If vaccines are so safe, why fear the willingly unvaccinated?

Okay folks, as seems to be the norm lately, this is going to be based on a Facebook meme that's been making the rounds, showing up in my feed several times a day, and royally pissing me off. This time I held off on making any comments, at least on-line. Especially after I read the comments. I am going to try and paint a picture for you. Imagine, there are 2 women, one wearing a red dress and pointing at the other, who seems mildly surprised. In the upper 1/3 of the image it says "Why would my unvaccinated kids be a threat to your vaccinated kids, if you are so sure vaccines work?" In the bottom 1/3 it says "NaturalNews" Yep. Fucking NaturalNews being used as a source of information to prove that vaccines don't really work. Or at least confirming certain peoples biases. Great. Bloody, flamin' great. I was very tempted to try and clarify that they do work, and have been shown to be effective, but I opted to read the comments first. Then I closed Facebook, got up, and contemplated slamming my head into a tree. Unfortunately, these sorts of sentiments aren't uncommon, though they aren't exactly rare either. The anti-vaccine movement has actually existed since Jenner gave the first smallpox vaccine, so roughly 219 years ago, as of 2015. Or you can go farther back to a process called variolation. There is a fascinating website called "History of vaccines" with an amazing timeline that you can see here. Because the history of vaccines is surprisingly long and detailed, and there is no way I could do it justice, I am not going to really get into it much. However, I am going to talk about how, much like the zombies from "The Walking Dead", we should fear the willingly unvaccinated.

Vaccines:

Lets start with a definition, shall we? A vaccine is, according to Dictionary.com, :  any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production.

There are also 2 main types of vaccines. The first is called a "Live Attenuated" vaccine. These are created by modifying a living virus into a form that is no longer as virulent. The second form is called an "Inactivated" vaccine. These are created by killing the virus, either by formaldehyde or heat. In either case, the main purpose of a vaccine is to cause a reaction in the body's immune system similar to the actual disease. This causes the creation of antibodies that will recognize the virus in the future and attack it. Neither type of vaccine will have any sort of an effect on bacteria. There are vaccines for most disease causing viruses, with a few notable exceptions. Ebola is one that has received a lot of attention in the past year, though they are fast tracking at least 1 viable vaccine. AIDS, of course, is another, though there is hope that one may developed soon. Vaccines have played an enormous role in not only protecting people from some pretty serious illnesses, but in expanding our life expectancy, reducing infant mortality, and improving our overall quality of life.

A brief look at the anti-vaccer arguments:
Lets take a quick look at some of the arguments that the anti-vaccination crowd often uses as their reasoning for what they believe.
A major talking point for the anti-vaccination crowd are the ingredients in vaccines, namely the MMR (Mumps, Measles, and Rubella). You will often hear them complain about the toxic materials in the shots such as formaldehyde, mercury, the virus itself, and Thimerosal ( a type of mercury). Funny thing is, in the MMR vaccine, it has never had Thimerosal. As a matter of fact, very few vaccines do, or ever have. The FDA has an interesting page on Thimerosal in vaccines, which you can look at here. I really recommend looking at it, it's pretty interesting, and it will give you some facts and figures on various vaccines. The reason that Thimerosal and mercury are the major issues is due to the Wakefield study, which claimed there was a link between autism and vaccinations. This line of thinking has been disproven dozens of times in independent studies, the paper retracted, Wakefield has lost his license to practice medicine because of how he performed the study and basically lying about the results. Yet many people will still claim it's the truth because it confirms their personally held beliefs.
Another argument that you might hear is "Too many, too soon".(I have also seen 2 many 2 soon and two many two soon.) The thinking behind this is that children today are getting too many vaccinations, which in turn leads to a toxic buildup of dangerous chemicals. Once again, wrong. The vaccination schedule is carefully considered by medical professionals before being recommended. I seriously doubt that they aren't going to hold their kids to the same schedule as everyone else. If they thought it was dangerous, they would recommend against it. Simple as that.
And yet another argument is that the diseases are mild, and nothing to be concerned about. This is not only wrong, but dangerous thinking. Measles, Mumps, and Rubella are all 3 dangerous diseases that can easily lead to multiple problems, including encephalitis, miscarriages, sterility in men, and even death. Ironically, Rubella infections while pregnant, may actually be responsible for some cases of autism. Much of this information, I found on the AntiAntiVax site, which has links to their sources. Anecdotally, I will also say that, as someone that has had the measles, I do not want to see anyone suffer through that.
Another oft repeated bit of drivel is that it wasn't vaccinations that reduced or eradicated diseases, it was sanitation. While it's true that sanitation has played a very important role in preventing or limiting the spread of various diseases, it is a minor player when compared to the effect that vaccinations have had. There are areas of the world where sanitation is limited, if not non-existent, and yet diseases are relatively kept in check by vaccinations. There have been multiple cases where the sanitation was adequate, and yet disease outbreaks kept happening. For an example of this, look up Typhoid Mary.A quick synopsis is: Typhoid Mary was a cook for several wealthy families. Generally speaking, the wealthy didn't suffer from many of the more communicable diseases. However, the people that Mary worked for kept catching Typhoid Fever. Turns out she was a carrier for the disease.
There are other arguments that crop up, such as "It's against God's will", and "They aren't natural" or "Diseases are a part of nature", and "They cause cancer" and so on. The ones I mentioned above are the primary Big Four that you will probably hear most often.

Why to fear the willingly unvaccinated
There are a few reasons why you should fear the unvaccinated. It's not because you think that unvaccinated kids might get your vaccinated kid sick. Nor is it because you have any doubts about the efficacy of vaccinations. These are horrible misrepresentations of the true reasons that people should, at the very least, be wary of the willingly unvaccinated. The first one is because of the people that are unable to be vaccinated. By this, I mean folks that are already immunocompromised, are allergic to an ingredient in the vaccine, or are too young to receive the vaccine. These people are at the greatest risk of contracting an illness. The very young, the very old, and the immunocompromised, are also at the greatest risk of dying from any of the vaccine preventable illnesses. All it takes is 1 person that is shedding a virus at a daycare to do some serious damage. There are also entire communities, such as the Amish, that could be wiped out by some of these diseases because, for the most part, they aren't vaccinated either. Their main form of protection is their isolation from society at large. I don't really approve of religious exemptions from vaccinations, but as a single person, there isn't much I can do.
A secondary reason to avoid the anti-vaccination crowd is that vaccines do on occasion fail. The failure rate for the MMR vaccine is roughly 2-5%. It's hard to get an exact figure because you don't know it failed until you're exposed and catch the illness. The CDC has some interesting information and figures here. Another reason that they might fail is because the target virus may have mutated or altered in an unforeseen way, such as the flu. While the vaccination may not completely stop you from catching the disease, it can still help mitigate the effects and make it less transmissible to other people. Vaccines may also fail if they are improperly made, if the virus is already established in the bodies cells, and on occasion the maternal antibodies will interfere with the vaccination. Also, there is a slight chance that the vaccine may have become denatured either during storage, or during administration. Even given the reasons a vaccine might fail, the odds are still in your favor if you go ahead and get it.
Finally, there are a couple of little things called The Germ Theory of Disease and Fomite Transmission! As you should hopefully know, the germ theory explains that diseases are caused by microorganisms. Fomite transmission is where a disease is transferred by contaminated equipment, clothing, or any other inanimate object. Anyone, vaccinated or not, can accidentally carry a virus from one location to another. That's one of the things that makes the flu such a bitch for the medical community to try and keep it under control. That, and the fact it changes faster than a politician during an election year. While most viruses can be transferred from location to location, each type has a different habitat in the human body. Some will live in mucus, other in the saliva, and yet others in various bodily fluids. They also have differing amounts of time that they can survive outside of the host body, ranging from mere minutes to years. As you can probably imagine, the unvaccinated crowd will probably have a higher virus load on their clothing and skin, which means that they will have a higher chance of infecting people that they come into contact with.

Conclusion:
I could have easily gone into the increase in deaths from vaccine preventable illnesses, the idea of community (or herd) immunity, talk about the diseases eliminated by vaccines (rinderpest and smallpox and almost polio), the problems with religious and personal belief exemptions to vaccinations, or even discuss the Wakefield study and why it was found to be full of errors and misrepresentations. Those have all been done repeatedly by folks that are much more intelligent and better writers than I could ever hope to be. Instead, I've opted to be blunt and say simply fear people that will willingly avoid getting themselves and their children vaccinated. And pity them for their overwhelming fear and mistrust.

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

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

Creation of a skeptic

No intro today, figured I'd just jump right into my little rant/opinion piece, but as a warning, it is fairly link heavy.  What I want to talk about today is the creation of a skeptic. This one basically comes from my appearance on the BlueBalls Skeptics, hosted by Damion and Chas. I'm just going to lightly touch on some of the topics as I've either already written about them, or I'm in the process of writing a stand alone article on them.   And yes, this entire article is anecdotal and from personal experience.

I grew up in a fairly religious family.  My parents are a mix of  Methodist and Baptist, which are possibly the 2 most popular sects of christianity in Oklahoma.  The small town in Arizona I spent the first 10 years of my life was evenly divided between Catholic and Mormon beliefs.  We prayed in school before first hour began and we prayed before lunch. It was officially called a minute of silence, but the teacher normally led the class in a prayer.  Keep in mind this was a public school in the early 80's, so it wasn't actually that unusual.  I went to summer bible school every year, when I wasn't spending the remainder of the summer with grandparents in another state.  I went along with everything I was told, like most kids that age.  Santa Claus was the deal breaker.  I remember looking at a globe in the school library wondering how big the planet was.  I've always wanted to know everything, and have been intensely curious about how things worked.  I asked the librarian how big Earth was.  She very kindly told me it was huge. (Lot of help there, but then again, I was 5 or 6)  I looked at the globe and realized there was no way 1 man could get around the whole thing and give a gift to every kid.  I realized my parents had lied to me about him, and probably the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, and Christopher Columbus.(Ok, they got one partially right)  I quickly became the most hated kid in class because I had to tell everyone what I'd figured out.  Needless to say. it was safer to stay in class at recess than go out to the playground for a while.

When I was a bit older, I began reading encyclopedias from beginning to end. (This is before the internet, in the early to mid 80's) I really don't know why I did it, except I wanted to learn everything I could about everything, and as I said, it was safer for me to stay in the classroom during recess.  I would tell my classmates about what I'd read, and they'd walk off talking about whatever sport was being played at the time.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed sports.  I played football, baseball, soccer, basketball, and I was on the wrestling team.  I was just more interested in knowledge, which is why I probably sucked at sports.  It is also around this time I began paying attention to the things that adults said.  When we studied the moon landing, and I told my parents about it, my dad said it was a hoax, and he could prove it.  He showed me pictures of Armstrong on the moon and asked me "If he's the first man on the moon, who took the picture?" (Never mind that there were other people on the mission) He also showed me how the shadows were wrong, the lighting was strange, and some oddities in the pictures that he said were from them actually being done on a movie set.  He was an amateur photographer, so I thought his explanation was reasonable.  He also said that the astronauts couldn't survive the radiation out in space.  When we learned about the Kennedy assassination, he simply said there was more than 1 shooter.  I have an idea of what he did during his deployment to  Vietnam during the war, so I thought he must know what he's talking about.  Again, as I got older, his ideas got stranger.  He talked for a while about the New World Order, the Knights Templar, and the Free Masons. Once I went to college, and had access to better research material, as well as that new fangled internet, I looked into his claims.  That is when I went down the dark path for a while.  I began to find a lot of information that normally began with "What they don't want you to know!" in an enormous font with flashy lettering.   I believed it all.  Then, somehow, I was able to drag myself out when I realized all these conflicting ideas couldn't all be true.  I began to actually look into the details.  I learned that the astronauts had placed reflectors on the surface of the moon, and you can shine a laser at them and the light will bounce back.  They also brought back samples from the moon. Neither are things that can be done on a soundstage.  I've seen reconstructions and forensic analysis of the Kennedy assassination that show a single shooter could have done it.  I decided that if I want to know something, or find out the truth, I either need to do the research myself, or find an expert in the field and talk to them about it.

As a child, I was also exposed to water dowsing, cryptids, faith healing,and wearing either magnetic or copper bracelets for pain relief,  as well as herbal, all natural, or native treatments.  My mother, who always took great pride in stating that her grandmother was "a half-breed" (1/2 caucasian, 1/2 native american), would try anything she heard that native peoples used for medicine.  If it worked, she would say it was because natural cures work better than modern medicine. If it didn't, the patient must have done something wrong. Looking back now, when the "cure" would work, it was more than likely either due to the placebo effect, or the natural course of an illness.  I was a rather rough and tumble kid, so I had my share of broken bones (left arm twice, right arm once, right leg once, right collar bone once, various fingers and toes, fractured skull once, the nose and ribs too many times to count), and she would actually try to heal them by the laying of hands.  Sometimes she claimed the spirit of god would help her heal me, other times she would also claim she could do it because she was Native American.  Of course, we'd end up driving to the nearest doctor to get the bones reset and either splinted or put in a cast. She would also try this when I got a severe sunburn, which happens a lot when you haul hay for a summer job.  She would claim to be drawing the pain out of me into herself.  After a few minutes of being very uncomfortable, I would look at her smile, and lie my head off, telling her I felt great.  As soon as I could get away, I would slather on the aloe vera gel to ease my misery, as well as raid the liquor cabinet and for the next couple of weeks, no one in the family would see me without a shirt on.  Both of my parents wore copper bracelets to help with their various aches and pains, and as much as I hate to admit it, I did too.  I never personally noticed any kind of improvement, but I thought it looked nice.  In the late 90's, they'd moved on to magnetic bracelets to help with circulation and other problems.  By this time, I'd already looking into things in a more proper, scientific manner, so I've never worn one, though I have been given several of the things. They don't look as nice as the old copper bracelets, though.

My grandfather was the one that initially exposed me to dowsing. For those that don't know, this is an old practice where you take either brass or wooden rods and use them to locate metals, oil, or water.  Grandpa would take me out when he was hired by his neighbors to help them locate water so they could put in a new well.  He would walk around with a forked willow stick, and when the tip would suddenly drop down, that's where he would tell them to dig.  In high school, I learned that much of Oklahoma sits on top of a major aquifer, and if you dig down about 65-70 feet, you're more than likely to hit water)  I later learned about the idiomotor effect, which is basically an uncontrolled muscle movement.  I will admit that I have witched water wells for people, mostly to help earn some money to pay the bills. After college, and learning about the idiomotor effect, I have quit doing it, even though on rare occasion, I still have people ask me if I would come out and dowse for water. At $200 a pop, it can be pretty tempting. He's also the one that initially told me about Bigfoot and other local monster stories, which I initially took as the truth.  Later, as I looked more into these, I realized the improbability of creatures like this existing.

As I've talked about previously, my wife is the one that introduced me to the larger skeptical community.  It started with podcasts like the Skeptics Guide to the Universe and Skeptoid, and later on the Geologic Podcast, Herd Mentality, and a lot of history and science podcasts.  I also began reading skeptical and science blogs and articles.  I then began this blog, and began looking for skeptical groups in Oklahoma.

In 39 years, I've gone from a gullible child, to a full blown conspiracy theory believer, to carefully walking the very fine line between being a cynic and being a critical thinker.  It hasn't been an easy journey, and I'm no where near the end (I hope), but it has definitely been worth it.

Until next time, just take it easy, and have fun, but always be skeptical.

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

Cured by vibrating jewelry?

Hey folks, how have you been.  Yes, I'm still alive, just been very busy with work, and family.  The list of things  I want to talk about has grown to the point I'm having to cull a few items because everyone else has already covered them pretty thoroughly.  I do have a topic today that falls under the banner of Project Bullshit!  What I want to talk about today are the:

Tuning Element Bracelets TM  (dun dun dunnnnn).  (The story is a bit long, so if you want, skip down to the claims and background.)

During a local county fair, I saw this booth displaying a lot of bracelets.  It had a very nice background, a pretty display case, and was manned by an elderly couple.  I saw this booth for 3 days straight.  (I'm not a fair junkie, I was helping my wife with her civic group booth.)  By the last day of the fair, I had probably seen 50-75 people talk to these folks, and at least half of them bought things.  I went over there and took one of their brochures and looked it over.  (I'll go into the details of the pamphlet later)  The older gentleman saw me walking around and actually called me over to him.  Curious as always, I went to see what he was about.  He looked me in the eye and asked if I occasionally have pain in my knees, mainly my left.  I answered honestly and told him yes I do.  In my head, I was thinking, "Great, he's going to cold read me.  This could be fun."  Full disclosure, about 2 years ago, I broke my kneecap and femur in a bovine related accident (not like that!), and I've had problems and pain since then with my left knee, including a mild to severe limp. I had been helping my wife with her booth, which was next to the "healing bracelets" booth,  for the last 3 days, and my looks are a bit distinctive, so the people had plenty of opportunities to witness me limping around.  The fellow that ran the booth sat me down in a surprisingly comfortable chair and began his sales pitch.  He told me that both he and his wife suffered from arthritis pain for years until they discovered these bracelets.  They were so impressed with them that they became salespeople for the company.  I had noticed the woman wearing one, and I realized while talking to him that his watchband was actually one of these bracelets.  (I'm not going to include any images because the manufacturer wouldn't give me permission by the time I published this.)  These bracelets are "vibrationally harmonized with the Earth" to help with healing.  When I asked him what the rate of vibration was, he looked at me and informed me that he wasn't completely sure (honesty right off the bat? Wow!) and even if he knew, it was proprietary information.  I did try to find out what the Earths frequency is supposed to be, and most of what I was able to find comes from New Age sites, so they were full of word salad, so as of right now, I just have to saw I don't know.  While I was sitting there and this purveyor of Woo was giving me anecdotes and testimonials, he had his wife open the case, pull out a rather attractive black metal bracelet, and he set it right above my knee.  He informed me it would take about 10 minutes to begin to take effect.  I was fine with this because, as I said, I'm a curious person, so we started talking about the properties of the bracelets.  During this conversation, I noticed almost immediately that he was trying to get medical history from me by making statements like "Most people with knee problems have hip and back problems too." and "A lot of guys your age get muscle pain."  I'm familiar enough with these tactics that I went along with them to see what he would do.  And wouldn't you know it, he basically took the info I gave him and fed it back to me, saying this "scientifically balanced" bracelet could help with my problems.  He also mentioned it could help with cancer, but because of the "damned" FDA, they can't actually say it will cure anything. (I'll discuss the actual claims in a bit.)  I asked how the bracelets were harmonized with the Earth, how they stayed in this state, as well as asking if there was any documented evidence of efficacy.  He informed me, once again that the entire process was proprietary, and the only evidence he could offer was more testimonials. I asked him what they were made from and he told me they were stainless steel.  the ones that aren't silver are plated in other metals.  I then asked about the prices.  The cheap ones, the plain silver ones with no adornments cost about $75.  The more elaborate ones, with the different coatings and laser engraved images, cost up to $300.  I think I just blinked at him when he casually gave me the prices.  About this time, he seemed to feel that the sales pitch wasn't working, so he went the friendly route.  He began asking me about what I do for a living, if I have a wife and children, if I have any hobbies, etc.  I told him I do animal control, as well as farm work for a living. Yes, I have a wife and child, at which point he asked me if she worked.  I said yes, she's a bio-chemical researcher.  The look on his face at this statement was odd enough, I had a hard time not laughing.  He then asked me about my hobbies.  I said reading, writing a blog, outdoor activities, and I'm part of a skeptical group.  As soon as I said this, the 10 minutes suddenly finished. (It was actually closer to 20)  He removed the bracelet and asked if I had any pain.  I told him honestly no at that moment.  He then had me stand up.  Upon doing so, my knee popped loudly enough to be heard from several feet away ( a normal occurrence if I've been sitting or standing for a while.)  He told me that sometimes it takes a while for the effect to be noticeable, and I should go ahead and buy one.  I told him I'd have to talk to my wife first, and I left thinking I need to write about this.

The Claims:

The overall claim of this particular type of product is that can help "bring our body back to it's natural frequency"  The manufacturer states that electromagnetic radiation  disrupts our bodies natural frequency, which in turn pulls the protons in our cells  out of their natural alignment and causes cellular dysfunction. (Waiter, I'll have the word salad with the house dressing, thank you.)  The brochure says that the bracelet will realign the protons so they spin or resonate in harmony.  It also claims that our "electronic technology" (and I have no idea why they have that in quotation marks) has hidden "pollutants" (More quotation marks) and our bodies absorb these.  Care to guess the pollutants that the maker of these bracelets is concerned about?  EMF's(Electrical magnetic fields) and ELF's (Extremely low frequencies).   According to the brochure, these are emitted from different tech, and when the body gets hit by these waves, to paraphrase them,it just completely fu!&s us up.  The top of the paper has the words Got Pain?  in 21/2 inch letters, with the following conditions:

• Arthtitis                                            
• Carpal Tunnel
• Muscular Pain
• Stress
• Hip Pain
• Knee Pain
• Back Pain
• Insomnia
• Colds/Sickness
• ADD/ADHD
• Joint Pain
• And many More

Under this, it has Need help with? followed by:

• Quality of Sleep
• Range of Motion
• Better Athletic Abilities
• Balance
• Flexibility
• Less Snoring
• Coordination
• Better Golf Average
• Faster Recovery Time
• Strength
• Energy
• And Much More

And of course at the bottom, it has the usual disclaimers about going to your doctor for health issues, this product has not been evaluated by the FDA, and results may vary.  As someone with knee pain and ADHD, if one product could take care of these, I would be overjoyed.  The problem is, to quote the Sawbones podcast, "If it sounds like a cure-all, it cures nothing".  A lot of the various pains that they list have to do with joints or muscular damage, while balance is controlled by the inner ear, and ADHD is a neurological issue.  No single thing can treat three very different systems.

How it works:
This product is supposed to work based on the principles of harmonic balance.  According to their website,(and no, I'm not going to link to them)  these ideas were created by Georges Lakhovsky and  W.O Schumann.  Lakhovsky created a machine called the Multi Wave Oscillator in the 30's and Schumann is know for Schumann Frequencies.  Both of these men's ideas are popular in alternative medicine as a means to treat people of various problems.  They both have too much history to go into here.  The companies description of what their product does is overly vague and almost magical sounding.  The problems it is supposed to treat, as well as their supposed initial causes are extremely similar to the  T-28 3G/4G Whole House Protection device I wrote about a while back.  It's supposed to protect you from EMF's and ELF's, which in turn are supposed to slowly damage every part of your body at the cellular level.  Every description of how this item works is so vague I can't tell if they are talking about a bracelet or pasta salad.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's supposed to work by magic and wishful thinking.  And your money.

The Problems:
The main problem with this product, much like the infamous Power Band and the  T-28 3G/4G Whole House Protection device, is that they just DO NOT WORK!  No one item can have a beneficial effect on every system (skeletal, nervous, muscular, cardiovascular, respiratory, etc.) at once.  If you look at actual medication, or medical therapies, while they have a beneficial effect on the given system that they treat, if you look at the possible side effects, they normally effect other systems that have a direct effect on each other..  Wearing something on your wrist will not have a effect on ADHD, unless it's shiny and can actually help you keep your focus.  The same product won't help with a cold and give you a better golf average. Another problem is how the hell do they know what frequency the human body is supposed to have, and who determined what is in harmony with the planet?  Do things in nature have the same frequencies?  Does pumice vibrate at the same rate as uranium, and does that vibrate at the same rate as wood?

Conclusion:
Do I really need to say it?  Okay, you asked for it, so I'm duty bound to do it.  This bracelet, while it actually is good looking, and I wouldn't mind wearing one for aesthetic reasons, it doesn't treat anything except for a heavy wallet or purse.  A piece of metal on any part of your body, unless it's a brace for a joint or back, won't treat a single medical issue, let alone everything under the sun.  When you consider that in 3 days I saw 30-40  people buying these at a minimum of $75 each, and I found very similar looking items at Wal Mart for $10 the next day, someone made out like a bandit.  Granted, I don't know the companies business model, and I'm not 100% positive what the markup is on these, but it's probably still a good chunk of money.

Until next time, Be Good, Be Skeptical, and Be sure you turned the stove off before you leave.

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