IN THIS ISSUERANDI RANTS • 2

IS SANTA COMING TO TOWN? • 10

THE GREAT AGE OF SNAKE OIL • 16

READER FORUM • 25

FREE RADICALS, COLD COMFORT AND

MORE WEIRD VIBES • 29

NEWSLETTER OF THE JAMES RANDI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998SSSSSPECIALPECIALPECIALPECIALPECIAL D D D D DOUBLEOUBLEOUBLEOUBLEOUBLE I I I I ISSUESSUESSUESSUESSUE

CONTINUED ON PAGE 6

Kari Coleman – actress, skeptic and our West Coast remote viewer – recently played the part of a psychic for Penn &Teller’s Sin City Spectacular variety show (Sunday night at 10, Monday night at 9 [Eastern time] on cable TV’s FXchannel). If you think being a psychic friend would be a piece of cake, your crystal ball must be smudged. Here isKari’s firsthand account.

jref“...the chief end I

propose to myself inall my labours is tovex the world ratherthan divert it.”

Jonathan Swift

I’m sorry to say that my time ofskepticism has come to an end,as – much to my surprise – I am

a psychic. Yes, it is hard to believe,but you must let yourself go and beone with your psychic power, as Idid last night. Well that, or get hiredto play the part of a psychic and behorrified at how easy it is to makepeople believe.

I am taping a bit for Penn &Teller’s Sin City Spectacular (themost skeptical show on TV) and Ineeded to be able to fool people withcards, palmistry and other “psychic”talents. Caesar’s Magical Empire, amajor Las Vegas magic showcase, al-lowed me to work in character as a

psychic Tarot card reader to getsome practice. Oh, man.

I was dressed in their “Spurina”costume: a flowing purple gownwith built-in breasts that createdmore cleavage than I have had thejoy of knowing, this black kind ofLas Vegas-conception-of-Cleopatra-looking wig and a lot of makeup. (Iwas to be the psychic advisor toCaesar, and judging from the cos-tume, he enjoyed more than my“powers.”) I was set up to eitherwalk around or use one of the tablesin the “spirit bar.” I’d be working inthe hub area with the pyrotechnicshow: 30 foot flames, 3 adolescentclose-up magicians in tights and me.

I was so nervous. I walkedaround for a while with my stupidTarot cards in my hand going overmy memorized lines and trying to

My Psychic Adventureby Kari Coleman

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 19982

WINGING IT

Will wonders never cease?A local member of theJREF dropped by to

show us the photo you see reproducedhere. The chap being snapped wasquite unaware that he was beingobserved by a “guardian angel” thathovered over his shoulder, equippedwith an economy-sized crucifix heldin its left arm. The close-up revealsremarkable detail.

Alas, no miracle. The ever-greens in the background were bor-dering a sunlit area beyond, and theup-pointed branches produced theeffect of a flowing robe and an out-stretched wing. From a slightly dif-ferent point of view, we’d probablynot have had a shape we could relateto. This photo provides an excel-lent example of how easily we can

find meaning in chance configura-tions, in much the way that viewersof the well-known Rorschach “inkblots” can find various figures – andeven words – in essentially randombut symmetrically-replicated shapes.

And – not to be picky-picky –but angels don’t have wings, anyway.What? Of course angels have wings!Au contraire. Look at any concor-dance of the Bible, under “wing,”and you’ll find that only birds havewings, in Holy Writ. Only birds, andone other class of critters – demons.Yep. The wings-on-angels notionarose when medieval painters beganputting butterfly wings on theshoulders of angels to differentiatethem from ordinary folks, and thosewings just grew and grew over theyears, like so many other ideas.

Wait a minute! Maybe thosewinged guardian angels that so manyfolks all over the world have beenseeing are actually demons? TheDark One has so many tricks.....!

I was amused to see how theU.S. Postal Service goofed on oneof their popular Valentine’s Day“Love” stamps. It’s the one show-ing what purports to be the chubbyCupid with multicolored wings.Wrong. That’s taken from a Raphaelpainting known as The Sistine Ma-donna, and it’s a cherub. Cherubsare second-order angels, oftenshown as children with wings. Cu-pid is the Roman (pagan!) god ofcarnal love, who does have wings anda bow-and-arrow. He’s definitelynot an angel.

Life – and love – is difficult, isn’tit?

BIG COVERAGE,WELL DONE!

Having done literallyhundreds of TV andradio interviews over the

years, I’m always a bit sensitive towhat the producers and editors cando with the raw material I provide.The final product is often anunpleasant surprise, and even suchreputable shows as CBS-TV’s 48Hours have used “creative editing” tolessen the impact of my investigations,as they did with their treatment ofJames Van Praagh, the man who sayshe speaks with dead folks. So, whenUnivision, the rather ubiquitousSpanish-language television network,approached JREF and asked to do aninterview, a soft alarm buzzer wentoff in this old head. Since Spanish isnot a language I handle at all well, I

RANDI RANTSOPINIONS FROMTHE PUBLISHER

by James Randi

3VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

could see the possible pitfalls I mightencounter. Knowing that the colorfulWalter Mercado, astrologer to literallymillions of Hispanics around the world,was closely connected with the network,I felt that the JREF and its goals mightnot be well represented on Univision.Forgive me my pessimism, but it is basedon previous experience.

Lights, Camera, Action!The Univision people moved in

with lights, cameras, microphones,cables, reflectors, and the very at-tractive Maria Celeste Arrarez. Thisperceptive woman was to do the in-terview. I hit her up front with myfears that the JREF might be editedinto a position that could be less thansatisfying for us, and asked her whatkind of treatment we might expect.Ms. Arrarez was straightforward andunderstanding of the problem. Sheassured me that the producer, PaulaGomez, was determined to allow usto say our piece, and since we hadpromised them José Luis Alvarez,the performance artist who createdthe “Carlos” character for Channel 9Australia years ago, they could doat least that part of the interview inSpanish. I was somewhat reassured,but reserved judgment.

Well, things went swimmingly.Mr. Alvarez was even asked his opin-ion of Walter Mercado, though thatcomment was not in the final cut ofthe show. The finished job was, inall respects, a huge success forUnivision and for JREF. It wasstrong, fair, penetrating, and satis-factory in every respect. It featureda live interview with Mercado, whostarted out strongly, agreeing thatthe JREF was doing the right thing

exposing the fakers, but of courseexempting himself from that crowd.When he was asked how he couldprove that what he did was genuine,he flustered about, invoking God andassuring viewers that his myriad of fol-lowers was all he needed in the way ofvalidation. He referred to me as “onlya magician,” and declared that beforehe could discuss these weighty mat-ters with me, I’d have to spend fouryears studying at a university in or-der to understand the ancient “sci-ence” of astrology. It was not one ofhis better moments.

Humdrum Past LivesThe program closed with Brian

Weiss, the very successful authorwho “regresses” his psychiatric pa-tients into former lives and manages

to extract from them marvelous talesof UFO abductions, careers as bravewarriors and royal personages, andevery sort of Gothic romance con-nection the hack writers of suchmaterial have ever placed on thenewsstands. His subjects, fortu-nately for him, never have humdrumformer lives. Weiss was, in our opin-ion, unconvincing, and rather a badtapering-off for the show. But, afterall, he’s a scientist. I’m only a magi-cian.

This program reached many mil-lions of Spanish-language viewersinternationally, and might well havebeen their first exposure to the JREFand our work. We could not haveasked for a more competent and ef-

CONTINUED ON PAGE 4

“CARLOS THE CHANNELER”The "Carlos Caper" was a hoax in which José Alvarez created a "channeler" character at the

request of the Australian version of 60 Minutes, in order to show that any reasonably-skilled artistcould do a character that would convince the unwary public, even if glaring inconsistencies were builtinto the scenario. He invented cities, authorities, periodicals, and media sources that one phone callcould have established as being bogus. That phone call was never placed, since there was a dangerof spoiling a perfectly good story. Alvarez's hoax worked perfectly, and was disclosed in full onChannel 9 TV in Sydney. — J.R.

A personal added word from José Luis Alvarez...In November, Univision TV did a segment featured on the highly-rated show Primer Impacto

dealing with supernatural beliefs, specifically in the Latin-American community. Presenter MariaCeleste Arraraz interviewed me concerning the “Carlos” affair, feeling that it was important to ex-pose Latin-Americans to this work, since it had not previously been shown in that venue. Thispresentation established a new platform for open discussion of these matters. Well-recognized “psy-chic astrologer” Walter Mercado, who also works for Univision, was closely questioned by Ms. Arraraz.You should know that the government of Puerto Rico recently named Mercado their official “Messen-ger of Love & Peace.” Such questionable claims being validated by governments is alarming indeed.Pressed by Arraraz, Mercado stated that he didn’t need to answer to Mr. Randi, since he was “touchedby God.” Hopefully, this program is the beginning of further productive interaction between Univisionand the JREF. We were informed that Primer Impacto received one of its highest ratings ever: 21points. The producers told us that it was their most effective show of 1998. The show was repeated onSunday, January 3. — J.L.A.

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 19984

THE MATTER OFDOWSING

By far the most commonclaim made for the PigasusPrize – the one-million-

dollar award offered by the JamesRandi Educational Foundation(JREF) – is dowsing.

Dowsing is – as strictly defined– the claimed ability to discover un-derground sources of water or met-als by means of a “dowsing rod.”Another term used is “divining.”However, this terminology and itsscope have been expanded and isnow used with a far greater range ofmeanings. Dowsing now includesthe claimed ability to discover al-most anything, from water and min-erals to missing children and ar-chaeological sites. Each dowser willhave his or her specialty. The deviceany dowser will use ranges from thetraditional forked stick to just thebare hand. Pendulums, bent wires,wands of various sorts, and swiveledrods and housings are commonly en-countered. In every case, the deviceused is a system in a state of unstableequilibrium, something that cannoteasily be kept in a steady condition,and which is subject to very slight

tremors, twitches, or changes of in-clination. We’ve seen an astonish-ing variety of metal springs, coils,wires, balls, threads and bobbingelastic devices, all trembling and vi-brating freely, used as dowsing ma-chinery.*

Little AgreementDowsers seldom agree on the

basics of their claims. Some will in-sist that rubber footwear – or foot-wear made of other insulating ma-terials – must be used by the opera-tor, while an equal number insist thatsuch materials inhibit the effect , andmust never be used. Those who usestiff wires bent at right angles andheld in each hand parallel to theground, may say that the wires willcross one another when the sought-after object or substance is encoun-tered; just as many say that the wireswill diverge. Every dowser has hisor her own personal theory, rules andpreferred techniques.

Some claim that their power isdivine in nature. Some say thatdowsing is a learned art. Most claimthat anyone can dowse successfully,while others say that it is an inher-ited gift. Some deny that it is in anyway “paranormal,” while some em-brace that definition. Dowsers willoften scoff at the claims of otherdowsers, and will have a very lim-ited set of parameters that they willaccept as viable. Some say that theycan only perform successfully if

there is a real “human need” present;others are not so inhibited. Manysay that they can find any object orsubstance, while others say they canfind, for example, only flowing wa-ter moving underground, but not inpipes. Some are specifically pipe-locators, they say, and some onlylook for metal pipes, not plastic.

Most dowsers claim 100% accu-racy. Very few claim anything lessthan 90%.

A Wide Spectrum of ClaimsWater dowsers are by far the

most common variety we have en-countered, and they, too, exhibit awide spectrum of claims. Some onlylook for fresh/potable water. Withsome, it must be moving water.Some cannot detect water in pipes,only “natural” water. Most say theycan tell how far down the water is,and at what rate it will be delivered,once tapped. Water dowsers – aswell as some less specialized – saythey can be thrown off by magneticfields, nearby electricity, machinery,buried meteorites, masses of metal,or other underground rivers that in-tersect their path. The list of ele-ments and situations that they saycan inhibit their performances isendless.

The bottom line is that they allfail, when properly and fairly tested.There are no exceptions. Even afterthey have clearly and definitelyfailed, they always continue to be-

RRRRRANDIANDIANDIANDIANDI R R R R RANTSANTSANTSANTSANTS

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3ficient handling of the subject mat-ter. Our sincere thanks to producerGomez and host Arraraz. You camethrough as promised, and the JREFwill not hesitate to sit for further in-terviews. You met your promises,and you served your viewers well.You’re good media!

*Currently, several “scientific” versions of dowsing rods which purportedlycontain actual electronic circuitry, are being sold to government agencies inthe USA for very high prices, as much as $14,000. One such stick, known asthe “DKL LifeGuard,” is endorsed and validated by scientists who certainlyshould know better.

5VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

lieve in their powers. Why shouldthis be so?

The Ideomotor EffectWe are witnessing here a very

powerful psychological phenom-enon known as the “ideomotor ef-fect.” This is defined as, “an invol-untary body movement evoked byan idea or thought process ratherthan by sensory stimulation.” Thedowser is unknowingly moving thedevice of choice, exerting a smallshaking, tilt or pressure to it, enoughto disturb its state of balance. Thishas been shown any number of timesto be true, but the demonstrationhas meant nothing to the dowsers,who will persist in their delusion nomatter how many times it is shownto them that dowsing does not work.The defensive reaction of mostdowsers, following their failure, is toclaim that they should not have sub-mitted to any test, and will never doso again. And most will say thatdowsing comes under special rulesthat deny that it can be tested, ever.The discouraging fact is that nodowser is ever convinced, as a resultof proper double-blind testing, thatthey cannot dowse. Their need tobelieve is so strong and so ingrained,that they will refuse to accept anyquality and/or quantity of good evi-dence. They have adopted a philoso-phy that shields them against real-ity.

There appears to be a feeling onthe part of the dowsers that ifthey’ve been self-deceived, it indi-cates that they are therefore stupidor naive. This is certainly not thecase. Any person, regardless of edu-cation, IQ, sophistication, or social

position, can fall for the ideomotorphenomenon. An indication of thatis that a great number of scientists –mostly physicists – have embracedbelief in dowsing, in spite of theirsuperior knowledge of how theworld works. But this is an effectof the mind, a different matter fromthe workings of the common every-day objects and situations we en-counter in our lives.

A Compelling BeliefPlease be aware of this, however:

though you may be puzzled over thisseemingly strange conviction em-braced by the dowsers, unless youhave actually experienced the ideo-motor effect at work in yourselves,you cannot have a proper apprecia-tion of how absolutely compellingand irresistible it can be and is. Infact, dowsers are insistent that thedisbeliever should try the effect andthereby become convinced of its ef-ficacy; they assure you that onceyou’ve tried it, you’ll change yourmind. And they’re often right inthat respect; the dowsing device re-ally seems to move on its own, inresponse to some sort of externalsignal or force. As a result of someimagined or real hint from nature –water dowsers are often familiar withthe topological or geographical signsor conditions that indicate the prob-ability of water in any given spot –the operator unconsciously tilts orimpels the device, and believes thatit is indicating the presence of thesought-after material. That is sim-ply not true. It’s a trick of the mind,a very convincing trick, but a self-deception nonetheless.

Now, I am fully aware that thedowsers will read this discourse andwill manage to completely ignore it.I regularly receive expressions ofpity from them, for my inability toaccept the reality that they have dis-covered. Many applications that arereceived at the James Randi Educa-tional Foundation from dowsers willexpress great wonderment at whythe million-dollar prize has not al-ready been awarded, when dowsingis such an easy thing, they say, todemonstrate. Many are amazed thatdowsing is eligible for the prize atall, since it is so widely accepted andbelieved in. And each dowser as-sures me that they are going to bethe one to show me the error of myways, and to dazzle me with a simpledemonstration.

Excuses, ExcusesEach dowser goes away from

any trial of their powers, dismayedby their failure, puzzled at the rea-sons for the failure, but always ca-pable of coming up with a reason-able – to them – excuse. That ex-cuse may be any one of many. It maybe an unfortunate arrangement ofthe planets, improper temperatureor humidity, a problem of indiges-tion, too much ambient noise – ortoo much silence – or a poor atti-tude on the part of the observers.These are not invented excuses; theyare all drawn from my personal ex-perience in testing these folks.

I must say that of all those whohave ever tried to win the PigasusPrize, and of those who I have oth-erwise tested in every part of theworld, no claimants even approach

CONTINUED ON PAGE 6

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 19986

remember the stuff I researchedabout the cards, in case I encoun-tered a client who had read a Tarotbook. For my preparation, Jamy IanSwiss, the magic consultant for Penn& Teller’s Sin City, sent me a bunch ofmaterial on cold reading prior to mypractice run. Psychologist and re-formed palm-reader-turned-skepticRay Hyman gave me some great ex-pert phone time, and I winced througha tape of James Van Praagh (direct linkto heaven and one evil jerk) providedby Skeptic magazine publisher MichaelShermer.

ResearchI had done lots of reading – not

readings – to complete my research.The hardest part about this wholesetup was going to the newage(“rhymes with sewage”) bookstore.I bought some Tarot cards, and thenI went to the used-book section andpicked up books on palmistry, Tarot,astrology and graphology so I couldbe versed in the lingo. The BhodiTree Bookstore makes me sad. Aplace filled with dazed-looking los-ers, and there I was buying crap justlike the rest of them. It would be sonice if everyone there was doing re-search for a Penn & Teller bit, but Idon’t think so. Ugh. I had to gohome and shower.

The Cards Tell A StoryNow it was time to go to work

in my makeup and padded bra at theMagical Empire. I sat down, fannedout my cards and tried to look all-knowing. One of the guides brought

over my first “client.” My heart wasready to leap out of my chest, and Iwas sweating in my Spurina padding.The woman sat down, and I wentinto my spiel while I was looking herup and down. I said all the stuff thatmakes them want to help and givesme an out when I’m wrong, like,“The cards tell me a story. I receivepictures and images that will notmean anything to me, but perhapsare very significant to you. If youremain open, then we can exploretogether and find insight into yourdestiny.” Then I launched into theusual statements that appeal to ev-eryone.

She was into it. I looked at herand for some reason she looked likea nurse to me. I had a zillion outs ifI was wrong, so I took a chance andasked her if she was. I was correct,and she was amazed. Sometimesnurses look like nurses. Luckyguess=major hit. I was golden.

I was rolling the rest of thenight. The standard stuff wouldhook them and then I would startmaking guesses based on my obser-vations and their feedback. One per-son wrote up on a comment cardthat I was a terrific addition andamazing, and two people summonedthe manager to tell him how I knewstuff I couldn’t possibly have known.

Jamy, who was lurking in thebackground, watched me read a manwho was skeptical at first. I hit himhard. Why would a guy surroundedby his wife and another couple (allkidding him) sit down at my table?His question isn’t going to be any-thing sexual (his wife either alreadyknows or he doesn’t want her toknow – why push his luck?). Men,

PPPPPSYSYSYSYSYCHICCHICCHICCHICCHIC A A A A ADDDDDVENTUREVENTUREVENTUREVENTUREVENTURE

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

the dowsers for honesty. These arepersons who are genuinely, thor-oughly, self-deceived. In only twoinstances – one in Australia and theother in the U.K. – did I ever en-counter any cheating being tried bydowsers. And those cases were eas-ily solved and immediately termi-nated.

I ask all those who wish to claimthe prize based upon their dowsingskills to first try a double-blind testof their abilities. We at the JREF canadvise you how to design such a testprotocol. You will find, I assure you,that the description above of theideomotor effect will be provenvalid. And I know full well that you,as a dowser, will refuse this adviceand believe that, for you, such a pro-cedure is not necessary. I base thisconclusion on my many years ofhandling dowsing claimants.

If you wish to see a full accountof the most definite set of dowsingabilities ever conducted, you mayfind it in the first two issues of Swift,the newsletter of the JREF. Num-bers 1 and 2 of volume 1 may bepurchased for US$6, postpaid, fromthe address on page 32. We sincerelyrecommend that you read this ac-count before proceeding with yourapplication.

RRRRRANDIANDIANDIANDIANDI R R R R RANTSANTSANTSANTSANTS

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5

7VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

as a rule, don’t voluntarily sit downfor a general reading, so I guessedsomething big was weighing on hismind. I gave him my opening, whilelooking for the card that was sup-posed to represent him. The nextcard I flipped over I put my handon as if I was getting somethingfrom it. I looked him right in theeye and I said, “you have dreams andaspirations that seem unrealistic toyou. You are taking steps to makethem a reality and you are fright-ened.” Then the catchall, “Does thismean anything to you?”

Of course it did, he’s obviouslyeither quitting his old job and start-ing his own company, getting a jobdoing something he’s always reallywanted to do but was afraid, what-ever... I pretty much knew it had todo with his occupation and a bigmove he was considering. It’s theonly safe question he had in frontof his friends. I gave him the “you’refrightened” because I knew it wouldmake him uncomfortable and scarehim into thinking I might say some-thing personal in front of everyone.I had a hit (his wife was going crazysmacking his arm and giving me allthe signals I needed), and I really hadhis attention. His face no longermasked anything from me and therest of the reading was a cinch. Jamyfollowed him out (I’d become afraud and turned my friend into astalker) and listened to him tellinghis wife that usually these things arejust generalities, but that this womanwas different.

Evil WomanNow I was evil. All the acting

training was paying off, and I was

getting really good, really fast. Istarted out being “okay” and by theend of the night I had a woman cryon me. I gave her the standard“There are untapped resources youhave yet to put to your advantage.”She said, “Like what?” I said, “Some-thing you do alone, an endeavor ofsome sort,” to which she replied,“It’s not really an endeavor, it’s asearch.” Well, who does a late thirty-ish woman search for? Either a kidshe gave up, or some sort of rela-tive, right? Fifty-fifty, I turned overa card that was male, and said, It’s aboy,” thinking she gave up a child.She started to cry and nodded.Meanwhile, I turned over two knightsand said, “Who are the two men?”figuring that everyone has two menin their lives, and she would definethem for me. Sure enough, she criedand said, “My husband and the halfbrother I’m looking for.” Well, atthat point I knew that I was wrong,but to her I was right on the money.She will forever recall that I came upwith the fact that she was lookingfor her half brother.

So, now what could I do? Shewanted to know if I could see him,and I told her that I couldn’t haveany connection with him becauseshe didn’t know him and that all myvision was through her. (I’d gone toofar with her, and I couldn’t confess

everything without causing a hugescene in a place where they weredoing me a favor to let me practice.)Then I figured the only good I coulddo was give her some good advice,so I told her, “Your search is a noblecause, and you can continue it, butremember what is most important:that which you have control overand that is your children, your hus-band and your home.” I tried to giveher some encouragement, but alsolet her know not to be obsessed withan exciting search for a missing per-son, a search that could destroy herown home life.

Make Your Own MagicThe whole night was like that. I

really did try to end all the readingswith stuff like, “You have good in-stincts. Trust yourself. You makeyour own magic.” These were wordsthat at least alluded to self-respon-sibility. I just can’t believe how easyit was to make this happen. I did aweek of research and then madepeople believe I could “see.” Man.It freaked me out. I had to keep tak-ing breaks and sitting alone to getmy head together.

People just want to hear positivethings about themselves. That’s allit is. Tell them what they want tohear. Make some guesses and keepgoing when you miss. I made some

I just can’t believe how easy it was tomake this happen. I did a week ofresearch and then made people believe Icould “see.” Man. It freaked me out.

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 19988

big misses that were killing me. Onetime I turned over a card with aqueen that has a cat seated at herfeet, so I thought, what the heck:“Do you have a cat?” The womanreplied, “no.” “Does a friend, orsomeone you know have a cat?”“No.” (What are the chances ofthat?) “Okay,” I said, “keep that,”and moved on. At the end of thereading I smugly stated, “In twoweeks, when that cat shows up, youthink of me, okay?”

I’m charging Penn & Tellermore because I have real gifts.

Psychically yours,Spurina

The TapingIt is the end of the day. We fin-

ished the taping today and I’m kindanuts right now, but I need to get thisout. What I did today was one ofthe hardest things I have ever done.I’m hoping that what I did today wasright, but I don’t know. I’m cryingas I type this, so I don’t think I’mthat good a judge right now.

Today we set up the locationwith a phoney book signing eventwith fake posters and cameras and adirector and many productionpeople around. I was presented asa psychic. The first “book” and thefirst sign had my name on them andsaid that I was a Tarot card reader. Iwas dressed a little goofy, but noth-ing even close to my night atCaesar’s. I was a real person. It wasmy name up on the board. One byone, I read people’s cards and palms,or held an object and “talked to thedead.” I made a few “hits,” workedin the standard paragraph that we’dprepared, and then asked them oncamera how I did. I asked howsuited to them the reading was, orhow much it applied only to them.They all responded favorably, and Icalled for the cameras to shut down.

“I Am Not Psychic”At that point, in each case, I

took hold of their hand and ex-plained exactly what had just hap-pened. I looked them right in the eyeand told them everything. I said,“What you have experienced is calleda cold reading. I am not in any way

psychic. The techniques I used onyou are techniques that all psychicsuse. It’s a psychological profile thatall of us respond to. You are notalone. I’ve said the exact same thingto all these other people and they re-sponded favorably as well.” In somecases, the crew had fed me informa-tion, and I confessed to that.

What you cannot know untilyou’ve done it is that when you arereading someone, they trust you.They open themselves up to you,and you tell them nice things aboutthemselves. Sometimes they offerup very personal hopes and dreams.This happened several times today.I then had to face them and tell themI’d lied. It was the hardest thing I’veever done.

I was successful in doing VanPraagh. I convinced a man that I wasin contact with his dead mother whohe had helped care for. The first ladyI did cried, and we can’t use that inthe TV program – real tears aren’tappropriate in a comedy-variety bit.The second man I was able to keeppositive and it all worked out. In thetwo cases where this kind of read-ing was attempted, I then took a

9VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

walk with the person and reallytalked with them for a long time.Speaking with both of them, I cried.I said, “I’m going to tell you some-thing that you will find hard to hear,and I am finding very difficult to tellyou. What has just happened is notanything supernatural. I am not psy-chic and we did not contact yourdead relative. What I did was a coldreading. Everything I said to you isinformation that we all have after welose someone. I lost my Granny lastyear. After watching people take ad-vantage of the grieving, I decided tofight back. This is my way of doingthat.”

I’m Getting An MI said to the man who lost his

Mom, “To me, it is an insult to yourmemories to have someone tell youthat you need them to talk to yourMom. I always thought if there werean “other side,” then my Grannywould do anything possible to con-tact me and talk to me. She wouldnot need to go through some idiotwho can’t come up with any sub-stantial communication and onlysays, ‘I’m getting an M.’ You keepyour Mom with you in pictures andmemories that are so special. I’mtelling you that because you seemlike a great man. You’re fun-lovingand good-spirited, and I know thisjust from our talks before and dur-ing the reading. That’s what yourMom left behind for everyone to seeand enjoy. You are part of her, andyour relationship is a wonderfullegacy. I don’t have to be psychic toknow all that stuff. I’m just a humanbeing who is being honest with youabout what I see.” We said more, but

basically that covers what I talkedabout. We cried some and hugged. Ithanked him for being a part of thisand for helping me in my fight.

Now here’s the amazing part.All of my “talks” were difficult.Some not so much, but others werelike the ones above. I didn’t know,when I started today, how peoplewere going to react. The man fromthe conversation above told me thiswas the best thing that happened tohim all day. He hugged me and toldme what a special person I was totell the truth. He introduced hislover to me and walked away tellingeverybody what a great lady I was,and how happy I’d made him. Agrandmother brought her familyover to meet me, and laughed whenI explained how I’d guessed herhusband’s name. Almost everyonewas incredibly happy and the restwere just fine and a bit bemused.

Taking Away The VoodooI think I have finally found my

answer to those people who tell methat skepticism takes the joy out oflife, that you need God to experi-ence morality, and that without himit’s just a heartless existence. Peoplewere happy to talk. They really justwanted someone to listen to theirproblems, or share their hopes anddreams. They wanted to go overfunny stories about a loved onethey’d lost or just sit and rememberthem out loud with someone. WhenI took away the voodoo, the fact thatwe had “shared” didn’t go away.There is all the joy you need in hu-man interaction. I really made surethat after we were done I gave each

person, for lack of a better way ofsaying this, a part of me. I felt I hadtaken away something fake and Ineeded to replace it with somethingreal. Human contact, human caring,human interaction.

I think it worked. Like I saidbefore, I don’t know. I’m not think-ing correctly right now. Maybesomeone went home and felt cheatedand used, but maybe not. I don’tknow if I changed what people be-lieve, but I think that I made themstop for at least a moment and opentheir eyes. Hopefully, if I only suc-ceeded in getting them to like me,then they will remember that theyliked me and that I felt it was im-portant enough to spread the wordabout what is real. Maybe that willmake them think, and then they willchange their minds or just be moreskeptical the next time. Who knows?

So that is that. I’m going to godownstairs now, watch a movie withmy good friends, and hug my guy.You gotta love livin’, baby.

Kari Colemanis an actress living in L.A. Her filmcredits include Multiplicity, SourGrapes and T-Rex, an Imax 3-Dmovie. Television appearancesinclude Seinfeld, Mad About You,Home Improvement and a bunchof other sitcoms. She has beenknown to eat fire with Penn & Tellerin Las Vegas.GorillaGirl@worldnet.att.net

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199810

IS SANTA

CLAUS

COMING TO

TOWN?by Craig Odar

Imagine, if you will, a child, eyesglowing with joy, boundingdown the stairs at five-thirty in

the morning. He nearly falls down thelast few stairs in a frantic rush andturns the corner to find boxes of allsizes stacked under a tree, wrapped inshiny paper, filled with toys. His eyescan barely believe the whole scene hesees before him. He can’t imagine aday better than this day. ChristmasDay. A day reserved especially forchildren, rewarding them for theirgood behavior over the past year.

This is an ideal picture of theAmerican Christmas holiday as seenthrough the eyes of a child. As thesechildren get older, they adopt themainstream American ideals ofpeace, love and joy for all. Presentsare still received, but something ismissing... something big... some-thing red... Santa Claus.

We all know Santa Claus as themerry fat man with a “belly that

shakes like a bowl full of jelly”(Moore). He has reindeer that fly.One of his reindeer has a glowingred nose, “like a light bulb.” Hecrawls down chimneys and lives inthe North Pole with all of his littleelf helpers. It’s quite an interestingmyth and certainly deserving of abrief historical explanation.

The Birth of ChristThe birth of Christ is the primary

ideology behind the Christmas holi-day. Three kings from the East cameto the house of Mary and presentedher with gold, frankincense, andmyrrh. But Mary didn’t give birthto Santa Claus. And none of thethree kings had flying reindeer. Sowhere did the Santa myth come from?

It turns out that St. Nicholas isthe real Santa Claus. While that factis not surprising, it is surprising tonote that St. Nicholas is the patronsaint of fertility and children. In re-mote parts of Switzerland, Sant Klos(as St. Nick is known there) replacesthe stork in baby origin stories. Infact, Santa’s big belly allegoricallyrepresents the belly of a pregnantwoman, though it should be notedthat allegory in myth is sometimesoutlandish (Bettelheim, A GoodEnough Parent).

The closest descendant of themodern Christmas is St. Nicholas’Day, still celebrated in some parts ofEurope. Not as commercialized asChristmas in America, St. Nick’sDay is celebrated with candies andfruits. Two local men traditionallydress up as St. Nicholas and theDevil. The two visit each child’shouse where the Devil tries to pun-ish the children for their bad deeds,

E IS FOR EDUCATION

As part of JREF’s mission, Swift will be giv-ing more attention to education. Beginning withthis issue, we will be publishing articles for andby educators, including lesson plans, course syl-labi, reading lists and ideas for class projects.

If you teach at any level – from grade schoolto college to continuing education – please sendus material that you have used to teach critical/skeptical thinking and scientific inquiry. Teach-ing ideas that relate to paranormal and just plainweird claims are especially welcome, but any andall effective approaches to enhancing science edu-cation are appropriate.

Swift will consider manuscripts. We will alsocompile and edit shorter communications into acolumn. Our emphasis is on practical, tested ideasthat can be of real help to parents and educa-tors.

Swift also hopes to provide a venue for rec-ognizing outstanding student projects. In addi-tion to the student awards announced by JREF(see Swift vol. 2, no. 1), we will from time to timepublish papers by students. We invite studentreaders to contribute papers. And we encourageteachers to bring student work to our attention.

Please send all contributions for consider-ation to:

SwiftDept. of Education201 S.E. 12th Street (E. Davie Blvd.)Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316-1815

or e-mail to: cdenman@ibm.net

Chip Denmaneditor, Swift

Craig Odar is an undergraduate at theUniversity of Maryland. This paperwas originally prepared for a “Sci-ence & Pseudoscience” class taught byChip Denman for the UniversityHonors Program in College Park. Weare pleased to present it here as an ex-ample of fine scholarship. — J.R.

11VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

while St. Nicholas stops the Deviland gives some sweets to the children.

The Myth of SantaSaint Nicholas’ Day evolved into

the Christmas celebration that we aremore commonly familiar with. Themyth of Santa and his reindeer pervadeevery aspect of the winter season. Heis used in TV commercials, and hesits for pictures with children inevery mall across America.

The Santa myth is told to mostChristian (and some non-Christian)children. The story of his toy work-shop at the North Pole, his reindeer,his elves and his undying generosityto children differs from most otherchildren’s stories in one respect: Santais real. Or so say most children.

Did the Three Little Pigs reallylive in houses of straw, twigs andbrick? Did Little Red Riding Hoodseriously think the wolf was her deargrandmother? Most children wouldn’tdebate the veracity of such stories, butwhen confronted with the myth ofSanta most any young child willfirmly tell you that Santa does exist.

The Santa story unfortunatelyhas an unhappy ending for most. Ac-cording to a study of children’s re-actions to the Santa myth the mostcommon reaction to the truth aboutSanta was “sorrow” (Benjamin). Af-ter reading such results, it becomesimportant to evaluate the reasons forperpetuating this myth. I would liketo explore the pros and cons of thismyth and find a reasonable middleground between the two views.

As I mentioned earlier, the sto-ries of Santa Claus are similar to anyother children’s story. As a magicalfigure, Santa can accomplish feats

beyond the scope of any person thechild is likely to know. He is super-generous and rewards children ev-erywhere for no reason beyond goodbehavior. Santa Claus is a hero, andlike any other hero, children wantto emulate and mimic the qualitiesthat they admire most about thathero (Bettelheim, Uses of Enchant-ment). Santa’s most admirable traitis his generosity, so it is rational toencourage children to be generousby providing them a hero with thattrait.

Generosity, in the eyes of achild, is an abstract concept. By ab-stract, I mean that it cannot be eas-ily associated with anything thatthey commonly know. The socializ-ing process in this case becomes abit more difficult. Providing a “real”image for a person to grasp an ab-stract concept is by no means lim-ited to children (Bettelheim, AGood Enough Parent). For in-stance, Newtonian mechanics ismuch easier to learn than relativis-tic mechanics; we are much morefamiliar with the images thatNewtonian mechanics are basedon. Similarly, the image of SantaClaus is a helpful tool in grasping theconcept of generosity. With a famil-iar icon such as Santa, a child willhave an better grasp of the idea ofgenerosity.

An aspect of Santa’s generositythat is usually not addressed is thelack of reciprocation required forgifts received from him. It is com-mon for many people to feel an ob-ligation to reciprocate generositywhen it is given to them. For in-stance, imagine the guilt you feelwhen someone gives you a gift

over the holidays while you hadn’tplanned on giving them anything.The usual reaction is to find a giftto give them in return. The child hasno means to reciprocate to parentswho get their children gifts. Themagical Santa Claus provides a thirdparty that expects no reciprocationin return. The child is then allowedto enjoy his gifts, guilt free.

Anniversary ReactionHappy childhood memories, es-

pecially those associated with ayearly event like Christmas, provideemotional support and strengththroughout a person’s lifetime. Aperson can look back on suchmemories during emotionallystressed periods of their life to givethem hope and joy (Bettelheim, AGood Enough Parent). This effect iscalled an anniversary reaction bymost psychologists. The concept isnot one-sided, though. Unhappychildhood memories can depress aperson at various times throughouttheir adult life, especially during theholiday associated with such an un-happy memory.

The reciprocation principle andthe possibility of guilt associatedwith it becomes that much more im-portant to avoid when looked at inthe context of an anniversary reac-tion. A person may continue to feelguilt around Christmas time wellinto adulthood if the memories ofChristmas as a child are riddled withfeelings of guilt. The image of SantaClaus as a gift giver without obliga-tory reciprocation consequently be-comes even more important now.

In his book A Good Enough Par-ent, Bruno Bettelheim brings to light

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199812

pared to those for Santa. The evidencesuggests that Santa isn’t detrimental,and most probably is helpful as a so-cializing agent in our society. I mustreject this conclusion, though, on theground that all people should have theability to decide for themselves, in-cluding children, what they shouldbelieve. In my home, on ChristmasEve, my brother and I would lay outcookies and milk and put a sign say-ing “for Santa” next to them. We knewfull well who might eat them, but likeany other child we liked to pretend.And we did.

Lying to children about the ex-istence of this being we know doesn’texist seems to conflict with our ownideals of honesty and truth. I do be-lieve, however, that encouraging a richfantasy life is important. Therefore, Isuggest the best approach to the Santamyth is to tell it to children as anyother story, as a fantasy, but at thesame time, do not discourage playfulimagination that might include thisfantastic figure. Santa’s a good man;we should give him a chance, eventhough he doesn’t exist.

ReferencesBenjamin, Ludy T. Jr. “The Santa Claus

Survey.” Nebraska History (1995): 190-4.Bettelheim, Bruno. A Good Enough Parent.

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987.Bettelheim, Bruno. Uses of Enchantment.

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977.Clark, Cindy Dell. Flights of Fancy, Leaps of

Faith. Chicago: University Press, 1995.Cobb, Edith. The Ecology of Imagination in

Early Childhood. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1977.

Moore, Clement Clarke. “Twas the NightBefore Christmas.” Online. ChristmasStories and Poems. Internet. 15 Sept1997. Available: www.night.et/christmas/Twas-night01.html

Griffiths, Ruth. A Study of Imagination inEarly Childhood. London: Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1935.

a very interesting point about achild’s belief in Santa Claus. He says“what is the sense of celebrating achildren’s holiday if children have toexperience it from our adult frameof reference?” Let the children havetheir own reality, if it makes themhappy. A child’s life is not the sameas that of an adult. Our minds workdifferently. We perceive the worldthrough different eyes. I know thatI enjoy the logical conception of re-ality that I have now, but I also en-joyed the magic in childhood.

Perpetuating the MythThe advantages of perpetuating

the Santa Claus myth certainly giveus something to think about. Theemotional security and socializationprocess of a growing child can beaided immensely by the image ofSanta Claus. The argument againstSanta Claus is a more difficult one.For one, Santa is a traditional partof American culture. To removesuch an idol would be akin to remov-ing cigarettes from American life.It’s not easy. Secondly, no child psy-chologist that I read about sup-ported a view against Santa Claus.Nevertheless, I will try to presentthe best arguments possible againsttreating Santa Claus as a real person.

In the Benjamin study, a re-sponse to a question that askedabout the feelings of a child thatlearned the truth of Santa Clauswent as such: “It made me think fora while that everything that my par-ents told me was to fool me.” Par-ents hold the highest respect of anyperson in a child’s life. Parents pro-vide sustenance and love that chil-dren depend upon. When a child

learns the truth about Santa Claus,they will inevitably harbor somenegative feeling, and with good rea-son too: their concept of reality hasjust been seriously shaken. Thosenegative feelings are most com-monly directed towards the mainperpetrators of the lie, the parents.

One response to a psychologist’squestion to mothers about childrenaccepting nonlogical truths was:

“It probably ties over into thereligious aspect, that there are thingsthat you have to believe in that youcan’t always prove. And maybe [theEaster Bunny] is teaching them toaccept things without asking ques-tions sometimes (Clark).”

The Easter Bunny and SantaClaus are both things “that you can’talways prove.” If encouraging ahealthy analytical view of reality isyour purpose, then the Santa mythis working against that end.

A Sound ViewMy final argument against con-

tinuing the myth of Santa is pulledfrom my own personal experience.My brothers and I were never toldthat Santa was real. I always knewwho put the presents under the tree.And to this day I am proud that Inever believed in Santa Claus. I havea very sound view of reality. My rea-soning skills are above normal, as arethose of both of my siblings. There-fore I would have to bring into ques-tion the validity of the argumentsthat most child psychologists offeron the subject. I could be the excep-tion to the rule, but I doubt it. I hada very normal childhood.

The arguments against SantaClaus are few and far between com-

13VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

IS SKEPTICISM

EFFECTIVE?LET’S USE SCIENCE TOFIND OUT.

by Steve Strassmann

Whatever it is that skepticsare trying to achieve,there is currently no

metric in place for success. I don’tknow about you, but I’d like to seeskeptics accomplish a lot more thanthey have in the past.

To advocate skeptical thinking,you might look at skepticism as if itwere a treatment for an ailment.How do you evaluate its effective-ness?

As far as I can tell, skeptics ap-pear in homeopathic dilution amongthe general population. Water mol-ecules may not have any memory ofexposure to homeopathic chemicals,and the same can be said of peopleexposed to skeptics. Where is thecredible evidence of a lasting “memoryeffect” of skeptics on other people?

Successful skeptic activity isonly described anecdotally. We oweourselves something stronger. Anice fraud exposure, or a snappy re-mark, all make for self-congratula-tory entertainment. How will any-one, especially fellow skeptics, knowit has any lasting value to the com-munity?

The answer is simple. Let’s scru-tinize skepticism itself with the samekind of rigor that any alleged therapydeserves.

I propose a few action items:

Describe the problem. Devisea taxonomy of popular delusions andpublish them. Delusions will appearin multiple categories, and that’sOK. A web browser would makethis a fun index to explore online.Suggested categorizations:

• by topic (therapies, astrol-ogy, mind powers)

• by danger (harmless, annoy-ing, wallet-threatening, life-threat-ening)

• by criminality (innocent,self-deluded, cynical, predatory)

• by cash value (nonprofit,highly profitable)

• by proof level (unknown,testable, known false)

Measure the problem. Comeup with a body of quantitative de-scriptions of popular delusions andpublish them. Suggestions:

• tabulate % of newspapersprinting horoscopes

• polls on belief in God,dowsing, ghosts, etc.

• tabulate crime statisticsfrom bunko squads

• tabulate # of advertise-ments for psychics in print, TV, ra-dio

• tabulate sales volume of ho-meopathic remedies, NIH funding.

Use these metrics to categorizeaudiences before all public activi-ties. Are you speaking to studentsor adults? Creationists who don’tbelieve in astrology, or astrologerswho don’t believe in creationism?This should be a required prepara-tion for all skeptics active in publicforums.

Describe the solution. Comeup with a taxonomy of skeptical ac-tivities, such as public speaking,skeptic magazines, skeptical articlesin popular media, police investiga-tions, hoaxes performed by skeptics,letters to the editor, pressure onfunding and government groups,etc.

Measure the solution. Create abody of quantitative descriptions ofthe efficacy for each activity. Includethe cost and effort as part of themetric. Good skeptics are a preciousresource; they should be used wherethey can do the most good. And youwon’t know where they do goodunless you collect data on the re-sults! Suggestions:

• How many people does thisactivity reach?

• What percent of thosepeople are – skeptics – undecided– believers – major influencers(press, government, preachers)?

• For each subgroup, what neteffect did the activity have?

Set aside a chunk of time tocreate a review process. Assess theresource allocation of JREF andother skeptic groups. How manypeople, hours per week, dollars, etc.are spent on: + reacting to pressqueries + publishing + criminal in-vestigations + lobbying + issuingpress releases + public speaking, etc.Document and review this allocationperiodically. Is this the best alloca-tion of resources? Could you bemore effective if less time was spenton A and more on B? Is one of theseactivities grossly inefficient? Areyou getting results? Do you need toautomate? Are you doing somethingineffective just because “it feels

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199814

I AM NOT A GIRAFFE, AND ICAN PROVE ITby Bob Steiner

It keeps coming back like a bad penny. I have seen it over and over inskeptical writing, and have heard it from skeptical speakers. A skepticwill present a persuasive, logical case why one should not believe in

the paranormal: lack of credible evidence, the appearance can be duplicatedby normal means, and the like.

Then a parapsychologist will say – correctly, “The fact that a magiciancan duplicate the appearance of this claimed paranormal event does notprove that the psychic did not do it psychically.”

The skeptic will step into the trap by replying, “That is true,” thenhasten to add, “but you cannot prove a negative.”

I have not seen it yet, but the day will come when some astute parapsy-chologist will prove to the audience that one can indeed prove a negative.Thence, having captured the merited respect of the audience on that onepoint, the parapsychologist will extrapolate and will successfully convince

good” or because you have goodanecdotes? Adjust and reallocate asneeded.

Lastly, I think the skeptic move-ment could benefit greatly from animage or metaphor to symbolize theagenda. This would be somethingjournalists can use when trying todescribe what skeptics do and whatthey stand for. By comparison, theatomic scientists have a symbolicDoomsday Clock which success-fully conveys their position onnuclear weapons proliferation.

I’m not sure what might be bestfor skeptics, but it would be goodto start thinking about it. To get youstarted, here’s a half-baked sugges-tion.

Create a cartoon of imaginarymonsters labeled as “delusions”These hide under the bed or in thecloset, and don’t exist when youshine the light on them. Each one isindividually labeled with a particu-lar delusion, and belongs to a familytree. Get a good artist to draw thiscartoon in many forms, and you’llhave a powerful metaphor that anyjournalist can use for years.

Can skeptics be more effec-tive? Applying a little of our oldfriend, the scientific method,might help make a small influenceinto a big one.

Steve Strassmann has a Ph.D. in En-tertainment Engineering from theMIT Media Lab and has hardly eversuccessfully fooled anyone with amagic trick.steve@strassmann.com

THE FOUNDATION SEEKS AN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORThe James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) seeks a full-time

Executive Director to begin immediately. Founded in 1996, JREF pro-motes critical thinking and combats pseudoscience and quackery aroundthe world. See our Web page, http://www.randi.org

Eligible candidates will have at least three years of nonprofit manage-ment experience in membership organizations and demonstrated successin organizational development and fund-raising. They will be self-starters,with good writing and speaking abilities and a strong science background.

Send application letters with resumé and at least three references toSidney Brien, James Randi Educational Foundation, 201 S.E. 12th Street,Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33316-1815. Please do not call the Foundation.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 15

15VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

the audience that the skeptic has nocredibility and should not be be-lieved on anything else said. All ofthis because the skeptic made astrong, all-inclusive, universal asser-tion – and it was wrong!

I have on my desk The Ency-clopedia of the Paranormal, editedby Gordon Stein (published byPrometheus Books, Amherst, NewYork, 1986).

In one otherwise well-writtenessay, the author concludes with:

“It would seem that with all theevidence of trickery we should cometo the conclusion that PK-MB[psychokinetic metal-bending] isnothing more than a myth, skilledmagicians using their five normalsenses to create the illusion of real-ity. The problem is that it is impos-sible to prove a negative.”

In a letter to the editor in theJuly/August 1995 Mensa Bulletin, awriter attempts to nail down hispoint by invoking this all-inclusive,erroneous generalization. The par-ticular topic at issue in the letter isless important than the flaw in philo-sophical reasoning by an otherwiselogical writer:

“Not only is the [person whodoes not believe] under no obliga-tion to do anything, it’s impossiblefor him to prove that [the topic atissue] has no existence. This is dueto that ironclad logical rule that says‘One cannot prove a negative.’”

In writing and discussion, it issometimes appropriate to explainthe difficulty (or even the impossi-bility) of proving some negatives. It

“You have made the claim. Theburden of proof is on you. It is notmy obligation to prove that unicornsdo not exist.”

The concept that the burden ofproof is on the one making the claimis one of the most powerful argu-ments in the skeptic’s arsenal. If youmake a counterclaim – for example,it is impossible to prove a negative –the burden of proof shifts back ontoyou. Don’t get caught in that trap.

I mentioned the size of the ob-ject and size of the universe in whichwe seek the object. It would be fareasier for me to prove that there isnot a hippopotamus in my livingroom than to prove that there is aspecifically designated virus germ inthe room. Thus, in this case, it iseasier to prove a negative than a posi-tive. It is easier to prove some nega-tives than it is to prove some posi-tives.

And now to summarize that onecan indeed prove a negative: I canprove that the world is not flat, thatthere cannot be an undiscoveredcontinent on Earth larger thanNorth America, that there is not anelephant in my living room, that Iam not a woman, that I am not a gi-raffe, and that two parts of hydro-gen plus one part of oxygen do notproduce sulfuric acid.

Bob SteinerPinole, CAbsteiner@crl.com

A shorter version of this article waspublished in BASIS, Newsletter ofBay Area Skeptics, April 1996. Thisexpanded version is printed with per-mission.

is an unjustifiable stretch to jump tothe universal declaration that “it isimpossible to prove a negative.”

We must consider the precisionof the definitions, the size of theitem for which we seek proof, thesize of the universe in which thisitem is supposed to exist, as well asother considerations.

For example, suppose someonesays: “I believe that unicorns exist.Although I cannot prove it, you can-not prove that they do not exist. Sowe must keep an open mind aboutthe subject.”

The problems: We would haveto agree on a precise definition ofunicorn. Next we would have todetermine how to test and validateit. Even after we do that, it wouldstill be impossible to prove thatthere is not even a single unicornanywhere in the universe.

What I hold about unicorns isnot a disbelief. Rather, it is the ab-sence of belief. I am a skeptic – anunbeliever. Try unbeliever: it is awonderful word.

When someone brings up the“open mind argument,” I have aready answer: “I do have an openmind. I am willing to evaluate yourevidence. I am further willing torevise my beliefs – even my worldview – as soon as there is credibleevidence presented. Until suchcredible evidence is presented, I shalllive my life as if it does not exist. Ihave the absence of belief, not a dis-belief. Surely you would not wantme to believe that there is an invis-ible dinosaur standing between us,would you?

GGGGGIRAFFEIRAFFEIRAFFEIRAFFEIRAFFE

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 14

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199816

Combine the natural achesand pains of the agingbody with the self-centered

consumerism of the baby boomers,and what do you have? A near infinityof commercial opportunities. You canbet that the next 20 years will be thegreat age of snake oil, as boomersgrasp at whatever straws promise tokeep them young.

A magalog from Canada master-fully combines the key elements ofthe snake oil genre:1 Scientism: pseudoscientific

blather that at first glance seemscredible.

2 Symptom mongering, with thesymptom invariably somethingalmost everyone has at sometime.

3 Specificity, designed to build be-lief and deflect skepticism.

4 Hysteria, which usually takesthe form of “You will die an un-speakable death unless you takeour pills!”

It begins unfolding on the cov-ers: “SENILITY EPIDEMIC – 1 in5 Over 60 Affected” warns the backcover headline, above a big red brainwhose stem is on the verge of totalblockage. “Scientists Say: You Can

Live 29% LongerAnd Healthier!”proclaims the frontcover, as it imploresyou to “STOP THECLOCK!” Notethe “29%,” one ofthose ragged, jaggednumbers that lookauthentic, much more real than a pat“30%.”

Inside front cover: “Age spotson your skin signal that a brownslime is forming on the neurons ofyour brain!” A big, ugly, reddish-brown picture illustrates the brownslime phenomenon. Caption copygives us a jolting dose of hystericalscientism: “Age spots are knowntechnically as lipofuscin. In thebrain, lipofuscin forms a brownslime on the delicate neurons. Thatslime decreases the ability of thebrain to send vital electrochemicalmessages to other parts of the brain.As the slime thickens, senility anddementia increase. Shown above is asection of neurons in the brain of aman who died from a stroke. He wasextremely senile. As you can see, thebrown slime covered every neuron.”

“IF YOU HAVE AGESPOTS...Don’t Wait Until Your

Memory Gets Worse! ClinicalTests Show The Condition Can BeReversed!” is the headline intro tothe text, “By Marcus Welbourne, Se-nior Science Editor.” Senior ScienceEditor of what, one might wonder.And I guess if I were cynical I mightsuspect the “Gero Vita Laborato-ries” people of manipulatively in-venting a name that invokes MarcusWelby, M.D., the iconic televisionhealer. A handsome middle-agedwoman illustrates age spots withsome hulking nasty blotches, mostof which appear to be photographi-cally superimposed.

“Probably the scariest aspect ofgetting older,” Marcus Welbournetells us, “is the possibility that wewill become senile with its attendantforgetfulness, mental confusion, in-ability to manage our money andvulnerability to being taken advan-tage of.

THE GREAT AGE OF

SNAKE OIL

by James R. Rosenfield

THIS ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE OCTOBER 1998 ISSUE

OF DIRECT MARKETING MAGAZINE. REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR.

STOP THE MADNESS!THE FRONT AND BACK COVERS OF A MAILER FOR AN ANTI-AGING PRODUCT FROM GERO VITA LABORATORIES.

17VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

“Worse yet, senility is the firststep towards various age-relateddementia, including the awfulAlzheimer’s disease.

“Age spots or lipofuscin arewell-accepted in medical science asthe first warning that we are pro-gressing in the direction of senilityor dementia.”

Transcendent snake oil selling –which this is – must threaten youwith a truly dire fate, and then makesure that you’re likely to possesspossible symptoms of that fate.Since anyone over 50 can easily findan age spot or two, and since every-one everywhere suffers from occa-sional memory lapses, this means the“Gero Vita Laboratories” people arecasting their net very wide indeed.

Scientism RampantThe snake oil genre has always

reached its zenith of wooly grandeurwhen it combines authority figureswith technobabble. The languageused in this mailing piece is apostmodern update of the rantingsyou’d hear at medicine shows a hun-dred years ago:“A WELL-KNOWN NEUROPSYCHIATRIST, DR.AKIRI MONJI, CONDUCTED A DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TEST WHERE

HE FOUND THAT ANIMALS FED DIETS

DEFICIENT IN RRR-A-TOCOPHERYL HAD

31% TO 55% MORE LIPOFUSCIN…DR.ALBERT BURNS REPORTED IN THE BRITISH

MEDICAL JOURNAL, LANCET, THAT NEARLY

60% OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE PATIENTS

HAVE A DEFICIENCY OF RRR-A-TOCOPHERYL... GLUTATHIONE REQUIRES

SELENO-METHIONINE TO BE METABOLIZED

(USED BY THE BODY). SELENOMETHIONINE

REQUIRES ANOTHER NUTRIENT, COBALAMIN,IN ORDER TO BE METABOLIZED. RRR-A-TOCOPHERYL WORKS BEST WHEN

COMBINED WITH SELENOMETHIONINE. (ITAPPEARS THAT COBALAMIN IS IMPORTANT

FOR PROPER MENTAL FUNCTIONING. DR.B. REGLAND FOUND THAT ALZHEIMER’SDISEASE PATIENTS HAD A DEFICIENCY OF

COBALAMIN.)“Dr. J.B. Deijen reported in the

medical journal, Psychopharmacol-ogy, that he conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled study ofpatients over 60 years old. Half ofthe patients were given pyridoxinewhile the other half received a pla-cebo (fake pill). Those taking pyri-doxine showed a significant im-provement in memory, and thosetaking the placebo didn’t.

“Dr. S. Kleijnen directed a simi-lar study and found that those tak-ing a placebo suffered more fromreduced cognitive functions –muddled thinking.

Note the disarming impact ofthe vocabulary glosses – “metabo-lized (used by the body) …placebo(fake pill)…reduced cognitive func-tions – muddled thinking.” It’s likea phrase of Mozart in a cacophonyof car alarms, and is used as manipu-latively as the impossible-to-pro-nounce chemical terms.

Act Now and Save Your Life!You get the idea. A witch’s brew

of bad chemicals is hurting you, andan angel’s elixir of good chemicalswill save and prolong your life. Addcelebrity endorsements and EasternEuropean medicine:

“Up until several years ago,many movie stars, celebrities andother wealthy people made annualtrips to an anti-aging clinic inBucharest, Romania, which was runby Dr. Ana Aslan.” (Comment: Un-til just a few years ago, it was kindof hard to get into Romania, even if

you were a wealthy celebrity, letalone make annual trips.)

“The cost was about $10,000 forthe treatment and a year’s supply ofGerovital H3 ampules. The reasonthey went there was that Dr. Aslanhad proved that her Gerovital H3 ac-tually reduced MAO by 87%.”(MAO is not the Chinese icon, but“an errant enzyme called monoam-ine oxidase,” one of the many evilthings that is “implicated in theonset…of arthritis, arterio-sclerosis…neuritis…senility, de-pression and impotence.”)

“According to columnists andrumors, the aging jetsetters sworethat Gerovital was the reason theylooked so well. Some of the reportedregulars were Elizabeth Taylor, BobHope, Cary Grant, Jack Benny,Marlene Dietrich, Imelda Marcos,Zsa Zsa Gabor and Prince Rainier.Could that be the case with GeorgeBurns, who died recently at the ageof 100, but looked like he was 70?”

A close reading reveals the wea-sel language – “According to colum-nists and rumors…(s)ome of thereported regulars were ElizabethTaylor, Bob Hope…Could that bethe case with George Burns?” Butwho’s going to read this stuff care-fully?

“Dr. Aslan treated literally tens ofthousands of people with Gerovitalduring her career…she set up a testgroup of 111 patients suffering froma variety of age-related afflictions.She treated them regularly withGerovital and kept careful recordsof their responses. At the end of15 years, Dr. Aslan disclosed thatthe test group lived an average of

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199818

29% longer than the normal lifeexpectancy.”

So let’s see: Here’s this Roma-nian doctor who’s getting $10,000 apop from folks like Imelda Marcosfor some tabs of her Gerovital, andshe sets up the test group herself?Hmmmm…

Testimonials and the Myth ofthe Natural

Anyway, forget the celebs andthe Eastern European cachet (i.e.,liberated from the limiting and in-hibiting effects of official Westernmedicine.) There are three wholepages of testimonials from GH3 us-ers, complete with names and pic-tures.

I’m not being very nice, but Imust comment that most of thephotos have the slack-jawed, miss-ing chromosome look of AmericanFamily Publishers sweepstakes win-ners. If this is how they look afterbeing restored to health, I hate toimagine what they looked like be-fore dosing themselves with GH3.

Can “Mr. R. Lee, Mississippi” or“Mr. B. Fletcher, California” be in-ventions of this fertile snake oilcompany? One would think not –after all, the world is filled with fools,illness can make a believer out ofanyone, and one must never under-estimate the placebo effect or thepossibility that GH3 is harmless,and that some of these folks substi-tuted it for some awful thing a lousydoctor had them taking. But – thiscompany is from Canada, which hasbecome a hotbed of sleaze-artists. Ina long article about sweepstakesfraud in the July 29, 1998 New YorkTimes, it’s pointed out that it’s quite

difficult for Ameri-can victims to fighttrans-border fraud:“Formal approvalfor investigationscommonly takessix months.”

Interestinglyfor a Canadian-based outfit, noneof the testimonialsare from Canadi-ans. Is it possiblethey might not beselling product intheir own country?I called their 800-number in order toget answers tosome of my ques-tions, and was re-ferred to their “research facility” inOrange County, California, anotherepicenter of sharp practices. Severalefforts to speak to someone whocould enlighten me further provedfutile. Life being short and havingnoticed several age spots on my fore-head, I gave up.

“Gero Vita Laboratories” seemsto share a mailing address with “LifeForce Laboratories,” who sent me a“Prostate Health Without Drugs orSurgery” mailer the same day I gotthe piece under discussion. Bothentities define themselves as “Spe-cialists in Ailment-Targeted NaturalFormulas.” Therein lies the rub.

Just because something’s natu-ral doesn’t mean that it’s good. Lotsof natural substances can poison youjust as virulently as unnatural sub-stances. But there’s one huge advan-tage in concocting snake oil fromonly natural ingredients: You escape

scrutiny from the Food and DrugAdministration.

Remember “Mother’s LittleHelper,” baby boomers, the RollingStones’ song that talks about “littleyellow pills”? A six month supplyof these snake oil capsules puts youback $109.95, less than half the regu-lar $239.70. Don’t even think aboutinsurance reimbursements. Andstart practicing “caveat emptor” rightnow!

INVASION OF THE BROWN SLIME: INSIDE FRONT COVER

OF THE MAILER WARNS OF THE PERILS OF AGE SPOTS.

James R. Rosenfield is a lecturer andwriter on marketing and direct mar-keting.

19VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

by Sheila Gibson

Randi was his “Amazing” selfduring the JREF’s “Media, Myth, and Magic” con-

ference August 6-9 at the EmbassySuites Hotel in Fort Lauderdale.And he would mark his 70th birthdaythat weekend.

Can you imagine? Randi? Sev-enty years old? Why, he doesn’t looka day over . . . well, okay, he doeslook 70. But he wears it very welland he knows how to use it. Hecould give Merlin a run for hismoney.

He held court at the conferencein classic Randi style as he took thefloor to rant passionately aboutsome New Age flummery, explainhow to test a paranormal claim, orrelate some hilarious story. Hemingled among the crowd of attend-ees, his charming smile always readyand his blue eyes alight with laugh-ter. Yup, he may be 70, but he’s stillRandi.

Randi celebrated his milestonebirthday on the night of August 7,surrounded by friends and admirers.Among them were Jerry Andrus,Jack Horkheimer, Michael Shermer,Marvin Minsky, Bob Park, BobSteiner, and the whole staff of theJREF. The one-time child prodigywas showered with a haul of presentsany self-respecting child would envy,

and he tore through them withchildlike glee. Many had a distinctlywizardly theme, especially the elec-tronic Merlin prognosticator. A hostof friends saluted him with kind andheartfelt words. Letters from Mar-tin Gardner, a prominent skepticalauthor, and other well-wishers wereread. Randi grinned and joked andblew his candles out and gamelybasked in the attention.

The party’s main attraction wasthe showing of a tape of highlightsfrom his career as a magician, escapeartist, and skeptic. Straightjacketedand hanging upside down overNiagra Falls, he struggled and suc-ceeded in freeing himself from hisbonds. Shari Lewis narrated as helocked himself into a milk can andescaped unharmed, just like Hou-dini.

A campy ’70s-era commercialfor Bounce fabric softener sheetsfeatured the “Amazing One” in tra-ditional magic costume completewith female assistant. The crowdlaughed as he shilled the “magical”powers of the dryer sheets. “Howdo they do it?” asked the on-screenRandi, as the real Randi feigned em-

barrassment and hid his face in hishands.

“I hope you were paid well,”joshed a voice in the crowd.

The highlights reel ended, and afilm starring a teenage Randi filledthe screen. It was no epic work, justa flickery black and white film of abespectacled young man, dark-haired but already balding, muggingfor the camera and clowning aroundon the streets of some unnamed city.The crowd, who had been laughingthroughout the showing, fell silentas it played.

Randi, even at 17, was unmistak-ably Randi.

STILL AMAZING

AFTER ALL THESE YEARS

ABOVE: RANDI EXAMINES HIS BIRTHDAY CAKE

FOR SIGNS OF SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION.BELOW: JERRY ANDRUS (R) DEMONSTRATES

AN OPTICAL ILLUSION FOR MARVIN MINSKY.ph

otos

by

Chi

p D

enm

an

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199820

AVAILABLE FROM JREFPIGASUS PIN

“Pigasus” is the symbol of JREF’s efforts to uncover the unlikely. Now you can show theworld how probable you think genuine psychic powers are by wearing this pewter pin/tietack. Shown actual size. $8.00 + .50 S/H.

BOOKS BY JAMES RANDI

CCCCCONJURINGONJURINGONJURINGONJURINGONJURINGA comprehensivehistorical,biographicaltreatment ofconjuring andconjurors (320pages, full color).Hardcover edition,1992, by St. Martin’sPress.$25.00 + $4.00 S/H

AAAAANNNNN

EEEEENCYNCYNCYNCYNCYCLCLCLCLCLOPEDIAOPEDIAOPEDIAOPEDIAOPEDIA OFOFOFOFOF

CCCCCLAIMSLAIMSLAIMSLAIMSLAIMS, F, F, F, F, FRARARARARAUDSUDSUDSUDSUDS,,,,,ANDANDANDANDAND H H H H HOOOOOAXESAXESAXESAXESAXES OFOFOFOFOF

THETHETHETHETHE O O O O OCCULCCULCCULCCULCCULTTTTT ANDANDANDANDAND

SSSSSUPERNAUPERNAUPERNAUPERNAUPERNATURALTURALTURALTURALTURALA comprehensivetreatment ofdefinitions, originsand terminologyused by theoccultists,parapsychologistsand psychics, with adecidedly skepticalpoint of view.Hardcover edition,1995, by St. Martin'sPress.$25.00 + $3.00 S/H

TTTTTHEHEHEHEHE M M M M MASKASKASKASKASK OFOFOFOFOF

NNNNNOSTRADOSTRADOSTRADOSTRADOSTRADAMUSAMUSAMUSAMUSAMUSBiographical studyof the legendary16th century seerwho turns out to bea Renaissance con-man with secrets ofhis own that arerevealed here.Hardcover edition,1990, by CharlesScribner's.$20.00 + $3.00 S/H

TTTTTHEHEHEHEHE F F F F FAITHAITHAITHAITHAITH

HHHHHEALERSEALERSEALERSEALERSEALERSA hard-hittingexposure of themethods used byevangelists whoclaim to heal bydivine touch.Paperback edition,1989, byPrometheus Books.$20.00 + $3.00 S/H

FFFFFLIMLIMLIMLIMLIM-F-F-F-F-FLAMLAMLAMLAMLAM!!!!!PPPPPSYSYSYSYSYCHICSCHICSCHICSCHICSCHICS, ESP, ESP, ESP, ESP, ESP,,,,,UUUUUNICORNSNICORNSNICORNSNICORNSNICORNS, , , , , ANDANDANDANDAND

OOOOOTHERTHERTHERTHERTHER D D D D DELELELELELUSIONSUSIONSUSIONSUSIONSUSIONSA generalexamination ofeverything in the"paranormal"spectrum from ESPto UFOs.Paperback edition,1992, byPrometheus Books.$19.00 + $3.00 S/H

Cassette tapeedition, 1995, byPrometheus Books.Excerpts read by theauthor.$17.00 + $2.00 S/H

TTTTTHEHEHEHEHE T T T T TRUTHRUTHRUTHRUTHRUTH

AAAAABOUTBOUTBOUTBOUTBOUT U U U U URIRIRIRIRI

GGGGGELLERELLERELLERELLERELLERThe first in-depthcritical examinationof the claims madeby and for aconjuror whoprofessed genuinepsychic abilities andconvinced a numberof scientists thatsuch powers existed.Paperback edition,1982, byPrometheus Books.$21.00 + $3.00 S/H

JREF LOGO MERCHANDISEMug, $10.00 + $3.00 S/HT-shirt: $15.00+$3.00 S/H (specify S/M/L/XL)Pen: $5.00 + $.55 S/H

Please Note: When ordering by mail, send checks or money orders only,to JREF, 201 S.E. 12th St. (E. Davie Blvd.), Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815. For books, mugs and T-shirts sent outside the US and Canada, add$9 for air mail (one week) rather than the S/H costs listed above; otherwisethey will be sent by surface mail (up to 8 weeks). Pens and Pigasus pins goair mail, worldwide, for the regular S/H fees listed. If you’d like a bookautographed by the author, just ask!

NOVAVIDEOFROMPBSAll over the world,psychics performfeats that defy thelaws of science. Dothey have a speciallink to theparanormal? Entermagician JamesRandi – who fordecades has turnedhis trained eye on

phenomena from spoon bending to faithhealing to astrology. Tune in as Randiuncovers the secrets about psychics – andtakes a penetrating look at the uncannyworkings of the human mind.1 hour, VHS cassette (NTSC)$19.95 + $4.00 S/H (overseas: $10 S/H)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

21VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

Massimo Polidoro is the Europeanrepresentative for the JREF; he is alsoa researcher for CICAP (the ItalianCommittee for the Investigations ofClaims of the Paranormal), author ofvarious books dealing with the criti-cal examination of paranormal claimsand a graduate student in psychologyat Padua University. He is currentlyworking on a book dealing withHoudini’s investigations in spiritual-ism.polidoro@aznet.ithttp://www.aznet.it/polidoro

CICAP’s Web page can be reached at:http://www.valnet.it/cicap

NO TIPPINGby Massimo Polidoro

Recently, an Italian spiritmedium approached us at CICAP and said he wanted

his “powers” tested. His name wasTeodosio Lavinia, a.k.a. “MagoMatheus Faust,” from Potenza, andhe claimed he could move any three-legged table without touching itusing only his psychic powers.“Table tipping” has been a standardof seance mediums since the mid-1800s, but the hands-off claim wasa new twist.

The Italian National television,RAI-TV, considered the occasionsufficiently spectacular to film thetest live. The site for the test wasgoing to be the laboratories of theDepartment of Chemistry at theUniversity of Pavia, where we of-ten conduct tests on psychics.

The medium arrived thatmorning to examine the conditionsof the test. We provided five dif-ferent three-legged tables at hisrequest, and he would choose oneof the five that he felt was bestsuited for his demonstration. Heexamined them all, touching andlooking, and finally he chose onefor the test.

But something was wrong: theproblem, he told us, was not in thetables, but in the floor. It was not

sufficiently smooth: the smallcracks between the tiles might pre-vent the table from sliding. Wesuggested placing the table on topof a large, wooden platform. Af-ter we did so, he waved his handson the table a few times, examinedthe platform and then shook hishead. The wood, he explained,stopped the “spiritic fluid,” whichapparently came from the ground,and the table could not move.

When examining people thatclaim to possess psychic powers,it is essential that the test condi-tions be as favorable as possible tothe claimant; in this way, any pos-sible failure cannot be attributed tounfavorable conditions or theskepticism of the experimenters.

We thus looked for anotherroom in which to perform the test,but the only apparently suitableroom we could find, the only onewithout cracks between tiles, wasa space under a staircase. Psychic,table and crew moved to the newlocation but alas ... nothing couldbe done there either.

The space was “too gloomy,”the psychic explained.

Back again in the originalroom, the psychic agreed to try thetest. He claimed he felt pretty con-

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199822

fident of his success. Psychic pow-ers work in mysterious ways...

Before starting the official testand the filming, we asked the psy-chic, as we usually do, to give us ademonstration without constraintof control conditions: this wasneeded to be sure that his powerscould work well in that particularroom, and that the lights, the cam-eras or the people present couldnot affect his sensibility. In caseof a failure under test conditions,such elements could not then beblamed as the possible source ofthe fiasco.

We then sat around the tableand the psychic asked us to placeour fingers on the surface of thetable after he did the same. Sud-denly, without even attempting tohide it, he started to press on thetable, making it slide. When weinformed him that we could see the“move” quite clearly, he replied

saying that it was not him pushingthe table, but the “fluid” exudingfrom his fingers. However, he stillhadn’t shown us his ability to movethe table while staying apart fromit, which was the most interestingpart of the demonstration. He saidthat since it required intense con-centration, he would only attemptthat during the official test.

All was ready for the live ex-periment. Lights, cameras roll-ing... Action! We took our placearound the table and placed ourfingers in the usual way. After afew seconds, the psychic started topush and we observed an interest-ing twist on the trick: after he hadtilted the table on two legs, thepsychic removed his hands from itand left it in a precarious state,with only our hands supporting it.It was quite clear now how he usu-ally succeeded: he was going toclaim that any movement caused

by us in the attempt to keep thetable from falling was, actually,produced by the fluid emanatingfrom his hands, which he kept wav-ing in the air. We did not give hima chance to try that on us, so weput the table back on the floor andasked him to move it from thatposition, even only a few millime-ters.

Evidently surprised, the psy-chic appeared to concentrate forawhile, but then stopped and saidthat was enough. Before the endof the program, we explained tothe TV viewers how the psychichad been able to incline the tableby pressing on it.

When asked about his failureduring the test the psychic an-swered: “It’s their fault! They lackenough psychic energy.” Thatmakes sense: he was the psychic,but if we wanted to see real psy-chic powers at work we’d betterprovide it ourselves!

SPIRITUALISTIC TABLE ANTICS have attracted the attention of skeptical investigators for 150 years. Spiritualist believers would conductseances with hands upon the top of a table. After a while, the table would rotate, sometime so much that the sitters would have to leave theirchairs to stay with the table. For many, this was exciting proof that the spirits could interact with the material world. In 1853, physicist MichaelFaraday devised an ingenious test of so-called “table turning.” Faraday reasoned that if spirits really were moving the table, then the tablemust lead and the sitters follow its action. On the other hand, if the sitters themselves were pushing the table around, then their hands shouldmove ahead of the table.

Faraday placed a stack of slippery cardboard on a table top. The sitters’ hands rested on the top sheet of the stack, which was largeenough to obscure the table top. There was just enough friction to transmit force between the hands and the table. After the table moved, thepositions of the cards were compared. In every case, the cards at the top – by the hands – had moved further than the cards at the bottom.The table’s motion had lagged behind the motion of the hands.

As a clincher, Faraday added visual feedback for the sitters. Rollers and a pointer indicated the direction of the forces, whether from thehands or from the table. Once the sitters were aware that they were subconsciously exerting a sideways force on the table, the spookyphenomenon ceased.

— Chip Denman

23VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

It was standing room only in theballroom of the National PressClub. The press briefing by the

Journal of the American Medical As-sociation was scheduled to run allmorning, so I took a position stand-ing next to the danish in case Ineeded nourishment. This was thesort of turnout you normally asso-ciate with an announcement of amajor medical breakthrough in thebattle against cancer or AIDS. Buton the agenda this day were thera-pies for less terminal conditionssuch as irritable bowel syndrome andtension headache, and far from be-ing breakthroughs, some of thetreatments had been passed downwithout modification for thousandsof years. Had JAMA gone alterna-tive?

There is good reason for a sci-entific look at alternative medicine.We are witnessing an alternativemedicine epidemic with no end insight. Four out of ten Americansused some alternative therapy lastyear, compared to one out of threein 1990. And they spent $27 billionout-of-pocket for the privilege –more than double the 1990 figure.Visits to alternative medicine prac-titioners now exceed those to pri-

mary care physicians. Aside fromthe general descent of the popula-tion into New Age woolliness, whataccounts for the growing popular-ity of alternative medicine? Con-gress played a big role with the cre-ation in 1991 of an National Insti-tutes of Health Office of Alterna-tive Medicine (it became the Centerfor Complementary and AlternativeMedicine this past October) and thepassage of the Dietary Supplementand Health Education Act in 1994.

The mere existence of an officewithin NIH devoted to alternativemedicine gives credibility to a vastspectrum of implausible therapies.The Center has yet to find even onetherapy that does not show prom-ise, which seems to please Congress.In seven years Congress has in-creased the budget from $2 millionto $50 million. The Dietary Supple-ment and Health Education Act of1994 allows natural remedies to bemarketed over the counter withoutany proof of safety, efficacy, or pu-rity. The Food and Drug Adminis-tration cannot get involved unlessthe bodies begin to pile up.

So it’s clearly time to put thesetherapies to the test and inform phy-sicians of their safety and effective-

IRRITABLE SCIENTIST

SYNDROME

by Bob Park

Robert L. Park is Professor of Physicsat the University of Maryland and di-rector of public information of theAmerican Physical Society. He writes“What’s New,” a weekly internet com-mentary (www.aps.org) on science is-sues that is widely read by scientists,science journalists, and governmentofficials. He is also a frequent con-tributor to the op-ed pages of majornewspapers and on television and ra-dio news programs. A former chair-man of the Department of Physics atthe University of Maryland, he is theauthor of more than a hundred scien-tific papers in experimental surfacephysics. He is currently working ona book with the tentative title Voo-doo Science.

park@aps.org

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199824

ness. That’s just what the JAMAeditors said they had in mind whenthey devoted the November 11,1998 issue to scientific studies of al-ternative therapies. Four of the ar-ticles were showcased at the pressbriefing, presumably to demonstratethe scientific rigor of the research.The JAMA editor introduced thefour studies by explaining that the“gold-standard” of modern medicalresearch is the randomized, con-trolled, double-blind study. The re-porters present quite naturally as-sumed that all four studies fit thatdescription, and they would not havelearned otherwise from the pressreleases or from the briefing. Theirstories were full of praise for the sci-entific approach taken by JAMA.But were the studies double-blind?

One of the papers selected forthe briefing dealt with the use of“moxibustion” to persuade a fetusin the 33rd week of gestation to getin the proper head-first position.Moxibustion is an ancient Chinesetreatment involving stimulation ofan acupuncture point with heatrather than needles. Not just anyold heat will do. The heat is pro-duced by building a tiny bonfire atthe acupoint using the dried leavesof artemisia vulgaris. The fire, momwill be happy to learn, is extin-guished before actual blistering oc-curs. The acupoint for getting a fe-tus to do a somersault is BL 67(Zhiyin), which is located beside theouter corner of the fifth toenail.Treatment is repeated each day forseven days. This is standard prac-tice in China, where they’ve beenrelying on it for thousands of years.You will be shocked to learn, as I

was, that no clinical trials of this pro-cedure had ever been performed.What are our medical researchersspending their time on?

The study randomly assignedwomen with breech position fetusesto either receive or not receive thetreatment. The article states, how-ever, that “subjects and investigatorswere aware of group assignment.”Only the fetus, it seems, was in thedark. The article explains that itwould have been impossible to usesham moxibustion as a placebo; thestudy was conducted in China wherethis is the standard treatment forbreech presentation, and it’s prettyeasy to tell whether you’re getting aChinese hot foot. “It was difficultto persuade the subjects to acceptrandomization and the consequentrisk of having to do without thetherapy.” So, in a culture in whichthose in the control group fully ex-pected the worst, they did somewhatmore poorly than those in thetreated group. This is known as the“nocebo effect.” The best solutionmight have been to conduct thestudy in a culture where women havenever heard of moxibustion – if youcould find enough women whowould not laugh themselves to deaththat is.

I didn’t stick around to hearabout the use of Chinese herbalmedication for irritable bowel syn-drome. I was irritated enough al-ready, and the danish were gone.

which the ad says is helping thou-sands to enjoy healthier lives. Thereis a wonderful photograph of vigor-ous, smiling people. Every word ofthe text that goes with it is literallytrue.

“It is so natural it contains themost abundant element on earth. Sosafe you can drop it in your eyes.So effective you could spend hoursreading the unsolicited testimonialsof those who've used it with dra-matic results.”

How does it work?“Vitamin O contains stabilized

oxygen molecules in a liquid solutionof sodium chloride and distilled wa-ter to be taken orally as a supplement,usually 15-20 drops two to three timesa day. Your bloodstream absorbs the‘Vitamin O’ and carries the pure oxy-gen directly to your cells and tissues.

“There it maximizes your nutri-ents, purifies your bloodstream, andeliminates toxins and poisons – inother words, all the processes neces-sary to prevent disease and promotehealth.”

You can get a two month sup-ply for only $40.

It also says “this technology wasused for our space research pro-gram” – there is a picture of an as-tronaut floating in a space suit. Iwill check and see if NASA can con-firm this, though it's difficult for meto see how the astronauts could havesurvived if they didn't drink water.

It is a measure of the contemptthese people have for the public thatthey are confident that they can getaway with selling ordinary salt wa-ter as a supplement – and tell peopleexactly what they are buying!

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

A colleague called my attentionto a full page ad in USA Today for asupplement called “Vitamin O”from Rose Creek Health Products,

25VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

CHINESE TRADITIONALMEDICINE IN CHINA

I am a graduate student in biomedicalengineering and a third year medicalstudent who just returned fromBeijing. While returning from a tourof the Great Wall and Ming Tombs,the tour made an unexpected stopat a center for Chinese TraditionalMedicine.

The tour began in the lobbywhere we were told how Mao pro-moted CTM in his later years. Wewere then ushered into a small lec-ture room where a charming youngChinese woman in a white lab coatoffered us tea and asked us wherewe were all from. There were 10 ofus, and all were from the U.S. ex-cept one Chinese woman who wasstrangely absent through most ofthe session. Except for my 41-year-old uncle and myself, all looked tobe at least 65 years old.

Our host proceeded to tell usabout Qi, Yin/Yang, and how threefingers applied to each wrist pulsecould detect the condition of vari-ous organs in the body – one fingerfor each organ. She then called in a“Qi master” who, after ostensiblyfocusing his Qi into his lower abdo-men, grabbed two bare wires tocomplete a 120V circuit. A lightbulb placed upon his head showedthat he did indeed have a currentrushing through his body.

We were all then told to holdhands so that we could, as a group,complete the 120V circuit. Peoplewere amazed at the tingling feelingthe current produced in their fin-gers. I suppose they all missed thisdemonstration in high school phys-ics. We were all told that this “im-proved the circulation.”

We all then received a sheet ofpaper with descriptions of variousherbs on it. We were told that Chi-nese herbs were different fromWestern medicine because Westernmedicine is made up of “chemicals”and because Chinese herbs treat theroot causes of disease (Yin and Yangout of balance) and have no side ef-fects. Some of the listed herbs, wewere told, could not be found inAmerica. Among the claims madeabout some of the herbs is that theycould treat arthritis and diabetes, and“cure” hypertension.

We were next asked if we wouldlike a doctor to diagnose us. Severaldistinguished-looking Chinese gentle-men (in white coats of course) en-tered the room and spread outamongst the various tables. Iwatched as my uncle was “diag-nosed.” The doctor worked througha translator:

Translator: “How old are you?”Patient: “41.”Translator: “He says you haveunstable blood pressure.”Patient: “That’s amazing! A doctoronce told me my pressure was a littlehigh.”Translator: “He says that yousometimes have lower back pain.”Patient: “Yes! That’s right!”

Translator: “He says the unstableblood pressure sometimes makesyou dizzy.”Patient: “No. No, I’ve neverbeen...”Translator: “That part is unclear –yes, that was unclear.”

The doctor then pointed out theherbs my uncle should use to treathis ailments. The translator askedhow many he wanted to buy.

My take:Aside from the broad abstractions

about yin and yang, the unmeasurableQi, the false dichotomy betweenchemicals and Chinese herbs, andthe apparent inclusion of electricityin traditional Chinese medicine,these “doctors” were employingsuch a bad con in diagnosing nearlyubiquitous ailments that it was ut-terly insulting. Except that, as withthe astrologers and psychics thatyou write about, it “appeared” towork. I think it worked, and I thinkAmericans were targeted, because ofthe wide acceptance that these meth-ods receive in the U.S. by respectedpeople and institutions. I hate to seeailing people taken advantage of likethat.

Aside from this con, I felt verysafe and free in China, had a won-derful time, and I highly recommendit to everyone.

Chris BratteliUniversity of Minnesota

SWIFT FORUMOpinion and commentaryfrom Swift readers.

FAITH, PRAYER ANDHEALING

In the October, 1998 issue of Read-ers Digest, the front cover proclaims:“Doctors Report: FAITH CAN

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199826

HEAL YOU.” I have never been areader of the Digest, but I am famil-iar with the format and direction ittakes in presenting its articles. Mostinvoke some feeling of optimismand hope thereby leaving the readerwith some positive ideas or a warmand fuzzy feeling about their lives.This article is no exception to thatrule and ventures farther in a pre-sentation of a wholly Christian per-spective, ignoring any opposingvoice or offering any backup to thestudies and research cited. The ar-ticle, by Malcolm McConnell, whois listed as an contributing editor,proclaims “Faith can help you heal.”It is a deceptive and unscholarly at-tempt to use subjective surveys, an-ecdotal evidence and appeals to au-thorities to present a case that prayer,specifically Christian prayer andchurchgoing has “healing potential.”

First let me say that I do be-lieve that a healthy lifestyle (lowfat diet, exercise, etc.) is importantfor good mental and physicalhealth. And that relaxation tech-niques or types of meditation canrelieve certain stresses. I also be-lieve that naps are important andfishing is a great stress reliever.However, this article goes beyondthe scope of what is reasonablewhen it ties good health and heal-ing directly to the Christian godwho has a personal interest in thehealth of his churchgoers.

Five medical doctors, threestudies and one nurse are citedbriefly to bolster this claim. Theproblem with this article is apparentfrom the start: no pertinent back-ground information is provided tothe reader about the doctors or the

studies. Take Dr. Harold Koenig, anassociate professor of psychiatry atDuke University. The article says“his research team, studying thou-sands of Americans since 1984, hascompiled powerful evidence that re-ligious faith not only promotes over-all good health, but also aids in re-covery from serious illness.” Koenigstates that in a study of 455 elderlyhospital patients, that those who at-tended church more than once aweek averaged four days in the hos-pital and people who never or sel-dom went to church spent 10 to 12days in the hospital. This study hasmany accountability and verificationproblems.

But what about Koenig? Howobjective is he? In CatherineClabby’s article from the News andObserver 5/10/98, Koenig de-scribes himself as a “ConservativeChristian” and “Born Again.” Inaddition, he encourages patients topray with him. Clabby adds, “...it’sobvious that religion dwells at thecenter of his family life. A poster atthe kitchen door announces thatJesus Heads This Household. Theradio is tuned to a Christian station.A delicate cross bought years ago inBethlehem holds a prominent spotin the professor’s small study.” Onecan conclude Koenig can hardly beconsidered an “objective observer.”The other doctors (all peddlingbooks) include Dr. Herbert Benson,whose book “Timeless Healing”proclaims people are “wired forGod,” Dr. Dale Matthews, authorof The Faith Factor and Dr. DeanOrnish author of Love and Survival.Ornish may be the only objectiveand non-biased source cited. The

article also quotes Sue Moody, a par-ish nurse at Overbrook PresbyterianChurch in Columbus, Ohio, who“visits hospitalized church membersdaily and acts as their personal ad-vocate within the health care sys-tem,” and Dr. Iris Keys, an ordainedminister and an internist at CoppinState Nursing Center. Keys says she“never imposes her religion, [but] al-ways listens for ‘church talk.’”However, in the one case related inthis article, Keys “sensed the womanwas sicker in spirit than in body” andasked her patient “(S)hall we have aword of prayer?” Keys then led herpatient in prayer and subsequent vis-its included prayer. Just how objec-tive can this group be? McConnellnever even suggests there may beopposing voices or non-Christianviews.

Besides Koenig’s study, the ar-ticle cites the following studies:

A Dartmouth Medical Schoolstudy where “heart patients were 14times more likely to die followingsurgery if they did not participate ingroup activities and did not findcomfort in religion. Within sixmonths of surgery, 21 patients haddied – but there were no deathsamong the 37 people who said theywere “deeply religious.” In Israel,researchers “studied 3900 people liv-ing on kibbutzim over a 16 year pe-riod. Their findings: the religioushad a 40 percent lower death ratefrom cardiovascular disease and can-cer than their secular peers.” Andfinally, Yale University’s “study of2812 elderly people found that thosewho never or rarely attended churchhad nearly twice the stroke rate ofweekly churchgoers.”

27VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

The problem with this entirearticle is apparent: none of these“sources” provide any objective evi-dence quantifiable by scientific stan-dards for the claims that interces-sory prayer or faith had any effector efficacy when dealing with pa-tients. Anecdotal evidence aside,none of the cases cited had any con-firming evidence. In the studieslisted, the problems are more nu-merous: Who did the study? Whatwere the controls and protocols?Was there independent confirmationof the results? Were the results peerreviewed? Were the results dupli-cated in different parts of the coun-try? The world? How can a controlgroup be truly established when youare dealing with the efficacy and ecu-menical nature of prayer? Are thestudies available for examination? Iam sure that these studies are asprejudiced as their Christian au-thors. Another problem with thisapproach is also evident: The doc-tors and studies are ignoring themillions of people in different coun-tries and environments that do nothave belief in the Christian God andlive better and healthier lives thanthose in Christian countries or thatthere are deeply religious people,including non-Christians, who donot regularly attend churches. Ja-pan is a good example. Also ignoredis the question that if Christian faithand church going are so good for thehuman physical condition, why arethese deeply religious, consistentchurchgoers having strokes andheart attacks in the first place?

This article belies its prejudicialinsistence that there is a Judeo-Christian preference by God for

healing and good health by taking avery narrow spectrum of the popu-lation and applying a Christian stan-dard to it and completely and con-veniently ignoring the rest of us.McConnell and the Digest shouldrecognize their literary responsibil-ity in an ever diverse and changingworld and not just take at face valuecontroversial subject matter and in-validated studies catering to theChristians in society. The religiousright’s propaganda machine is cer-tainly working overtime here.

Yet there is another aspect ofthis subject that has been completely(and perhaps conveniently) ignoredby the article’s author and esteemeddoctors and researchers: in thou-sands of nursing homes and assistedcare centers across the country aretens of thousands of people suffer-ing from Alzheimer’s, senile demen-tia, Parkinson’s, cancer and a myriadof other disabling and tragic diseasesand conditions that affect the humanmind and body. Many of these cen-ters (as well as home care organiza-tions) are church-sponsored andsome are reserved exclusively forchurch or denominational members.Thus, it cannot be said that thesepatients are not receiving massivefaith and prayer support nor can itbe maintained that they were notchurchgoers or persons of littlefaith. Yet no amount of faith orprayer will change the outcome ofthese human lives once diagnosedwith a chronic and crippling condi-tion. Once healthy bodies andminds, some deeply devoted to Godand their religion now totally depen-dent upon others for the most basicnecessities of existence. The typi-

cal Christian (or religious) party-line usually inserted here is aboutGod being mysterious and, ironi-cally, praying to God to ease the painand suffering! This hypocritical re-sponse is appalling and shocking asit represents the dichotomy and use-lessness of religion. It suggests aminimizing of the human side ofthese tragedies. It is no wonder thatKoenig and his cohorts go for the“soft” numbers: they cannot facethe reality and cold hard facts of in-capacitating diseases in which faithand prayer haven’t the slightest ef-fect.

Seen in this light, this articleshould be an embarrassment to anythinking person, Christian or oth-erwise.

John HillKettle Falls, WAjhill@plix.com

DEBUNKING THEPARANORMAL: ANOBLE GOAL BUTULTIMATELY IN VAIN?

It has been my experience thatnon-skeptical thinkers absolutelydon’t want to change their beliefsabout the paranormal. Take a lookat your local bookstore’s paranor-mal shelves. How many books byauthors like James Randi, MartinGardner, and Philip Klass do yousee compared to books about as-trology, UFOs, and psychic abil-ity? Bookstores stock what the ma-

CONTINUED ON PAGE 28

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199828

jority of consumers are reading andbuying.

My first experience with thedifficulty in debating with non-skep-tics came after reading some of JanHarold Brunvand’s books on urbanlegends. I was amazed at how manybizarre, macabre stories have spreadaround for years, often told as ifthey’re current, that have no basisin fact. I was even more amazed tofind no one telling one of these sto-ries wants to be told that it isn’t true.Attempts to explain that the storyis old (Brunvand traced one storyback as far as the turn of the cen-tury) is met with defiance and some-times even anger. It is human nature,I think, to not want to be wrong. Sowhen I try to contradict someone re-garding paranormal phenomena, Imeet up with even more defiance.

An example I can cite from myown personal experience relates todowsing.

My aunt told me about a manwho lived near her who dowsed formany residents of that area. Al-though I let her know I didn’t be-lieve in dowsing, she pointed outthat he had only been wrong “once.”I was surprised that he would admitto being wrong at all. Still, I had beenreading Flim-Flam! and had mycopy with me, and I tried to showher the section about Randi’s dows-ing test. She turned her back on meand refused to listen! Her mind wascompletely closed to the idea thatdowsing isn’t really possible.

This man had previously dowsedon property where she and my unclehad been building a house. When thewell diggers came in with theirequipment, they dug in several dif-

ferent areas designated by thedowser, and came up dry every time!They had to install a pump at thebottom of the hill because theycouldn’t find water for a well.

Once I remembered that, I re-alized that this was the “one” failurethe dowser had. He could hardlyhide it from her; I wonder how manyother failures he had that she didn’tknow about. Yet in spite of his fail-ure on her own property, she stillbelieved in him.

After reading Randi’s thoughtsabout Therapeutic Touch (TT) ina recent issue of Swift, and his chal-lenge to anyone to claim his prize,I mentioned the subject to my sis-ter, who is a nurse practitioner. Shehas a friend, also a nurse, who tooka seminar in TT and tried to dem-onstrate it to my sister. My sisterwas unimpressed with the display,especially after I told her what Ihad heard about it. However,when I told her about the articlein Swift about Emily Rosa’s suc-cessful debunking of the phenom-enon, she argued that TT probablyhas some value as a placebo. Shealso pointed out that “no one reallyknows how acupuncture works.”Frankly, I don’t know that acupunc-ture does work, so the argumentwent no further. But I was disap-pointed that she could defend apseudoscientific claim that shouldbe considered a major embarrass-ment to the nursing profession. Idid ask her what she would thinkof a nurse seeing a patient and rec-ommending channeling crystals,but she didn’t respond.

After numerous futile attemptsto convince people to think ratio-

nally about paranormal phenomenaand pseudoscience, I started won-dering why they are so determinednot to think rationally. A revelationof sorts came after I told my familyand some co-workers that I am anatheist. The response that I got wasnot what I expected. Every singleperson I have told refuses to believeit. They insist that I really believe inGod, but that for some reason I amsimply denying it. I said earlier thatcontradicting belief in an urban leg-end or a paranormal phenomenongarners anger and/or defiance. Tryto contradict someone’s religion orlack thereof, and see what defiancereally is!

Which led me to this hypoth-esis: People who believe in paranor-mal-type phenomena don’t want tothink skeptically because they mightstart thinking skeptically about theirown religion. I wonder if a study onparanormal/pseudoscience beliefwould provide the evidence that themost avid believers are also very firmin their religious beliefs? After all,religion is basically an emperor withno clothes on. I have read PaulKurtz’s The Transcendental Tempta-tion, and I wonder how anyonecould believe that what is preachedby any religion is absolutely truewhen no concrete evidence is offeredto support the religion’s doctrine.

Rational thinking will alwaysbe the exception, not the rule.People have been believing paran-ormal nonsense for centuries; theexact things that they believe inchange, but the willingness to be-lieve is the same. Virtually no onebelieves in the Philosopher’s Stone

29VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

SWIFT TAKESGOOD & BAD VIBRATIONS FROM ALL OVER

Mirabella’s “Tech Report” section

in the September/October 1998 issue

lures its readers with the promise of “A

sneak peek at the latest science...” It’s

an empty promise. In one item, “The

latest free-radical fighter to surface in

the battle against sags and lines is al-

pha-lipoic acid, an anti-oxidant found

naturally in human cells and in pota-

toes.” An MD from Yale is quoted as

saying the product is “anti-aging” and

the product’s results include smaller

pores, smoother skin, and more even

coloring. Right. Last time we checked,

we still hadn’t discovered a “fountain

of youth” and no amount of skin po-

tions have ever made a dent in the size

of anyone’s pores.

“AMERICA’S MOVING ADVENTURE”

anymore; today it is TherapeuticTouch and psychokinesis.

In The Transcendental Tempta-tion, Paul Kurtz explores the reasonswhy people have a need to believein religion, including the theory thatreligion is based in biogenetics, thatis, a genetic predisposition that hu-mans have developed over time.Until we can fully understand this,I fear that belief in the paranormaland in pseudoscience will continuevirtually unabated.

Margaret Ernsberger

WWWWWe hope there’s no mileage charge for this particular move.e hope there’s no mileage charge for this particular move.e hope there’s no mileage charge for this particular move.e hope there’s no mileage charge for this particular move.e hope there’s no mileage charge for this particular move.

phot

o by

Chi

p D

enm

an

CONTINUED ON PAGE 30

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199830

Internet as a powerful health resources

and encourages readers to employ

simple strategies that he proceeds to

outline in the article that will help “dis-

tinguish substance from data smog.”

Some things do change. Just a

little. But we’ll take what we can get.

The Learning Annex in New York City

seemingly touts the same foolish mor-

tals and subjects for the Fall 1998 con-

tinuing education season: “Psychic

Stacey Anne Wolf on Using Universal

Energy to Enhance your Life;” “Feng

Shui: The Art of Placement;” and “Past-

Life Regression Workshop.” But wait.

What’s this on Page 29? Dr. Michael

Shermer’s “Why People Believe Weird

Things,” a three-hour lecture on Friday,

October 2. Go, Michael!

A Washington Post art ic le by

Hanna Rosin, staff writer, on Septem-

ber 3, 1998, entitled “White Evange-

lists Born Again on BET” describes the

“robust recovery” of TV evangelist and

faith healer Peter Popoff (as well as

other televangelists). Popoff was bank-

rupted in the 1980s as a direct result

of Randi’s investigations as detailed in

The Faith Healers and seen on The To-

night Show with Johnny Carson. Popoff

is now back on TV, faith healing once

again, this time to audiences tuned in

to the Black Entertainment Network, an

influential cable station.

A Newsweek cover story (July 20,

1998) claimed “Science Finds God” in

big bold letters. The article attempts to

draw the correlation between the usu-

ally skeptical and literal-minded scien-

tist and the nature of God and goes so

far as to suggest that science and reli-

gion are somehow at a point in history

Okay, so cigarettes aren’t good for

you, and the industry and its executives

aren’t exactly models of propriety, but

they sure do get it when it comes to

the paranormal. A recent two-page

Winston ad spotted in Rolling Stone

features a stereotypical fortune teller

complete with crystal ball and phone

number (1-999-GET-PSYCHIC) and the

question, “If they’re so psychic, why

don’t they call you?”

A Reuters story in late August de-

tails a clairvoyant’s failure to become

a candidate for Mayor in Lima, Peru,

for all the wrong reasons. Transsexual

Fulvia Celica, the clairvoyant TV pre-

senter, was blocked from candidacy by

Peru’s National Election Board for be-

ing a woman, not for being a clairvoy-

ant.

Weekly trade newsletter to the toi-

letries, fragrances and skin care indus-

try, F-D-C Reports, announced “Coty

Cold Comfortheraphy Eases Winter

Blues with penetrating eucalyptus,

menthol and wintergreen” in its August

31, 1998, issue. All products in the

Comfortheraphy collection, including

lip balm and bath crystals, contain

echinacea and goldenseal, untested

yet popular alternative ingredients.

Substantial print advertising for Fall

1998 to support the new products

claimed the products are “enhanced with

good-for-you botanicals – echinacea

and goldenseal – plus vitamin C.”

In the August 24, 1998, issue of

Newsweek in an article titled “Good

Medicine on the Web,” author Adam

Rogers is healthily skeptical about the

where they more than coexist. Author

Sharon Begley suggests that science

strengthens belief. But the darndest

thing is in reading the article – twice –

we can’t figure out how she got there.

In the December 14, 1998, issue

of The New Republic, Arnold S. Relman

dissects the intensely popular and com-

mercially successful New Age guru, Dr.

Andrew Weil. “A Trip to Stonesville” is

a lengthy, thoroughly researched, ac-

cessible and skeptical article by the edi-

tor-in-chief emeritus of The New En-

gland Journal of Medicine and profes-

sor emeritus of medicine and social

medicine at Harvard Medical School.

In five well-paced sections, Relman

points out inconsistencies, contradic-

tions and flaws in Dr. Weil’s writings

and teachings, while acknowledging

his popularity and influence. Relman

concludes with a strong argument for

continued objectivity and rigorous test-

ing in modern medicine.

The business side of the increas-

ingly profitable herbal medicine mar-

ket is explored in a lengthy cover story

in the November 23, 1998, issue of

Time. The coverage, compiled by a pri-

mary author (John Greenwald) and

many contributing reporters, begins

with the article, “Herbal Healing,”

which cites statistics, provides histori-

cal background, and posits theories re-

garding the popularity of herbal medi-

cine. The sidebars cover the nutraceutical

beverage market; investment strategies

in the “natural products” industries;

recommended reading; and a check-

list of tips on choosing remedies.

Despite the number of pages (12!)

devoted to herbal and alternative

healthcare, Time does only a fair to

VIBES

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 29

31VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998

jref

• Speaking engagement by James Randi

• Lifetime membership

• Recognition on JREF Web page

• Autographed photo of James Randi

• Book: The Mask of Nostradamus

• Signed letter from James Randi

• Subscription to Swift newsletter

• T-shirt, mug, or pen

• 10% off on books and other items

• Personal membership card

• Satisfaction of involvement

INVITATION TO JOINYou can support JREF by becoming an annual or a lifetime member.Each membership category includes all the benefits below it.

NAME

ADDRESS

PHONE

E-MAIL

*SCHOOL ATTENDING

PAYMENT AMOUNT

All payments to be made in U.S. dollars by check, money order, Visa or MasterCard.For credit card payment, please provide information below:PRINT CARDHOLDER’S NAME

ACCOUNT # EXP. DATE

SIGNATURE

The JREF is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation. All memberships are tax-deductible in the U.S.

JREF ceramiccoffee mug with spiffyinscription. For indooror outdoor use.Reusable, washable.

JREF pen. Writesin any language. Sexymaroon color, trimmedin homeopathic gold.Takes standard refills.

JREF T-shirt witha fierce portrait ofJames Randi. Availablein four sizes:S M L XL

All members receive a complimentary gift. The choice is one of the following:

James RandiEducationalFoundation201 S.E. 12TH STREET (E. DAVIE BLVD.)FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316-1815

PHONE: +1-954-467-1112FAX: +1-954-467-1660E-MAIL: RANDI@RANDI.ORG

Patron $10,000+

Benefactor $5,000+

Sponsor $2,500+

Supporter $1,000+

Friend $250+

Individual Student* $100 $25

FFFFFOROROROROR AAAAA LIMITEDLIMITEDLIMITEDLIMITEDLIMITED TIMETIMETIMETIMETIME, , , , , JOINJOINJOINJOINJOINJREF JREF JREF JREF JREF ASASASASAS ANANANANAN INDIVIDUINDIVIDUINDIVIDUINDIVIDUINDIVIDUALALALALALMEMBERMEMBERMEMBERMEMBERMEMBER FORFORFORFORFOR $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 FORFORFORFORFOR

ONEONEONEONEONE YEARYEARYEARYEARYEAR.....

INTRODUCTORY OFFER

Subscription to Swift only. No membership goodies, but you get a year of thiscool newsletter for just $10.

SWIFT WANTS YOUTO CONTRIBUTE.

Please send your letters, comments, sugges-tions and submissions to:

Swift201 S.E. 12th St. (E. Davie Blvd.)Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815

Or e-mail to: randi@randi.orgPlease put “SWIFT” in the subject line.

poor job in providing an educational

and informed story. Unwarranted as-

sumptions are made and only minimal

skepticism is applied to most asser-

tions. In addition, there is no new

ground covered in the newsweekly’s

treatment of the subject.

Perhaps most egregious of all are

the accompanying illustrations. Six full

pages are devoted to high-quality pho-

tos of single plants and herbs with cap-

tions listing information such as the

herb’s “common name;” “what i t

does;” and “precautions.”

Under the herb echinacea, the ac-

companying photo of a vivid pink

flower: “What it does – Stimulates the

Immune System; helps fight colds and

flus.” That’s nice. Prove it!

VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 199832

AN INVITATIONWE INVITE YOU TO SUPPORT THESE ACTIVITIES BY

BECOMING A MEMBER OF JREF.

SEE PAGE 31 FOR MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION.

Swift is published by the James Randi Educational Foundation, 201 S.E. 12th Street (E. Davie Blvd.), FortLauderdale, Florida 33316-1815, +1-954-467-1112, fax +1-954-467-1660, randi@randi.org. POSTMASTER:Send change of address forms to JREF, 201 S.E. 12th Street (E. Davie Blvd.), Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815.Copyright © 1998 James Randi Educational Foundation, all rights reserved.

jref

Editorial and Graphic Design ServicesCarol KrolChip Denman

President, Publisher, and Editor-in-ChiefJames Randi

EDUCATIONThe James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) feelsthat young people must be exposed to the elements ofcritical thinking, as well as to reliable information aboutparanormal claims. It offers scholarships to studentswho investigate such claims in a careful, scientificmanner. Adults as well as young people can attend JREFeducational classes and seminars. Its library of books,videos, news clippings, and other materials is open tothe media, students, researchers, and the general public.

RESEARCHThe JREF is committed to providing reliable informationabout paranormal claims, and it both supports andconducts original research into such claims. It publishesthe research results in Swift, the official newsletter ofthe Foundation.

THE PRIZEYears ago, outspoken entertainer James Randi “put

his money where his mouth is” and offered a $10,000prize of his own money to anyone who would demon-strate a paranormal feat under controlled observing con-ditions. Thanks to a number of pledgers, collectivelyknown as the 2000 Club, the prize amount is now$1,000,000.

PURPOSEThe James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) is anot-for-profit organization based on the ongoing workof its founder and leader, the world-renowned conjurorand investigator James Randi. Its primary goals are to:

CREATE A NEW GENERATION OF CRITICAL THINKERS.

INSTRUCT IN THE CONSEQUENCES OF UNCRITICALLY ACCEPTING

PARANORMAL, PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC AND SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS.

SUPPORT AND CONDUCT RESEARCH INTO SUCH CLAIMS.

PROVIDE RELIABLE INFORMATION ON SUCH CLAIMS.

ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE BEING ATTACKED DUE TO THEIR

INVESTIGATIONS AND CRITICISMS OF SUCH CLAIMS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONPlease visit our Web page at http://www.randi.org

JAMES RANDI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION

201 S.E. 12th Street (E. Davie Blvd.)Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815