What's the worst that could happen? How about death?

How's it going folks? If you've been involved in the skeptical community for any length of time, you'll notice a phrase repeated fairly often. When talking to proponents of almost any form of pseudoscience, at some point, you'll hear them say something along the lines of "What's the worst that could happen?" To be blunt, the worst thing that can happen is almost always death or financial ruin. Everyone can point out the dangers of the anti-vaccer movement and the alt-med crowd. But many other forms of pseudoscience can have dangerous results.

Many people feel that a belief in cryptids is a bit of harmless fun, and can be entertaining. Most of the time, this is true. However, some people have sunk large amounts of money into the search for these supposed unknown creatures. They buy the latest and greatest pieces of equipment (that they don't always fully understand how to use properly), rent or buy land that they feel have the creatures living there, buy books, movies, go to lectures, and otherwise spend their hard earned money. Granted, it's not normally as bad as other forms of pseudoscience, but there is still a lot of money changing hands. There are also injuries and deaths associated with cryptids, especially Bigfoot. From CNN.com, there is the story of the poor man that was trying to hoax people with a Bigfoot costume and was hit by a car and killed. From HuffPo comes a story out of Oklahoma. A man was shot during a Bigfoot hunt, and 3 people were arrested.  Of course, they have been a great many injuries suffered by folks looking for various cryptids. Falls, burns, cuts, scrapes, broken bones, and so on, though these are also injuries that anyone can get while hiking and camping, so they aren't really unusual.

Ghosts are another flavor of pseudoscience that is often thought of as being safe and harmless. Much like the cryptid hunters, they tend to buy a lot of equipment (that, once again, they don't often know how to use). They also buy books, go to lectures, and travel long distances to visit supposedly haunted locations. And much like looking for cryptids, it can be dangerous. They often go into dilapidated buildings, run around in the dark, and generally scare the hell out of themselves. From CNN.com, there is a story of a group of ghost hunters investigating a 119 year old train crash and 2 were killed. From WeekInWeird.com comes the story of a group of ghost hunters that burnt down a historic plantation in Louisiana. There are a lot of stories of ghost hunters being shot at, injured, or killed on a site called Theoccultsection.com.

Going to a psychic or a medium is just a bit of harmless fun, right? Not quite. There are dozens of stories about so-called psychics being arrested for fraud. On HuffPo, there are several links to stories of these folks being arrested. From the NYPost site, they have a story of a man being taken for $700k after his girlfriend died. And yet another story from the Skeptics Guide of a poor fellow being taken for a lot of money to remove a "love curse". When it comes to bodily harm and death caused by people going to a psychics instead of an actual medical professional, the CDC and the WHO don't really keep records. However, there are quite a few stories about folks being injured because they heeded the advice of a psychic. The problem with trying to Google these events is that they get buried under dozens of positive results concerning these hucksters. Most skeptical websites, such as Sciencebasedmedicine.org and the Neruologica Blog, will have stories about people being hurt by psychic advise.

Of course, there is the anti-vaccination group. These are the people that will claim that vaccinations can cause autism, cancer, neurological damage, and pretty much any other sort of illness you can imagine. The people that promote the anti-vaccination message are normally the same people that push all the varieties of alt-med B.S. There can be a financial deficit from believing the anti-vaccers, mostly from trying to treat an easily preventable disease. This is definitely a case of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The treatments of  preventable diseases are normally many times more expensive than the vaccinations. From the CDC, there are a lot of numbers concerning people being hospitalized or dying for vaccine preventable diseases. Of course, there is the infamous Jenny McCarthy Body Count site. You can also look at the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Institute of Health (NIH) for even more numbers. This is one of the most dangerous forms of pseudoscience that is out there. Not only is it dangerous to the people that practice it, but it is actually dangerous to everyone around them, especially the very young, the old, and the immuno-compromised.

And of course there is homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, crystal healing, and other alt-med treatments. There are so many stories of people spending their life savings on alt-med treatments that I'm not even going to try and link to the stories. There are also a ton of stories that demonstrate the physical dangers of trusting in these quacks. What a lot of these alt-med practitioners either won't tell you or they don't know is that there can be dangerous drug interactions between actual medicine and their so-called treatments. On Tim Farley's What's the Harm site, he lists not only the number of people that have either died or been injured by naturopathy, but also has economic damage listed for naturopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, and other pseudosciences.

As I said in the beginning, the simple answer to "What's the worst that could happen?" is death. It's almost always death. Putting your trust in any sort of pseudoscience, especially when it comes to a persons health, is a dangerous proposition. I know that anything I write or say is not going to convince the hard core true believers. But hopefully, if anyone is undecided, some of this will at least get you to do a bit of research yourself. And also make sure that you validate the sites you're looking at. There are a lot of them that are just fear mongering sites. They have their own products they are trying to sell, and will attempt to scare you away from actual science in order to make a few bucks. Even though they aren't infallible, the CDC and the WHO are trustworthy sources. They have no financial gains from saying something does or doesn't work. They are simply trying to get the best and most accurate information out there.

Why the skeptical community is important.

Hey folks, I know it's been a while, but I'm back, at least for now. There's been a subject that I've heard come up occasionally in various conversations that I've been trying to put words to for a while. The topic basically breaks down to "Why do we even need a skeptical community?" It's been brought up in blog posts, podcasts, and even in casual conversation, so I thought I'd give my opinion on the matter.

 On episodes 3 and 4 of "The Blue Ball Skeptics" for example, Damion and Chas spoke to Matt and Sharon Madison, a couple that have been involved in skepticism for quite a while (before the founding of  the JREF or CFI). They seem to feel that there isn't really a need for a skeptical community, and during the course of their interview, they state the reasons they feel that way. (To hear the entire interview click this link). 

One of their main concerns deals with a "Cult of Personality" forming around a few key members in the movement (Randi, Shermer, Harris, etc), and dividing the community into various camps for or against various people. I actually agree with them on this fact. We've seen this happen with Rebecca Watson, Michael Shermer, and various other "Skeptical Leaders", for lack of a better term. They become popular in not only the skeptical communities, but also noticed by the various religious and pseudoscience groups, and even main stream media. These people have some very vocal opponents, so any indiscretion is quickly jumped on. By the same token, you have the proponents of these personalities that will verbally rip you to shreds if they think you've written anything disparaging about their favorite skeptic. All I'm going to say on this matter is that skeptics are only human, and we screw up from time to time. I'm not excusing any alleged behaviors, nor am I placing any blame. I do not know any of the major players in our community personally, nor do I have all the information to make an informed opinion one way or the other. I'm simply saying don't elevate someone above reproach, nor reprimand another for speaking their mind, without making sure you know all the details first. Even our heroes should be approached with a skeptical mindset. 

Another issue that they have is the term "skeptical movement", which they state, and I also agree, sounds like a politically driven group. However, I don't have a problem with skeptics being involved in policy making. We have as much right as any other group of people to have a say in the rules under which we live. Religious organizations, alternative medicine, and other such special interest groups have some very powerful lobbyists working for them to push their agendas to the politicians, so why shouldn't we? At least we have research, critical and rational thought, and science backing our claims, versus their wishful thinking and 2000 year old books. Unfortunately, we don't have the same level of financial backing that they do.

Back to the main point of my post, "Why do we need a skeptical community?" I know that people that are much better writers than I am have written on this topic, but I feel the need to add my 2 cents on the matter. I feel that we need a skeptical community, and a skeptical movement, to help show people that they aren't alone. Growing up in the middle of Oklahoma, where you can see a homeopath next door to a psychic, and both go to the same church across the street, you tend to feel very lonely, and slightly frightened if you would rather trust science than have faith. When  looking for others that share your views, you sometimes have to be very careful how you phrase things, especially if you live in a rural area. A skeptical community helps people find others that share common interests and ideas, without the constant fear of being isolated from society. Sometimes you just need to talk to someone that's been through, or is going through, the same things you are. A skeptical community or movement can also show a unified front when dealing with some of the bull that is currently being proposed in the various states legislatures. Normally, there may be a few random people writing to senators or congresspeople to complain about a certain bill, These are usually sent a pacifying form letter and promptly forgotten. However, if there is a group of people that write in expressing similar concerns, politicians will usually take notice. Awareness of the issue may be all that's accomplished, but it's a start, and this is much more easily achieved as part of a group than as a solitary person. 

Another reason for a skeptical community is the sharing of information. Yes, the internet, journals, and books are great sources, but sometimes just being able to talk to someone that knows information that you don't is the best way to learn it. This allows for the quick and instant exchange of ideas and information that message boards, blog posts, magazine articles, or Youtube videos just can't duplicate.

The community doesn't have to have a strict hierarchy, it can just be a loose association of people with a few common interests that sometimes get together to talk about various topics while enjoying a variety of beverages. A loose organizational structure can possibly prevent, or at least slow down, the development of the "Cult of Personality" that seems to have risen in the larger, more organized groups.

I personally feel that the skeptical community is a valuable part of society, and as time goes on, it will become more important and more influential. It also has a bit of an advantage over many other types of communities in that we aren't as driven for fame or recognition as other groups. If we were, more skeptical bloggers would be using their real names and flashier headline grabbing posts. Yes, fame and/or recognition is great, but from what I've seen, most skeptics do what they do out of a genuine love of humanity.

Until next time, be good, be skeptical, and be sure to finish your brussel sprouts.

The Skeptical Okie

Now taking requests. Please comment.

I'm still around folks, just trying to make a living, so unfortunately, the blog had to be put on the backburner for a bit.  I do have a question for anyone that is still reading this.  What topics are YOU interested in?  Cryptozoology, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, urban legends, mythology, or something I've missed?  Let me know and I'll start researching and writing.  I've got so many ideas that they are just jumbling up and I don't know where to start, so I'm asking for your help.  Let me know what areas you're interested in, and I'll start covering them.  Thanks, and until next time, be good, be skeptical, and be rational.

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

.

We're still here, just busy as hell.

Hey folks, just thought I'd put in a quick note to let everyone know that I'm still here and haven't been grabbed by the Men in Black and fed to a Bigfoot shortly before Melba Ketchum tests it for human DNA.  You know how you make plans, set aside time to work on various projects and spend time with the family and then life kicks you square in the ass?  That's been the way it's been for the past few weeks.  Hopefully the dust should be settling done pretty soon and writing can resume as usual.  Currently, I am trying to research the Sea Band product, which is an acupressure wristband that is supposed to help with nausea, especially in pregnant women.  (Makes me think of a scene in Xena, Warrior Princess where Xena and Gabrielle are on a ship and Xena shows Gabrielle a pressure point on her wrist to help her with her nausea, but the side effect is that you will eat anything.)  I am also researching a multi marketing company called Waiora.  Both of these are reader requests, and I will admit that they have taken me quite to get to them, and I apologize.  On top of trying to look into these topics, and trying to keep a look out for other interesting bits of news or Woo to write about, I am trying to get the Oklahoma Skeptics Society up and going and more active in the state as well as looking at building a website for the group as well.  I am also trying to do regular Skeptics in the Pub type meetings.   Keep checking in, and I promise that new posts are coming.  Once again, if you have anything that you want me to look into, or if you have any knowledge of the topics I'm currentlyresearching,  let me know.  You can leave a message on FaceBook on the Oklahoma Skeptics Society page, on Twitter @SkepticalOkie, or email me at skepticalokie@gmail.com, or post a comment here on the blog.  Thanks for sticking with me, and stay skeptical.

The Skeptical Okie

Homeopathy for the beginning skeptic.

Hello everyone. I hope that you're doing well.  I know it's been a while, and I apologize. There has been a lot going on that's prevented me from developing a post for your reading enjoyment.  But now that things have settled down a bit here at the Fortress of Logic, located in the secret basement of the Skeptical Okie Headquarters, I'm back in the saddle.  For the next few posts, I'm going to be covering a general theme, basically alternative (quack) medicine.  These will include homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, faith healing, psychic surgery, and .......  you get the idea.  Some may be over more than 1 topic if they are closely related. Now, before you go "Oh hell, he's going to get technical on me.", no I'm not.  These are going to be a general knowledge posts over the history, what proponents and opponents say about it, what the risks are, possibly some case studies, and from there I'll let you use your critical thinking skills to come to a conclusion.  That's not to say I'm not going to be the normal snarky bastard that you've come to love, or at least like enough to spot me a five at lunch.  I'll probably mouth off when discussing some of the more outrageous claims, but you don't want me to keep that kind of stuff bottled up.  It wouldn't be pretty. (Like I'm ever pretty.)  And I'm still waiting for submissions and suggestions on my project.  If you know of a pseudoscience product that you want tested, let me know.  For more details, go back to post #31, New Skeptical activism project.  And let me know if I need to alter the submissions criteria.  Back to the topic at hand, these next few posts are going to be a sort of beginners guide for people new to the Skeptical movement.  I hope that you find them helpful.

Homeopathy
According to Wikipedia, homeopathy was started in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann under the concept of "like cures like" also called "The Law of Similars".  Basically, if you have a condition, say sneezing, you would dilute pepper, because it causes the same condition, and take it as a medication.  This is supposed to cause the body to react, and cure itself  through your own immune system.  Since then, it has often been touted as a method to cure nearly anything from allergies to cancer.  The popularity of homeopathy has had its highs and lows over the last 200 years, but it has seen a steady increase over the last roughly 30 years.  (Like I said, this is sort of a beginners guide, so I'm not going to get too in-depth over the history) These days, you can walk into nearly any pharmacy or drug store and find something labeled "homeopathic cure".  WalGreens, CVS, Wal Mart, and most of your small mom and pop type places all carry something homeopathic.  (Sorry if I didn't list your favorite store, these are the only ones that are both well known and that I have actually been in.)  In the U.S., there is not really much regulation concerning homeopathic medicine, so I feel that any numbers I am able to find regarding the amount of homeopathy bought, the numbers of different treatments available, or even the number of practitioners are not reliable.  I do know if you open an Oklahoma City phone book (yes, I actually keep a hard copy phone book around.  Comes in handy when dealing with particularly adamant salesmen), you will find a number of listings for alternative and complimentary medicine.  4 in fact.  But, if you drive around OKC, you will see hundreds of signs promoting "all natural homeopathic cures" or some such variation of this drivel.  And you often see people entering the "place of business" (often, it's just a sign someone has stuck in their front yard) to buy something they either think or hope will help them. (I'm not going to make assumptions about the actual product or service they are purchasing, out side of they are buying something from someone in the building)

Methodology
From this point on, I'll be referencing several sources, so I'm going to abbreviate the ever popular Wikipedia to Wp, and as I use other sources, I will give an abbreviation with the first use of their name.
According to Wp, the process of creating a homeopathic medication is rather complicated and labor intensive.  After determining what you ailment is and what your cure should be, (most homeopaths say that to be truly effective there needs to be a one on one consultation to provide the proper remedy.  This is why a lot of them tend to dismiss the 10-23 campaign.  Look up the Merseyside Skeptics Society for more info on this.)  After the consultation with the patient, they consult a homeopathic materia medica, a book with a list of provings and studies.  I'll talk about provings in a bit.  Then the prep work begins.  There are primarily 2 different types of preparation, depending if the initial substance is water soluble or not.  If it is, then they begin the dilution straight away.  The initial dilution rate is 1 gram of the substance in 99 milliliters of liquid, either water or alcohol to make a total of 100 mL of liquid.  Homeopaths call this process either dynamisation or potentisation. (This article is going to kill my spell check)  At this point they dilute the substance with either alcohol or distilled water.  The comes everyones favorite part, the succussion.  They mix it up by hitting the bottle or vial 10 times against an object with an elastic surface. You can find videos of this on YouTube.  Some of them are pretty funny. (Some even use a bible, maybe for added strength?)  They do this because the founder of homeopathy believed that this would activate the "vital energies" of the substances.  Kind of like cutting the corner off of a roast because your mother always did, not realizing she had a small roaster pan. And the dilutions continue.  A quick note about the dilution scale used in homeopathy.  They use what they call the "C scale" or centesimal.  You should remember from you science class that the prefix "centi" means 1/100th.  The substance is diluted by a factor of 100 at each stage.  You will often see the dilution labeled like 6C.  This means that the process has been done 6 times.  So after doing the math, this means that 1 part in one trillion is the "active" ingredient at a 6C dilution.  They have dilution rates as high as 200C to treat the flu, using duck liver.  What effects a duck liver is supposed to cause to be able to treat the flu, I have no idea.  I couldn't find any information as to how they came up with that.   To give you an idea of how dilute the duck liver treatment is consider this:
 A popular homeopathic treatment for the flu is a 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name oscillococcinum. As there are only about 10⁸⁰ atoms in the entire observable universe, a dilution of one molecule in the observable universe would be about 40C. Oscillococcinum would thus require 10³²⁰ more universes to simply have one molecule in the final substance.
You could treat the entire planet until the end of time a million times over from 1 duck.

Now if a substance is not soluble in either water or alcohol, then they use a process called "trituration"  They take the substance and mix 1 gram of it with 99 grams of usually lactose.  They grind them together, and just like the soluble substances, take 1 part and dilute it again, and again, and again, etc...  Then either way, the final product is added to a relatively inert substance that has been pressed into a pill.  The primary delivery agent used is a sugar pill.  Every site I looked at gave almost the exact same steps for preparing a homeopathic cure, and believe me, there are a lot of them out there.  There are a few differences.  Some try and stay pure to the roots and do everything by hand, others have updated the process.  A funny one is  WholeHealthNow.com (WHN) .  You can read a description of their process here .  It's funny because of the lengths they go in terms of machinery and tech, but try and remain traditional.  So that's the quick and dirty on dilutions in homeopathic preparations.  Now to look at how they determine what treatments are effective for what conditions.

Proving
According to RationalWiki (RW), :
A proving records the experiences of the "provers", usually a dozen or so people who consume the remedy over a period of time. Their thoughts, feelings, dreams and habits are then recorded in what is often termed the "Materia Medica" (from the Latin meaning "collected body of knowledge") and analysed.

According to the New York School of Homeopathy,:
A proving is the testing of a potentized substance to find out which symptoms that substance is capable of producing, and hence curing. A proving is conducted on volunteers who are in a reasonable state of health (provers), and who do not know what substance it is they are taking. Doses are repeated until provers start to experience symptoms of a change in state. The provers record everything they experience, whether physical, emotional, mental, or even spiritual, as long as the change in state persists. At the end of the proving all the records are compared to find the physical symptoms, states of mind, feelings, and experiences that the provers have had in common, which can reasonably be attributed to the emerging signature resonance of the substance. 

Basically what this means is that, given the other fundamental of homeopathy is "like cures like", they have people take a substance they want to test, and then self report how they feel over a period of time and compare to the symptoms they want to treat.  And at this point I must unfortunately give credit to the first homeopaths for actually developing what would one day become the clinical trial.  It's like alchemists developing chemistry.  They were soooooo close.  From these provings, they take the data and determine what conditions it will treat.  (I would have loved to see the looks on peoples faces when the guy said "I think this duck liver will treat the flu")  A little backwards from a clinical trial, but I'll give them a B- for effort.  Hahnemann, in the first provings used undiluted substances and went from there.  According to Wp, most modern practitioners tend to use ultra-dilute forms.  The problem with ultra dilute homeopathy is that it is highly improbable that any of the original substance is actually in the treatment.  This is where "water memory" and the placebo and nocebo effects come into play.  There are some exceptions to this.  On occasion, the makers of homeopathic medicine have been known to actually put real medicine in their products, and then claim that because shows to have an effect, all homeopathy works.

"Water Memory", and the Placebo and Nocebo effects
According to homeopaths, water has the ability to "remember" substances that have come into contact with it, hence the reason that they use distilled water for their dilutions.  Never mind the fact that every bit of water on the planet at some point or another has passed through the urinary tract of one creature or another.  Most research on this has basically shown it to be a false assumption.  One piece of research that got a lot of media attention and had the homeopaths claiming that they were right all along is a study by Luc Montagnier, the man that helped discover the HIV virus.  In a new study, he found that he could basically replicate a strand of DNA from electromagnetic signals in diluted water.  This study is unfortunately way above my pay scale, and the newest info I could find on it was from 2011.  I believe they are still trying to replicate his results.  Returning to homeopathy, there is no reason to assume that water can "remember" the traits of a substance that it has come into contact with, especially at the dilution rates that homeopaths prefer to use. If it can, why does anyone ever get sick?  hasn't all the water come into contact with all the things?  Shouldn't it have the memory of everything?  (There is also no reason to assume that just because something makes you cough violently that it can be used to treat a similar symptom.)  The placebo effect is often heard when discussing any medicine, the nocebo effect isn't talked about as much, but it is probably just as important.  The placebo effect, which translated from Latin means "I will please" is when you feel an improvement because you think you will.  Doctors have used it for ages.  The problem is trying to separate the effects of the medication and the placebo.  This is normally accomplished by using a double blind test.  This involves blinding the test subjects and the testers.  This prevents anyone from knowing who is receiving a sugar pill and who is receiving actual medication.  Given the fact that homeopathy uses sugar pills, it is really difficult to separate the two.   Nocebo, translated from Latin means "I will harm" and it is the exact opposite of the placebo.  You feel bad because you think you will.  Both of these, placebo and nocebo involve not only psychology but anatomy also, so they are much more complicated than I am making them out to be.  In simplest terms,  you feel the way you think you should.  If you look up studies concerning homeopathy, you will often see the phrase "no better than placebo effect.

Studies
When it comes to homeopathy, very few areas of medicine have had as many studies concerning their efficacy.  Of course, when searching for study results, they can be extremely biased.  Groups like Natural News, Whole Health Now, and other groups that tend to have the words Health or Natural in their name will tell you that the results show that homeopathy is more effective than placebo, with varying results.  If you look at groups like the NIH in England, WHO, or the CDC, they say either the effects are no better than placebo or that more studies are needed.  With the CDC, they actually recommend that people not take homeopathic anti-virals for malaria.  I was unable to find any studies that either definitively prove that homeopathic medicines work beyond the placebo effect.

Risks
Just like any other medical treatment, there are risks.  Unlike others, there aren't any directly related to homeopathy, which is part of the appeal.  The practitioners claim that there are no side effects from using their products, and this is the most factual claim that they make, unless you're diabetic.  The main risk, just like with other alternative medicines with a dubious efficacy, is when people with life threatening conditions use them instead of traditional western medicine (can I just say actual medicine?)  When someone uses homeopathy to treat cancer, malaria, HIV and AIDS instead of seeing a medical doctor, then they are effectively taking their life into their own hands.  To sum it up, the biggest risk for those with truly serious issues, not just a cold or itchy skin, is death.  For anyone else, the biggest risk is a lighter wallet, and sometimes an actual reaction to something in the medicine.

Conclusion
Given what I know of chemistry, biology, and even the water cycle, my opinion is that when it comes to homeopathy, all you are getting is a sugar pill labeled with scientific sounding names and an overly complicated manufacturing process.  That is my personal hypothesis, and you are free to make your own conclusions.  Honestly though, if I had a serious illness and was seeking treatment, someone that is following a 217 year old recipe for a sugar cube and believes that water knows what's been put in it is the last place I would go

I hope that this introduction to one of the major pseudosciences has been as entertaining to read as it was to research.  I couldn't fit nearly everything in a simple blog post, so I suggest you look into a few aspects yourself.  If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave them in the comment section.  Until next time, be good, be reasonable, and be a good example.

The Skeptical Okie

Autism denial a.k.a "The world gave my kid Autism!!!"

I hope everyone's month has been pretty good.  I also hope you survived the zombie/giant chocolate rabbit celebration and no one ended up in jail due to a lack of foresight of the consequences during April Fools Day. This article is going to be long, mostly because there are a lot of points that need to be addressed and I tried to get to them all.  And if you could, please leave a comment.  This would at least let me know that people are actually taking an interest in what I'm  doing.  It doesn't have to be anything deep or meaningful.  even a Hi would do.  Or a G'Day mate from the several Aussie readers out there.

This item was brought to my attention recently by a concerned person, and they asked me to look into it.  The title of the article is "I gave my son Autism" and as best I can tell, it actually wasn't written by Jenny McCarthy.  The entire article is found here .  The website that it's on, Thinking Mom's Revolution, seems to be an autism activism website.  Among this groups "resources" are:
The National Vaccine Information Center-  Reads like an anti-vaccers website, complete with the Vaccine Freedom Wall and the Vaccine Victim Memorial
Natural News Radio-  First article on the wall as of 4-1-2013 is about the lies spread by the CDC
They have quite a list, and they all read about the same, and I'm not going to try and list them all here.  Vaccines kill or permanently injure, the government lies, doctors are just in it to make money, etc...  You can find the entire list here.  They also have an ad with a blurb from Jenny McCarthy that states "The most amazing, inspiring, ball busting, loving bloggers out there.  You chicks rock.  Love you."  You know with a commendation like that, the research and fact finding has to be top notch.  I'm not saying that all the authors lean to alternative medicine and conspiracy theories, but, it does seem that the majority of them do.  The members all seem to have one of three things in common.  1) They have multiple children, all of whom have various health issues. 2) Stated to have strong christian beliefs. or 3) Believe that their children can overcome or "shed" their diagnosis of autism.  Some have all three, others only 1 or 2, with a couple of exceptions.  But these factors seem to tie the majority of members together.  I'm not going to go any farther into the website, mostly because I like to keep my blood pressure below the burst blood vessels stage.

Before I go into the blog post, I'm going to take a moment to discuss autism.  According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control) "Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are a group of developmental disabilities that can cause significant social, communication and behavioral challenges."  According to the NIH (National Institute of Health) :

Autism is a group of developmental brain disorders, collectively called autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The term "spectrum" refers to the wide range of symptoms, skills, and levels of impairment, or disability, that children with ASD can have. Some children are mildly impaired by their symptoms, but others are severely disabled.

ASD is diagnosed according to guidelines listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition - Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR).¹ The manual currently defines five disorders, sometimes called pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs), as ASD:

• Autistic disorder (classic autism)
• Asperger's disorder (Asperger syndrome)
• Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS)
• Rett's disorder (Rett syndrome)
• Childhood disintegrative disorder (CDD).

The causes of autism are believed to be partly genetic and environmental.  It is a very complex issue, with no definite answers.  There are strong genetic links to autism, but it also turns up in families with no history of the disorder, which implies a random mutation.  It could also be that some environmental factors could trigger the symptoms in one person, and an entirely different set of circumstances impact another.  This is the part of scientific research that causes most people the most problems.  Science has to say "I don't know" when it doesn't know.  We can research and begin to rule out possible causes, and then we're left with the most probable.  A lot of the anti vaccine crowd often touts (former)Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his 1998 paper claiming that the MMR vaccine causes autism.  This paper has been ripped apart, debunked, and basically called a bogus piece of shit.  Wakefield, who had developed his own vaccine and was trying to market it, did a very poorly conducted study with just 12 kids.  It was later found that he either tweaked or misinterpreted the data for his own ends.  Wikipedia and CNN.com both have fairly good write-ups on the issue.  He has since been banned from practicing medicine, and he has launched several lawsuits for defamation.  When putting his name into Google, I did find numerous pages supporting him, namely ones like naturalnews.com, drwakefieldjusticefund.org, and mercola.com, just to start with.  Natural News scores about a 9 on the Skeptical Woo Scale (SWS, trademark pending), and Mercola is a "natural health" website, and the justice fund is self explanatory.  Considering the number of studies looking to find a link between vaccines and autism, very, very few have ever found a correlation between them.  Thimerosal, a preservative used in some vaccines, has been the main culprit that has been blamed.  It has been phased out of most vaccines in this country since 1999.
Some people also claim certain foods are to blame, such as aspartame, caffeine, or GM crops.  Once again, no single thing has been proven to be the main cause.
And now to talk about what started all this.  On the Thinking Mom's Revolution site, they have a blogger who goes by Mountain Momma, and she wrote an article in 2005 called "How I gave my son autism."  She starts the article with stating she was raised Catholic.  Through all of this, keep in mind that this is a religious group that guilt is inherent to their beliefs.  She states "..idea of forgiveness is still critical to how I walk through life."  She initially places all the blame for her son having autism on herself and choices she made while pregnant, but it quickly devolves into trying to find a scapegoat so she doesn't have to take all her perceived blame on her own shoulders.  She does list the ways she gave her son autism, and we're going to go through them.  So go and grab a sandwich and a beer or 3, you might need it. (If you don't drink the third one, send it my way.  I need it after digging through all of this.  I did enjoy doing the research, but there were times that I felt like face palming myself with a baseball bat.)  
1) Ultrasounds- Mountain Momma (from now will be M.M., so I don't wear out the m key) says that she had 5 ultrasounds during her pregnancy.  She claims that there is an implication that ultrasounds cause autism.  Her link in the article leads to the ICPA website.  This is the International Chiropratic Pediatric Association, and in the header of their page, my Skepdar (once again, trademark pending) went off as soon as I saw the word "wellness".  I looked through the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, and I found 1 article immediately that said that ultrasounds were not likely to cause the disorder, but I couldn't find any definitive studies.  You can read the article here.  
2) High Fructose Corn Syrup- M.M. says she drank Coca Cola (no, that wasn't product placement, I get no money from Big Soda) every day during pregnancy.   The link she has to Livestrong.com, claims that Coca Cola has 62 ppT (that's parts per trillion).  The reference from here leads back to her other link, which is the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.  They claim to have tested 55 products and found mercury in  about 1/3 of them.  The links on their page are dead though and just take you back to their home page.  I couldn't find much of anything concerning this.  Not from the USDA, the FDA, or any reliable sources on the web.
3) Lortab/Acetaminophen- M.M. claims her O.B. gave her Lortab for fibermyalgia.  She says that it is a Category C drug, and even though she couldn't find any specific links, common sense should have dictated that this wasn't good.  I was unaware of the categories, so I went to Wikipedia and found this:

United States FDA Pharmaceutical Pregnancy Categories
Pregnancy Category A	Adequate and well-controlled human studies have failed to demonstrate a risk to the fetus in the first trimester of pregnancy (and there is no evidence of risk in later trimesters).
Pregnancy Category B	Animal reproduction studies have failed to demonstrate a risk to the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women OR Animal studies have shown an adverse effect, but adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women have failed to demonstrate a risk to the fetus in any trimester.
Pregnancy Category C	Animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.
Pregnancy Category D	There is positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from investigational or marketing experience or studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.
Pregnancy Category X	Studies in animals or humans have demonstrated fetal abnormalities and/or there is positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from investigational or marketing experience, and the risks involved in use of the drug in pregnant women clearly outweigh potential benefits.
Pregnancy Category N	FDA has not classified this drug.

Cat. C drugs are basically used if the benefits outweigh the risks.  Her wording implies that she was specifically looking for links between autism and Lortab.  This is trying to prove an idea by bending the research to fit (Andrew Wakefield comes to mind.)  

4) Pitocin- M.M. states that during an ultrasound, it was revealed that her water was getting low, so they decided to induce labor.  After several hours, the hospital encouraged her to sign a waiver allowing them to increase the level to "illegal" levels.  As far as I could find, there are no waivers that allow any hospital to exceed the legal limit of any form of medication.  The link she provides here once again leads to the ICPA website.  for those that don't know, pitocin is used to induce labor, and is a synthetic form of oxytocin.  (When I Googled pitocin, a lot of the first articles that popped up were from sites such as natural child birth and natural news.)

5) C-section-M.M. had to have an emergency c-section instead of the natural child birth that she had been hoping for.  She states that "Because I had made the bad decisions about the ultrasounds that led to the bad decision about the Pitocin that led to labor trauma, I ultimately had to have an emergency C-section"   Basically, she is blaming her previous medical procedures for the necessity of a c-sections rather than complications that do occur during labor.  She links to an article by George Malcolm Morley, who claims that using a clamp during a c-section is 4 times more likely to result in autism or Cerebral Palsy.  In reading the article, which appears to have used primates in the study (and yet M.M. doesn't trust Lortab because not enough human tests have been done?  Can you say cognitive dissonance?), he also mentions that "for every 100 women that get a bachelors degree, just 73 men earn one"  He starts this line with the fact more women are going to college, and at the end, seems to blame it on autism.  He has quite a few articles on the effects of cord clamping, and they all appear to look negatively on the procedure.  I also found an interesting comment on http://pediatrics.aappublications.org, the website for Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.  You can read it here.  Basically, he doesn't like their methodology because is doesn't look like his, and they came to the conclusion that clamping more than likely has very little effect on the development of autism.  In the article that M.M. uses, Dr. Morley states "Dozens of studies correlate infant iron deficiency anemia with low IQ"  He doesn't list any.  even though M.m. uses this to show that her c-section is yet another cause of her sons autism, the author never states that c-sections are a factor. Instead, his career seems to be based on cord clamping causing all types of neurological disorders.

6) Antibiotics- First, I have to say DERP!  M.M. says her son was exposed to antibiotics while in distress during labor, then through her breast milk, and then 5 times for chronic ear infections before he was a year old.  Then at his 6 month check up, he got his vaccinations and a prescription for Amoxicillian.  She says this turned his bowel movements watery and acidic enough to flay the hide off of his bottom and he developed an upper respiratory infection.  He also received a single dose of Augmentin, which she has a link for.  This link leads to PRWeb, which seems to be a general news page.  The day I looked at it, in the science section, there was a glowing review of an astrologer.  Not an astronomer.  That should give you a hint right there.  I found a couple of legitimate articles that state that there is little to no link between autism and antibiotics.  I also found many articles, mostly of the ilk I've already mentioned like natural news and prevent autism, that claim there is.  Personally, I'll lean towards the peer reviewed, blinded results over a correlation-causation argument.

7) Vaccines- You knew this one was going to make an appearance, didn't you.  M.M. informs the readers that she has Fibromyalgia, and that autoimmune disease and digestive disorders (Celiac Disease?) are on both sides of the childs family.  Her son had jaundice, cephalohematoma ( hemorrhage of blood between the skull and the periosteum of a newborn baby, caused by a prolonged second stage of labor), rashes, severe reflux, chronic rhinitis(  inflammation of the mucous membrane of the nose ), ear infections, and eczema.  At this point, she has left her pediatrician, and found a new one that informs her that with all of his problems, her son should never have been vaccinated.  Granted, some people are incapable of receiving vaccinations, usually because they are allergic to one or more of the ingredients or if they are severely imunocompromised.  The link she provides here takes you to the Adventures in Autism website, which sounds like a horrible Disney ride.  The top of the article says "I will just start archiving studies that support the vaccine/autism link."  This website basically cherry picks the data it wants that supports its views.  M.M., at the time that she wrote it says that they have over 60 studies that prove a link.  She doesn't mention the hundreds that show no definitive link between autism and vaccinations.  M.M.'s article was written a bit before Wakefield was discredited and he lost his license to practice medicine.

8) Acetaminaphen/Paracetamol  M.M. calls this "red, liquid death".  She says that it shuts down the body's production of gluthione, the "#1 antioxidant"  Looking up gluthione, one of the first articles I saw was by video by Dr. Oz.  Of course there was a number of articles from Natural News and Mercola, and strangely enough, a lot of ads from supplement companies.  There were some articles from WebMD warning about possible side effects.  If you Google the term "#1 antioxidant", you get a lot of very differnt results, ranging from coffee and blueberries to smoothie recipes.

9) Fluoride-  We almost forgot this one. Apparently, vaccines and fluoride cause almost every terrible disease that "main stream" scientists haven't figures out the exact cause or cure for.  In her blog post M.M. uses the phrase "One of the biggest scams ever perpetuated on a population in the history of mankind"  She has 2 links in the paragraph, one links to SLWeb.org, which is an anti-fluoride group, and the other one is for earthclinic.com.  I couldn't look at this one, because it was either down for maintenance or configured incorrectly.  It's been like this for more than a month.  She says that the fluoride in the water she was buying for her son can bind to the aluminum in the vaccines and transport it through the entire body.  She claims it is more toxic than lead, and slightly less toxic than arsenic.  This depends on it's formulation.  She also says that it can cross the blood brain barrier, but everything I can find from actual medical websites is that, aside from being part of the plasma in your blood to begin with, the barrier is thought to reduce the transfer.  I can't find anything that shows a link between autism and fluoride.  At least anything that doesn't come from Natural news, Mercola, and other quack sites.

10) Everything else on the planet-  She finishes her article saying that diet, toxic cookware (teflon, copper, aluminum, stainless steel? Or is she using a cyanide/uranium based cookware?), benzocaine teething gel, and toxic building materials are all to blame for her childs autism.  (Munchausens?)  She says that she is at fault, yet somehow manages to place the blame on the medical community, big business, and everyone else.  She never acknowledges that autism may be caused by a genetic condition.  I don't think that she is to blame for her sons condition.  It can happen to anyone.  What I do have a problem with is her trying to find blame on everything around her.  I know this is a grief response and she is trying to find some answers, but she is basically lashing out at anyone or anything she thinks may be responsible for her sons autism.

Then I went through the comments.  A lot of the people tell her that she's is a brave woman for finding the truth about the cause of her sons autism, and that telling everyone is a noble thing to do.  One of the people said she should try Neurological Reorganization.  This is a hypothesis (to use the proper term) which basically says that mental handicaps may be caused by a missing learned motor skill.  Basically, a developmentally challenged child may be that way because they learned to walk before they crawled.  So the answer is to have them go back through various exercises that recreate learning these skills to cure, or to use the new alt med buzz word, shed their condition.  As far as I can find, this has never been proven to be accurate.  (I personally walked before I crawled, and I'm relatively normal) Another person writing in the comments suggests using a juicer or weed (yeah, lets give marijuana to a little kid.  Or were they suggesting it for M.M.?).  And yet another one suggested a strict plant based healing diet.  There were a lot of people offering support to the author, and her views on autism and her thoughts on the causes.  Any person that suggested that the medical community wasn't at fault, or suggested reputable, peer reviewed research was viciously attacked and told to open their eyes to the truth.

It's stories like these, and the people that propagate the ideas behind them that make me glad we have people like Tim Farley and his "What's the Harm" website, as well as the people behind the "Jenny McCarthy Bodycount".  When people are scared or upset that their child has a condition, and they want to know why, they often become upset when science has to say  "We don't know." and turn to mysticism or alternative medicine because it will provide an answer.  It may be chi, chakra, problems in a past life, humours are no longer aligned, Pluto is in the wrong house, whatever.  Making up reasons is what quack medicine does best.   Just remember that when some of the anti-vaccers say  that "X" causes autism, true science has yet to determine what the exact cause is, though a large number of things have been ruled out.  Until a true cause has been found, everything else is pure speculation.  In this regard, they are very similar to conspiracy theorists, and quite often have the same beliefs.

I know this was a long one, and thanks for sticking through it until the end. Until next time, Be Good, Be Thoughtful, and have fun.

The Skeptical Okie