible study in the workplace" (not really phrased as a question, is it?), and "Religious groups denied public access".  Under most popular are such pleasant titles as "Stop funding the United nations" and, wait for it...."Stopping abortion, Ending Planned Parenthoods Taxpayer Funds".  Yep, an unbiased legal defense organization.  

  I do try and take advantage of every teaching moment I can, but I also have realized recently that I have to pick my battles more carefully.  The people that will happily butcher and warp the legacy of a historical figure and the people that believe in their cause with every fiber of their being, are not going to be convinced by any facts that you present to them.  But, if they were to put as much energy and time into looking at the claims they are making (and yes, even if you just re post something on Facebook, you are making a claim, unless you have a disclaimer) as they do spouting their vitriolic drivel, then maybe they would be able to build a more solid foundation for their arguments.

Thank you for joining me on this little trip through my mind and what become an almost daily occurrence. Until next time, Be Good, Be Reasonable, and be sure to wash behind your ears.

The Skeptical Okie

WTF folk medicine? (Rant warning)

Hey kiddos, how has everyone been the last few weeks?  It's been ....interesting to say the least.  Chaos at work, at home, at the Skeptical Okie headquarters, and everywhere in between.  There have been some interesting things in the world of science, which have been covered by everybody.  So once again, this is going to be a rant at dangerous, misguided beliefs.

This is a bit off topic, but I highly recommend listening to the Monster Talk podcast.  Blake Smith and his guests do a good job discussing various cryptids and the likelihood of their existence.  I heartily endorse Monster Talk and urge anyone interested in Nessie, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Mothman, and any other cryptids to go and give them a listen,  You won't be disappointed.  (Just let them know I sent you.)

Todays topic once again is based loosely on my work, and it relates back to several previous posts.  I'm talking about, as you can surmise from the title, folk medicine.  What brought this on is an encounter at my place of employment.  As I've said in the past, I work in animal welfare for a largish city.  As I was walking through the dog kennels, I saw an older woman looking intently at a young pup in one of the pens.  I walked up and began talking to her and at some point canine diseases come up.  She stated that her daughters dog had parvo and was nearly dead.  She gave it a wormer, and it was better the next day.  I looked at her and, thinking to use this as a teaching moment, told her that wormer only works on internal parasites, not a virus like parvo.  It will get rid of roundworms, tapeworms, or pinworms, depending on the type of wormer used.  Parvo is a virus, so it has to be treated symptomatically.  She looked at me and said "Nope, it was parvo, I just know it, and the wormer worked, just like always.  Just as a side note, there are some parasite infestations that can cause symptoms similar to parvo, which is why it's important to take your animal to the vet anytime it begins to act ill.  The woman then followed that amazing cure with another one.  She said her 12 year old German Shepherd had had distemper, and been suffering from it for about 5 days.  She put 1 drop of Blue-in in its water and the next day, it was cured.  Surely everyone from the 80's remembers Blue -in?



Image from Google Images
When I asked her what her vet had said about her dog, she said she doesn't go to a vet, because the old ways work the best. (Can you say Argument from Antiquity?  I knew you could.)  If her dog actually had distemper, blue clothing dye wouldn't have had any effect.  Once again, distemper is a virus and needs to be treated symptomatically.  And according to the vet and several vet techs and assistants at the facility, even if an animal recovers from distemper, it normally has neurological damage due to the extreme high fever.  What this woman's dog  more than likely, had was either a sinus infection or Bordetella, also called Kennel Cough.  She probably "medicated" the dog as the disease was finishing it's natural course, and of course it seemed he was cured. (Correlation does not equal causation)

Many folk medicines tend to fall under naturopathy.  Natural cures, herbal medicines, and the like.  They also tend to heavily rely on off label uses of various products.  This just means they aren't using the item as directed.  An anecdotal example is from when I was young.  I found out the hard way I am allergic to Neosporin, so my families idea was to use Corona (not the beer) on my various injuries.



Image from Google Images
On the label, it says "Not for use on humans"   Makes me wonder what my parents thought I was?  Maybe that's why I was always called a Hobbit growing up.  But I digress.  Another one is when my brother, who was about 5, caught chicken pox.  First, he was intentionally exposed, which was a practice that was quickly falling out of favor at the time.  Then he was put into a scalding hot bath and given a shot of Jack Daniels whiskey (that is not a typo) to speed the process up.  I'm surprised, looking back, that any of us survived childhood.

There are almost as many folk cures as there are people and diseases combined.  Some are fairly benign, such as chicken soup or orange juice for a cold.  Some are dangerous, like alcohol to a small child to speed up chicken pox.  Some are deadly, like azarcon, which is a powder that contains high levels of lead some people give to their children for stomach aches.  There are just too many variations, not only based on culture, but also geography, to even start listing them.  However, one thing most of them have in common is that they are generally passed down through the family or culture and have been used for decades, if not centuries.  Another thing they have in common is that if they were effective, then they have been tested and the active ingredients isolated, the effectiveness greatly improved, and are now manufactured by pharmaceutical companies.

As I mentioned in the example of the woman with the 2 dogs, there are also many, many folk cures used on animals.  The ones that come immediately to mind involve garlic and tobacco and motor oil.  If a dog were bred by an undesirable male, then some of the old timers would shove an entire clove of garlic down the dogs throat to induce an abortion.  Many old cowboys would feed their horses a cigarette to worm them.  As I mentioned in my previous post, people used to pour motor oil on dogs to treat them for mange.  Sevin dust sprinkled directly on the animal was a treatment/preventative for a variety of external parasites.

One of the major problems with using folk medicine is that, much like homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, and anything else that falls under the Supplement, Complimentary, and Alternative Medicine (S.C.A.M. Thank you Mark Crislip) umbrella, is that no actual physician is ever consulted.  This means that there is no diagnosis.  Many diseases, from the minor to the fatal, have symptoms that are very similar, generally being "flu-like".  This means that while they may think they are treating something relatively minor, say a chest cold, the victim...sorry, I meant patient, could actually have the early stages of tuberculosis.  The people that promote and practice this crap are what used to be called hedge doctors.  They know a little bit about herbs and a little about diseases, not from education, but from their personal experience or family stories, and put 1 and 1 together and get 3.  Many times, in my line of work, I have heard someone say that their animal had parvo, or distemper, or they were poisoned and they cured them with some asinine treatment.  When I ask them what their vet said, they almost always say they didn't talk to a vet.  They talked to the guy down the street.  He has dogs, so he knows what he's talking about.  By that logic, because I have a microwave, I should be able to diagnose and treat radiation poisoning.  Another issue that many people in the skeptical community will find is that when talking with these people, or at least get them to look at the evidence, they will always fall back on the argument from antiquity, the natural fallacy, and sometimes they will even throw a conspiracy theory in for good measure.  My favorite of the last category is when people refuse to get their animal vaccinated for rabies, or even microchipped because they think the government will use it to track them.  Fun times.

Like I said at the beginning, this one is more of a rant than a researched post, mostly because I have covered most of this in one form or another previously.  I just thought I would throw it out there for those that are new to the skeptical community as an example of some of the misguided, pseudo-scientific bullshit you will run into on an almost daily basis.

I am having problems finding anyone that is willing to talk to me about the Sea Band that was suggested during my call for Woo products.  I still plan on discussing this product, but I don't know when I will be able to write it.  If anyone out there is a neurologist, neurosurgeon, or at this point, if you're neurotic, leave a comment. I will give you their responses to my questions and allow you to respond in kind.  I'm also working on a healing bracelet that has been harmonically synchronized with the Earth's own vibrational field (Urg, I think I had an anurism talking to the guy.)

Until next time, Be good, Be fair, and Be skeptical.

The Skeptical Okie

WTF natural medicine?

How has everyone been?  As usual, it's been hectic here at the Skeptical Okie headquarters, between the strange weather (thanks climate change), work (thanks needing to eat and pay bills), and just life in general (thanks?).

Now on to the main topic.  A few days ago, during the course of my normal day at work, I had to take an animal to a local emergency veterinarian.  While I was there waiting on them to determine the course of action for the kitten, one of the vet techs escorted a family back to see their dog, a schnauzer I believe.  While two of them were talking to the schnauzer, the third one in the group, a rather elderly lady, began looking at the other animals in the recovery area.  She noticed a couple of pups that were in essentially incubators.  The vet came out and told the family what the schnauzer had been doing while in his care.  Then the older woman asked what was wrong with the pups.  The vet informed her that they had a virus, which had already killed 2 other litters that morning. (I don't know what they had because the vet never said)  She looked at him and said "You need to go to a health food store and get some oregano oil.  You rub it on their bellies and they'll absorb it.  They'll be right as rain."  The other 2 people with her were standing there, nodding their heads like it was common knowledge.  The vet looked at the three of them and said that he didn't think it would work on a virus.  She said to do it and he would see it would work.  The vet sort of blinked, said okay, and went back to his office.  The 3 folks were just saying he'll see, and the natural cures work the best.   About this time, the vet tech that was working on the kitten I had taken in was looking at me sort of oddly, and she finally said "You want to say something, don't you?"  Yes, I did, but I couldn't because it wasn't directly related to my job, and I need the paycheck.  One thing I wanted to say was the vet blew a perfectly good teaching moment.  Granted, it probably wasn't the first time he'd heard it, and he may have just given up.  Secondly, I wanted to ask the 3 people, "If natural cures work the best, why is your dog at an emergency vet?"

Looking on the ever trustworthy interwebs for the efficacy of oregano oil, the first site I looked at states that it can be used to treat arthritis, allergies, and wounds, but nothing about viruses. The best sentence of the article says "Though there are no known side effects when using oregano on dogs, make sure to consult your vet immediately in case you encounter any problems."  Then at the bottom of the page, it goes on to talk about a couple of other herbs that are good to use on dogs, including slippery elm, basil, milk thistle, and hawthorn.  Another site only states that it will kill parasites, and yet a third says that it is "Antifungal, antiviral, anti-aging, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, antiparasitic, immune stimulant and antiseptic."(http://www.experience-essential-oils.com/benefits-of-oregano-oil.html).  So feed your dog lasagna, it never needs to see a vet?  The reason that this pissed me off, aside from the fact I really couldn't say anything to the owners, is that, like many people who rely on "natural cures and treatments" they wait until it's too late before seeking actual medical treatment.

When I was looking for the efficacy of oregano oil, and a few other "natural treatments", I kept running into the same websites, namely naturalnews.com, mercola.com, curingherbs.com, a lot of them using some variant of "wellness" "natural" or oregano in their page title.  As soon as I see anything promoted by mercola or naturalnews, my skeptisense begins tingling.  I have discussed these two several times in the past, and I think I'm just going to have to write an article on them, and several other people and start referring people back to that.  Quick rule of thumb kiddos: When doing research on any medical treatment, if they claim something works, say oregano, or Antimonium crudum (no, that's not a Harry Potter spell) and strangely enough, why lookie there, a link to buy what they just said works!  What a coincidence! Yeah right.  The reason that there are links to buy whatever miracle cure you just read about is because it was an ad trying to entice you to buy whatever they're selling.  While looking into this lovely bit of Woo, I did find 2 articles on the first page of Google (using the keywords: Efficacy of oregano oil for dogs) from sciencebasedpharmacy.com.  The articles are Oil of Oregano: All anecdotes, no science and Oil of Oregano – No substitute for the pertussis vaccine.  I couldn't find anything published through the World Health Organization.  The CDC has about 3 pages of published material mentioning oregano.  These seem to consist mostly of articles about rates of exposure, studies about the rates of CAM(complimentary and alternative medicine) used by different ethnic groups, and a cookbook.  In Pubmeds, there are quite a few articles mentioning oregano, but they include ones concerning extending the shelf life of rainbow trout and the chemical components and character of oregano oil.  Yes, there are some talking about it having antibacterial or anti-cancer traits, but I could only read the summary, not the entire article, nor can I find anywhere that these results have been reproduced.  As far as I can tell, the main benefit to Oregano oil is to make a grilled piece of tuna taste even better.

I hope that my slightly ranty article shows that skepticism and critical thought aren't relative to only people, but can be helpful to the various animals that many of us share our lives with.  When I was young, a common treatment for mange was to cover the dog with motor oil.  Need to worm your dog or horse, feed them cigarettes (My grandfather insisted the Camel brand unfiltered worked best).  Your female dog was bred by an undesirable male?  Give her an entire clove of garlic (Just watch out if she tries to lick your face afterwards).  After I got older, and learned a bit of science, I realized that not only were a lot of the hedge doctor cures I grew up with ineffective, but a lot of them were also dangerous. (I guess if the patient dies, you can consider them cured of the problem?)  Now that I'm nearly 40, I'm mildly pissed, and a bit frightened that this crap is still being used.  As I've said in the past, I work for animal welfare, and we often see animals come in that have been covered in oil or paint to "cure" skin issues, cinnamon or sevin dust put on the animal to prevent or kill parasites, and various other "treatments" that people will swear works, yet they are dropping them off at the shelter because the animal has either gotten worse or it died.  I got particularly upset and argumentative with a woman that brought in several adult dogs, 2 litters of puppies, and 2 carriers of kittens and adult cats.  The puppies had parvo, which without medical treatment, is fatal to dogs, the adults were emaciated due to a worm infestation combined with nursing the puppies, and the felines had a variety of illnesses.  When I asked her how long they had been ill, she said a couple of months, and the puppies started showing signs of parvo the day before.  I asked her why she hadn't taken them to a vet and she informed me she had.  When asked what the vet told her to do, she said she didn't like the treatments suggested because they involved "harmful man made drugs".  She finally found a naturopathic/homeopathic veterinarian (do they actually come in that flavor?  WTF!) that prescribed activated charcoal for the parvo, and parsley for the worms. For the cats, the owner had several vials with cheap labels and fake latin sounding names hand written on them.  I won't go into detail, but needless to say, I was asked to step back and go help someone in the back, and let the supervisors take care of it.  On a side note, we had to euthanize everyone of those animals, as well as the others that she brought up later. She had more animals that she was treating for a variety of illness in a similar manner. As I said, Woo is dangerous, not only to humans, but to our fuzzy, furry, scaly, and feathered companions.  So the next time you're tempted give your animal something that claims to be All Natural, or some form of a cure-all, do a little research, consult your veterinarian, and remember, cure-alls cure nothing.

As usual, feel free to leave a comment here. Until next time, Be good, Be polite, and stay warm!

The Skeptical Okie

Conspiracy theories for the beginning skeptic.

Hey kiddos, how has everyone been.  Not too bad here, just trying to avoid getting run over by the truck called life.  A lot of interesting things have been happening in the world of science and skepticism.  Comet Ison, the death of Sylvia Browne, the  Burzynski Clinic back in the news, and the "Dueling Dinos" fossil going up for sale. I'm not going to talk about any of these. Lately, a lot of people have been asking my opinion on a particular topic about an event that happened before most of them were born. And no, I wasn't born yet either, and I wouldn't be for another 13 years. Due to the fact it's the 50th anniversary of the assassination of J.F.K.(Kinda weird what some people celebrate, isn't it?) I've decided to dive into the topic.  Not the with J.F.K in particular, but the larger field of conspiracy theories in general.

What is a Conspiracy Theory?
 Before I get any farther, let me state now that I will never say conspiracies don't exist or happen.  They do.  People work together to get other people fired or arrested, They may form a conspiracy to throw someone a surprise birthday party.(the only benign form of a conspiracy I could think of off the top of my head.)  But one thing to remember about conspiracies is this: humans are involved, and humans suck at keeping secrets.  No matter how much you pay people, or what oaths you make a group take, at some point someone is going to tell,  due to their conscience, accidentally talking about it while inebriated, or wanting a bit of fame that goes along with being part of whatever the act was.  And the more people that are involved, the higher the odds that someone is going to talk.  Now I can come down from my soap box and get back to the topic at hand.
First off, a conspiracy is defined by The Free Online Dictionary as:
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

Basically it means people working in secret to perform an act, normally an immoral or illegal one.
A theory, also from The Free Online Dictionary is:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

The last definition is the one that is related when most people use the term "theory".  In common language, it means a guess, while when using it in the scientific sense, it is an idea or concept that has been tested and proven to be accurate.  So when you break down the term "conspiracy theory" it means "I think people are secretly working against the common good of an individual or group."  When the conspiracy theorists use the term theory and try to make it sound like they have used the scientific process to come to their conclusions, they are still using the the common language form of the term.  They are making a guess, and then finding the information that seems to fit their personal ideas.  The reason that understanding conspiracy theories is important to the burgeoning skeptic is that they tie into almost all other areas of WOO, from alt med (the government and Big Pharma are working to keep this cure a secret), to climate change (the scientists are creating global warming so we have to depend on them for an answer), to the obvious example of government and politics (I really don't have to put an example here, do I?  Okay, fine for you in the back, but next time, be here on time.  How about... The government created A.I.D.S. to hurt the gay/african american/other affected minority groups.)  Often WOO aficionados will use a conspiracy theory to rationalize what they do, and to make what they are doing seem even more legitimate.  Even ghost hunters and those that believe near death experiences will use the scientific community as an evil organization hellbent on keeping information secret.

Common Conspiracies
The reason I started with the assassination of JFK is that pretty much from the day it happened, people have been coming up with various hypothesis' as to why it happened and who did it, And they continue to be debated to this day.  Every time there is a tragic event, some people automatically start coming up with alternative theories.  Think back to the Twin Towers in New York, the Sandy Hook school shooting,  or even Hurricane Sandy.  In each event, some people decided that the official story couldn't be the truth, so they came up with an alternative hypothesis that they felt was closer to the truth, at least as they see it.  With JFK, the ideas are that there were multiple shooters, Oswald was just a scapegoat, the CIA did it, the KGB, or even Vice-President Johnson was responsible.  With the towers, yes there was a conspiracy, but it is unlikely that G.W. Bush was in on it.  The conspiracy was between Al-Qaeda operatives that wanted to cause physical, emotional, and moral damage to the U.S.  With Sandy Hook, the idea is that the Obama administration set up a false shooting event to promote gun control legislation.  With Hurricane Sandy, some people actually believe that Obama caused it using the H.A.A.R.P. facility.  Some other theories that you may have heard of are :

• The moon landing
• The Oklahoma city Bombing
• Pearl Harbor
• The Boston Marathon
• The Holocaust never happening
• Perpetual motion or free energy machines
• Several over the cause or purpose of H.I.V.and A.I.D.S.
• Suppression of the cures for cancer or A.I.D.S.
• Suppression of various advanced technologies
• Weapon testing
• Fluoride in the water
• Suppression of natural, traditional, or alternative medicine
• RFID chips
• Aliens
• pretty much any war or assassinations
• The Templars, Illuminati, or various other shadow groups
• Cloud seeding
• Climate Change
• Subliminal Advertising
• Genetically Organized Organisms
• Princess Diana was killed by the monarchy
• Princess Di, Elvis, and JFK are alive and in hiding
• False flag operations

 How conspiracy theories are created and countering them

It seems to be fairly easy to come up with a conspiracy theory about any given event.  All that you have to do is look at an event, do some research on it, find a detail that you think doesn't sound right, and then do what's called "cherry picking" through the information to find details that fit your personal views.  Cherry picking is when you look at data and pick out the few facts that fit what you want to prove.  What many conspiracy theorists do is they find anything anomalous and build their sandcastle from there.  One example is the infamous Tower 7 during the 9/11 crisis.  This building was used to store federal investigation records. The conspiracy nutters claim that fire alone couldn't have destroyed the steel building, and it was never hit by a plane. While the building wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by part of the twin towers as they fell.  Also, fire doesn't have to "destroy" a building in order for it to fall, it just has to cause enough structural damage to the building for it to no longer be able to support its own weight. (and as a happy note, this is the first time when I've researched a topic, and the skeptical side of the argument has been the majority of web hits that I got on Google.)  I'm not going to go into detail on each and every point of all the conspiracies that are floating around.  Some people have spent their entire career working on just one conspiracy theory, trying to show how and why the official story is the most likely truth.  The thing to keep in mind is that when all the "anomalies" analyzed and put into the bigger picture instead of taken separately, they are no longer an anomaly, but a critical part of the narrative.  You can debate with the conspiracy theorists, but  normally, they do have a lot of in-depth knowledge on the topic that only an expert would have. When talking to them on their topic of choice, they may use the "Gish-Gallop" technique.  This is when a lot of points are thrown out in a rapid-fire manner that doesn't give you a chance to rebuke any of them, let alone all of them.  They may also use the "Galileo" fallacy.  This is when they compare themselves to the famous astronomer and his persecution by the church.   Ad Hoc, Strawman, and Ad Hominem attacks are also very commonly used.  They also tend to use terms in a derogatory manner, such as "official", "truth", and "they" to denote that the official truth of the matter is simply a story that they want the sheeple to follow.  The fans of various conspiracies will also insist that "they know the truth and everything from main stream media is a lie." They can be so devoted to their "cause" that even if you are able to successfully debate every one of their points, they will simply claim that you are being blinded by the government lies, you're on the payroll of whatever shadow group, you need to be skeptical about what you're being told, or only they know what's going on.  Not to say that having a dialogue with these folks is a complete waste of time.  On the rare occasion, you can actually get them to accept reality and let go of their delusions.  The real value of debating these folks, especially in a public forum, is that some people that are on the fence may be pushed into looking into more information, and not just looking at infowars or listening to Coast to Coast AM.  

Why they persist

I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, so I do not have a professional opinion as to why these won't go away.  In my lay-person opinion however, I feel that the main reason people continue to create and believe in conspiracy theories is that they are trying to find a way to make sense of everything going on around them.  In their minds, there has to be a reason why things happen.  Hurricane Sandy couldn't have done the damage it did without someone guiding it.  Kennedy couldn't have been shot by a single disturbed individual on his own, there had to be a larger power backing him.  To a lot of these people, there just has to be someone in charge, otherwise the world is a chaotic, dangerous place where stuff happens for no reason.  Another reason that these conspiracy theories are going to continue to exist is that humans are pattern seeking creatures.  We see faces in power outlets, rabbits in clouds, and gunmen behind picket fences.  This is probably an evolutionary trait developed to keep us from becoming a larger predators brunch.  We may not be able to completely get rid of conspiratorial thinking, partly due to the way our brains work, and partly due to the fact that there are real conspiracies, but hopefully, we can work to lessen there influence and the problems they cause.  The key to defeating or at least countering conspiracy theories is to use, and urge others, reliable sources.  The hard core theorists will simply say that these are dis-information tools used by whatever flavor of secret cabal is out there, but in all honesty, they are the best we have.

Why are they dangerous?

Conspiracy theories are dangerous for several reasons.  Some people become so obsessed with their pet theory that they tend to lose touch with a little thing called reality.  One day they are talking about how Monsanto is trying to use GMO's to control the sheeple(a lovely term a lot of conspiracy theorists use)and a couple of weeks later, the squirrels are attempting genocide against humans by jumping out in front of their cars to make them crash.(and yes, I have heard that from a fellow that actually believed it, he even had documentation.)  They also dilute and distort the real facts behind an event, which causes distrust in any official sources.  Granted, on occasion, there have been real conspiracies that have cropped up.  Can you say Iran-Contra and Oliver North?  How about the NSA (which just got me entered into their database of subversives by golly) and Snowden?   Who out there remembers the WMD's in Iraq?  Yes events like these do happen, but if you compare the number of actual conspiracies to the number that are reported all the time, just a minuscule fraction of a percentage are true.  This brings up another point.  If you'll notice, all of these events became major news after being reported and researched.  The other conspiracies are still met with derision due to the fact that they can't be corroborated and proven.  The lines of evidence have been reviewed and found to be lacking.  Some of the theorists insist that there is a shadow government run by lizards, aliens, the Templar Knights, Colonel Sanders, etc., that is capable of hiding anything or anyone they want to.  Keep in mind they are including the same government that was unable to hide the fact that a president received oral sex in the oval office.  And I don't mean Grover Cleveland.  Besides, do you realize how much power any single organization would have to wield to keep something off of the internet?  If they really had that much power, and the ability to make people disappear, then why are there still conspiracy theorists out there, and not just new ones, but the same ones that have been doing this shit for years?

What can be done, and should we do anything?

There are a few things that we, as skeptics, can do.  First is to TAKE BACK THE WORD SKEPTIC!!!!  The last few years, I have noticed an increasing trend of these folks on the fringes to claim that they are "skeptics" and "skeptical"  about the "official" story.  They claim that they look at more evidence than the official sources, and therefore, they have a special insight into the reality of events.  What they really tend to do is follow a single line of evidence that will lead them straight back to their conclusion.  They don't listen to the actual experts, they listen to people who, at best, may have a personal anecdote to share.  As members of the skeptical community, whether you call yourself a skeptic, free thinker, rational thinker, critical thinker, or realist, we need to take this term back from the lunatic fringe!  They have made it to where the phrase "I'm a skeptic" means that no information will change your mind.  A true skeptic will change their mind with the evidence.  (Sorry about the rant folks, but my news feeds under "skeptic" nowadays have people decrying evolution, climate change, vaccines, and the like.)  Another thing that can be done is to point people towards non-partisan, non-biased sources of information.  These would be websites such as Snopes.com, which is pretty good for quickly taking apart some of the Facebook urban legends that pop up all the time, and Wikipedia.com.  I know people complain about Wikipedia and the fact that anyone can write on almost any article, but they really do have some good controls, and the fact that anyone can write means that bad information will be called out and fixed quickly, provided they can cite and document their sources.  Most of the time newspapers such as the New York Times and newsgroups such as CNN, MSN, and Google News are fairly reliable, but you still have to check the sources, so point them towards any relevant topics at these places as well.  Finally, be reasonable about when and how to approach someone.  If they think that the cat next door is working with the Rottweiler across the street to make their life a living hell, it might be best to point out cats and dogs normally don't work together well and leave it at that.  If someone thinks that the manager at Walmart is secretly putting Illuminati secret pictographs in the bar codes and they need to be taken out before the New World Order can take over, then it might be time to really step in and show them why it is likely not a real scenario, and that they might need psychiatric help.  If they continually post things from InfoWars, Mercola, and the like on FaceBook, find the corresponding article on Snopes and post it as a reply.  Most of all, as long as they aren't posing a danger to themselves or others, deal with them in a calm thoughtful manner.  Find out why they think the way they do, and try and use that reasoning to show them the "other side" of the evidence and let them make a decision from there.  You would be surprised how often people come to a , and because I really don't want to use the word proper, more accurate interpretation of reality

I hope that you found this article at least somewhat entertaining and informative.  I also hope that my American readers have a happy and safe Thanksgiving. If anyone gives you the line about tryptophan putting people to sleep, to keep the peace, just say "yes Uncle Mikey, of course."  As a disclaimer, I actually enjoy listening to conspiracy theories and the people that promote them, such as Jesse Ventura and the Conspiracy Uncovered show that used to be on TV here in Oklahoma.   Alex Jones, I can do without.  That man is such a right wing conservative nutjob, I can only listen to 25 seconds of him talking before I want to facepalm my self, with both hands, balled up into fists, holding boughs of poison oak, while they're on fire.  As usual, you can leave any questions, comments or limericks in the comment section.  Until next time, remember to be reasonable, be kind and rewind.

The Skeptical Okie

.