https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=HesterkSGUTranscripts - User contributions [en]2026-04-04T21:04:11ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.43.8https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=6867Template:SGU episode list2013-06-28T20:51:48Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.<br />
<br />
Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon. <br />
<br />
Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon.</noinclude><br />
{|style="margin:1em 3em"<br />
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<span id="2013"><big>'''2013'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 414]], Jun 22 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 413]], Jun 15 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 412]], Jun 8 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 411]], Jun 1 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 410]], May 25 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 409]], May 18 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 408]], May 11 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 407]], May 4 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 406]], Apr 27 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 405]], Apr 20 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 404]], Apr 13 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 403]], Apr 6 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 402]], Mar 30 2013 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 401]], Mar 23 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 400]], Mar 16 2013 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 399]], Mar 9 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 398]], Mar 2 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 397]], Feb 23 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 396]], Feb 16 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 395]], Feb 9 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 394]], Feb 2 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013<br />
<br />
<span id="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 341]], Jan 28 2012 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2011"><big>'''2011'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2008"><big>'''2008'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 141]], Apr 2 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 111]], Sep 5, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19, 2007 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 <br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 22]], Dec 14 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 21]], Dec 7 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 20]], Nov 23 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 19]], Nov 16 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 18]], Nov 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<noinclude><br />
[[Category: List templates]]<br />
</noinclude></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6866SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T20:49:06Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from ?? Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer. I'm a big big fan of the show, been listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet and so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100s more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commenter as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I really don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.02)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
Various: Hmmm.<br />
<br />
B: Yes I do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve. You know we know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know, it's a rhetorical question.<br />
<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold Kenneth Arnold], a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnessed what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement like a saucer would be skipped over the water, and that phrase, he was describing the movement of these objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up, flying saucer, and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
E: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
P: Thank God we went with saucers.<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It has become a word in and of itself.<br />
<br />
Various: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 National Post], by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that "okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never ever materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded, when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devices become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and elusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Foot, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, explain xx Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so nobody sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Drake Equation] - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book [http://www.amazon.com/Yes-We-Have-Neutrons-Eye-Opening/dp/0471295868/ Yes We Have No Neutrons], science writer AK Dewdney showed that a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables, just then define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(21.35)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
E?: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaucoma glaucoma]. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos directly into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brain_barrier blood-brain barrier]. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that do not cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle that's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one...<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and -<br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
B: - looking at the world - <br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load their payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and then however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(26.11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
(Original article link now broken, perhaps like this one - http://voices.yahoo.com/dinosaur-town-makes-species-discovery-396230.html)<br />
<br />
S: The other news item which has sparked some discussion is a discovery of a new species that is a dinosaur, a bird-like dinosaur.<br />
<br />
R: A Big Bird-like dinosaur.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is Big Bird, this is dinosaur Big Bird.<br />
<br />
E: Sesame Street [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bird Big Bird]?<br />
<br />
R: It's like 30-ft tall but it's like Big Bird if Big Bird were a dinosaur.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, if Big Bird were a dinosaur. So it is a raptor, it's from the kind of dinosaurs that evolved into birds and this one's being called [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantoraptor Gigantoraptor]. The early claims that are being made for it is that they think it has feathers. <br />
<br />
B: Based on what?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the scientist Xu Xing at the Chinese Academy (all these fossils are being discovered in China, that's where they lived and where the fossil beds are that we're finding all these bird-like dinosaurs), and Xu Xing is quoted as saying "It had no teeth, it had a beak. Its forelimbs were very long and we believe it had feathers." Sometimes the decision whether or not it had feathers can be very difficult because they can leave only very faint impressions.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah and you know there are guys out there who just study the evolution of the feather, and I was reading a comment from one of them online today saying that you don't see any instances of skin that quickly changes from having feathers to not having feathers, it's much more complex change than you might think. Which might be why they're kind of thinking it had feathers.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is a really fascinating area of evolutionary biology - the evolution of birds. It is also one of the best stories in evolution, I mean, going all the way back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopteryx Archeopteryx], the first sort of half-bird, half-dinosaur that was discovered. Creationists have such a hard time with this, their basic approach to all this is to declare any fossil either a full dinosaur or full bird, which is, they just ignore all of the half-way features that they have. One of the things they used to say about Archeopteryx was that its feathers were fully modern, which is true. The structure of the Archeopteryx feather is identical to modern birds, or very nearly so. It is a feather designed for flight and it has the asymmetrical shaft and the stiff feathers that you would expect. But since then, with all of these other intermediate fossils being found in China, they've started to find more primitive or transitional feathers - feathers that are symmetrical, they're not asymmetrical, they're clearly not optimized for flight.<br />
<br />
B: Remember years ago that great discovery that was all these different intermediary feathers that was such an incredible find.<br />
<br />
S: So again it's one of those things where the creationists say "there's no transition between major groups!" Oh, here's a transition between dinosaurs and birds. "Well, there's no transition with the feathers, the feathers are fully modern." Oh!, here's a transitional feather, Well, you can't prove that - <br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: - really evolved from one to the other, keep moving that goalpost back and back and back. But I love to see these fossils, they're so gorgeous. The [http://peabody.yale.edu/ Peabody Museum] a couple years ago had a display of all of the China feathered dinosaurs, it was really great. Probably still moving around the world, if you can see it locally try to catch it.<br />
<br />
P: Steve - is all this just your lame attempt on our 100<sup>th</sup> show to breed life into the long slumbering monkey-bird debate with your 30-ft bird here.<br />
<br />
R: There's a chance that this bird could kick a monkey's ass.<br />
<br />
S: It hadn't occurred to me.<br />
<br />
J: But Perry, this thing could kill any monkey you throw at it.<br />
<br />
P: Must I remind you of Kingus Kongus?<br />
<br />
R: Thousands of listeners are right now slapping their foreheads.<br />
<br />
J: Now wait a second, what about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus Gigantopithecus]?<br />
<br />
P: Right, I was going to mention him too, but I like Kingus Kongus better. And either of them could grab this 30-ft bird by his toothless beak and smack him around. <br />
<br />
J: Well Gigantopithecus actually existed though, wouldn't that be a better argument?<br />
<br />
S: It does have that advantage. Gigantoraptor's like almost as big as T-Rex, in fact they thought it was a T-Rex when they first started pulling up the …<br />
<br />
R: And it might actually be larger than a T-Rex -<br />
<br />
J: It was a baby, it was an 11 year old one.<br />
<br />
R: A teenager yeah. And they can't really tell how it would have grown.<br />
<br />
J: But it was flightless and they thought the wings were to, what, warm the eggs?<br />
<br />
R: Or for show possibly.<br />
<br />
S: That's, yeah, there's lot of hypothesis about what the feathers, what purpose did they serve before they were optimized for flight. They are really good insulators so that's an obvious use.<br />
<br />
E: Protection?<br />
<br />
S: I don't know if they'd be more protective than scales, but that's a possibility as well. So insulation, or -<br />
<br />
B: Gliding?<br />
<br />
S: - or display as Rebecca said, and then yeah, then you get onto the gliding to flight path. Once they get to a certain size then they could have increased the length of predatory pounces or they could have been used to capture insects, basically like a little fly-swatter. Or they could have been used to slow descent from like dropping from a low branch and then eventually to the gliding and then to flapping flight. It's still controversial as to whether or not birds evolved from the ground up or the tree down. I think the latest fossils pushed that in the direction of the ground up.<br />
<br />
P: Feathers also make really good hand-holds for species with opposable thumbs.<br />
<br />
R: That's true. Um. And I found the quote that I was thinking of about feathers on the tetrapod zoology blog which is on science blogs. He asks a friend of his, an expert on feather evolution, what his thoughts were and he argued that "due to the fundamental reorganization of dermal anatomy involved in feather growth, any lineage that starts out with feathers simply cannot switch back to naked skin."<br />
<br />
S: Interesting.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, a little nitpick, you mentioned in the evolution of the feather, the asymmetric shaft, it's not really the shaft itself that's asymmetric, it's the distribution of feathers on either side right?<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, the shaft is asymmetrically positioned.<br />
<br />
R: Can we stop saying asymmetric shaft, because otherwise I have to make a comment you'll have to edit out.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Like that one. One final point on this story, this has been discussed on the board for a little bit and a couple people brought up skepticism about whether or not we should accept these fossils at face value. That's an interesting point. I think that these are probably legitimate - this paper was published in Nature - although that doesn't preclude the possibility of fraud and the reason this even comes up is because a number of years ago National Geographic went on record as promoting feathered dinosaur fossils from China that turned out to be a total fraud, they were fabricated. And the reason that that kind of thing could happen was because the paleontologists in China essentially were buying a lot of their fossils from private prospectors - basically hiring people to find fossils, bring them to the scientists and get paid money. It became a little industry which created a demand and someone filled that demand by fabricating a fake fossil. And then it wasn't discovered until the bones were examined first-hand. Sometimes when a fossil is discovered, casts are made and the casts are sent to scientists around the world, but the originals are kept safe and that can sometimes preclude first-hand investigation. That's in fact what happened with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man Piltdown fossils], they were kept locked away for, what was it, forty years? <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, quite some time.<br />
<br />
S: It wasn't until they were taken out of cold storage and somebody drilled through them to realize it was not a fossil but fresh bone underneath. And the same thing happened with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeoraptor Archeoraptor], the fake one that was promoted by National Geographic Society.<br />
<br />
P: Yen is the root of all evil. Truth.<br />
<br />
S: But since then the scientists have become a lot more careful but still we have to, it would be nice when the fossils get examined.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I'm sure over time if there's anything inaccurate about it it'll be rooted out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it'll get rooted out.<br />
<br />
B: Well Steve, wasn't one of the problems with Piltdown was that when the Piltdown was created, it perfectly matched what everyone was expecting to see. It was exactly what they thought that type of fossil would look like, so nobody really questioned it that hard. It was only years later as other fossils were uncovered that diverged from what everyone though how evolution went, that they said "wait a second, what's going on with the Piltdown Man? How come that's the only one that seems out of whack?" Then they really examined it and woah it's not right.<br />
<br />
S: And specifically, to give it a little more detail, the preconception was that early man or the transitional species between ape common ancestors and man would have a human-like brain in an ape-like body. And that's what Piltdown Man had. When in fact what we found was that, we found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus Homo Erectus] which is people walking around with a very very human-like body but with a small more ape-like brain. It was the exact opposite of what they expected with Piltdown.<br />
<br />
P: Like Jay!<br />
<br />
S: But by the time, with each new fossil discovery, Piltdown Man became more and more out of step with the evidence until it was written off completely as an anomaly, even before it was disproven to be a fraud, it was relegated to anomalous status because it didn't fit with the evidence. That's ultimately how fraud gets rooted out. Fraud's not true, and if you keep testing things against reality, whatever's not true has to be -<br />
<br />
P: It also helps to lock the evidence away for 40 years.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
B: That's one for the quote files: "Fraud is not true."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Fraud is not true, right. That's the ultimate weakness of it.<br />
<br />
J: I swear to Jesus and I know it sounds corny but -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(37.00)</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6865SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T20:46:28Z<p>Hesterk: /* Questions and Emails () */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from ?? Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer. I'm a big big fan of the show, been listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet and so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100s more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commenter as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I really don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.02)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
Various: Hmmm.<br />
<br />
B: Yes I do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve. You know we know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know, it's a rhetorical question.<br />
<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold Kenneth Arnold], a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnessed what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement like a saucer would be skipped over the water, and that phrase, he was describing the movement of these objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up, flying saucer, and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
E: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
P: Thank God we went with saucers.<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It has become a word in and of itself.<br />
<br />
Various: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 National Post], by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that "okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never ever materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded, when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devices become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and elusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Foot, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, explain xx Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so nobody sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Drake Equation] - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book [http://www.amazon.com/Yes-We-Have-Neutrons-Eye-Opening/dp/0471295868/ Yes We Have No Neutrons], science writer AK Dewdney showed that a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables, just then define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(21.35)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
E?: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaucoma glaucoma]. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos directly into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brain_barrier blood-brain barrier]. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that do not cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle that's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one...<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and -<br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
B: - looking at the world - <br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load their payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and then however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(26.11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
(Original article link now broken, perhaps like this one - http://voices.yahoo.com/dinosaur-town-makes-species-discovery-396230.html)<br />
<br />
S: The other news item which has sparked some discussion is a discovery of a new species that is a dinosaur, a bird-like dinosaur.<br />
<br />
R: A Big Bird-like dinosaur.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is Big Bird, this is dinosaur Big Bird.<br />
<br />
E: Sesame Street [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bird Big Bird]?<br />
<br />
R: It's like 30-ft tall but it's like Big Bird if Big Bird were a dinosaur.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, if Big Bird were a dinosaur. So it is a raptor, it's from the kind of dinosaurs that evolved into birds and this one's being called [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantoraptor Gigantoraptor]. The early claims that are being made for it is that they think it has feathers. <br />
<br />
B: Based on what?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the scientist Xu Xing at the Chinese Academy (all these fossils are being discovered in China, that's where they lived and where the fossil beds are that we're finding all these bird-like dinosaurs), and Xu Xing is quoted as saying "It had no teeth, it had a beak. Its forelimbs were very long and we believe it had feathers." Sometimes the decision whether or not it had feathers can be very difficult because they can leave only very faint impressions.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah and you know there are guys out there who just study the evolution of the feather, and I was reading a comment from one of them online today saying that you don't see any instances of skin that quickly changes from having feathers to not having feathers, it's much more complex change than you might think. Which might be why they're kind of thinking it had feathers.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is a really fascinating area of evolutionary biology - the evolution of birds. It is also one of the best stories in evolution, I mean, going all the way back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopteryx Archeopteryx], the first sort of half-bird, half-dinosaur that was discovered. Creationists have such a hard time with this, their basic approach to all this is to declare any fossil either a full dinosaur or full bird, which is, they just ignore all of the half-way features that they have. One of the things they used to say about Archeopteryx was that its feathers were fully modern, which is true. The structure of the Archeopteryx feather is identical to modern birds, or very nearly so. It is a feather designed for flight and it has the asymmetrical shaft and the stiff feathers that you would expect. But since then, with all of these other intermediate fossils being found in China, they've started to find more primitive or transitional feathers - feathers that are symmetrical, they're not asymmetrical, they're clearly not optimized for flight.<br />
<br />
B: Remember years ago that great discovery that was all these different intermediary feathers that was such an incredible find.<br />
<br />
S: So again it's one of those things where the creationists say "there's no transition between major groups!" Oh, here's a transition between dinosaurs and birds. "Well, there's no transition with the feathers, the feathers are fully modern." Oh!, here's a transitional feather, Well, you can't prove that - <br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: - really evolved from one to the other, keep moving that goalpost back and back and back. But I love to see these fossils, they're so gorgeous. The [http://peabody.yale.edu/ Peabody Museum] a couple years ago had a display of all of the China feathered dinosaurs, it was really great. Probably still moving around the world, if you can see it locally try to catch it.<br />
<br />
P: Steve - is all this just your lame attempt on our 100<sup>th</sup> show to breed life into the long slumbering monkey-bird debate with your 30-ft bird here.<br />
<br />
R: There's a chance that this bird could kick a monkey's ass.<br />
<br />
S: It hadn't occurred to me.<br />
<br />
J: But Perry, this thing could kill any monkey you throw at it.<br />
<br />
P: Must I remind you of Kingus Kongus?<br />
<br />
R: Thousands of listeners are right now slapping their foreheads.<br />
<br />
J: Now wait a second, what about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus Gigantopithecus]?<br />
<br />
P: Right, I was going to mention him too, but I like Kingus Kongus better. And either of them could grab this 30-ft bird by his toothless beak and smack him around. <br />
<br />
J: Well Gigantopithecus actually existed though, wouldn't that be a better argument?<br />
<br />
S: It does have that advantage. Gigantoraptor's like almost as big as T-Rex, in fact they thought it was a T-Rex when they first started pulling up the …<br />
<br />
R: And it might actually be larger than a T-Rex -<br />
<br />
J: It was a baby, it was an 11 year old one.<br />
<br />
R: A teenager yeah. And they can't really tell how it would have grown.<br />
<br />
J: But it was flightless and they thought the wings were to, what, warm the eggs?<br />
<br />
R: Or for show possibly.<br />
<br />
S: That's, yeah, there's lot of hypothesis about what the feathers, what purpose did they serve before they were optimized for flight. They are really good insulators so that's an obvious use.<br />
<br />
E: Protection?<br />
<br />
S: I don't know if they'd be more protective than scales, but that's a possibility as well. So insulation, or -<br />
<br />
B: Gliding?<br />
<br />
S: - or display as Rebecca said, and then yeah, then you get onto the gliding to flight path. Once they get to a certain size then they could have increased the length of predatory pounces or they could have been used to capture insects, basically like a little fly-swatter. Or they could have been used to slow descent from like dropping from a low branch and then eventually to the gliding and then to flapping flight. It's still controversial as to whether or not birds evolved from the ground up or the tree down. I think the latest fossils pushed that in the direction of the ground up.<br />
<br />
P: Feathers also make really good hand-holds for species with opposable thumbs.<br />
<br />
R: That's true. Um. And I found the quote that I was thinking of about feathers on the tetrapod zoology blog which is on science blogs. He asks a friend of his, an expert on feather evolution, what his thoughts were and he argued that "due to the fundamental reorganization of dermal anatomy involved in feather growth, any lineage that starts out with feathers simply cannot switch back to naked skin."<br />
<br />
S: Interesting.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, a little nitpick, you mentioned in the evolution of the feather, the asymmetric shaft, it's not really the shaft itself that's asymmetric, it's the distribution of feathers on either side right?<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, the shaft is asymmetrically positioned.<br />
<br />
R: Can we stop saying asymmetric shaft, because otherwise I have to make a comment you'll have to edit out.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Like that one. One final point on this story, this has been discussed on the board for a little bit and a couple people brought up skepticism about whether or not we should accept these fossils at face value. That's an interesting point. I think that these are probably legitimate - this paper was published in Nature - although that doesn't preclude the possibility of fraud and the reason this even comes up is because a number of years ago National Geographic went on record as promoting feathered dinosaur fossils from China that turned out to be a total fraud, they were fabricated. And the reason that that kind of thing could happen was because the paleontologists in China essentially were buying a lot of their fossils from private prospectors - basically hiring people to find fossils, bring them to the scientists and get paid money. It became a little industry which created a demand and someone filled that demand by fabricating a fake fossil. And then it wasn't discovered until the bones were examined first-hand. Sometimes when a fossil is discovered, casts are made and the casts are sent to scientists around the world, but the originals are kept safe and that can sometimes preclude first-hand investigation. That's in fact what happened with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man Piltdown fossils], they were kept locked away for, what was it, forty years? <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, quite some time.<br />
<br />
S: It wasn't until they were taken out of cold storage and somebody drilled through them to realize it was not a fossil but fresh bone underneath. And the same thing happened with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeoraptor Archeoraptor], the fake one that was promoted by National Geographic Society.<br />
<br />
P: Yen is the root of all evil. Truth.<br />
<br />
S: But since then the scientists have become a lot more careful but still we have to, it would be nice when the fossils get examined.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I'm sure over time if there's anything inaccurate about it it'll be rooted out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it'll get rooted out.<br />
<br />
B: Well Steve, wasn't one of the problems with Piltdown was that when the Piltdown was created, it perfectly matched what everyone was expecting to see. It was exactly what they thought that type of fossil would look like, so nobody really questioned it that hard. It was only years later as other fossils were uncovered that diverged from what everyone though how evolution went, that they said "wait a second, what's going on with the Piltdown Man? How come that's the only one that seems out of whack?" Then they really examined it and woah it's not right.<br />
<br />
S: And specifically, to give it a little more detail, the preconception was that early man or the transitional species between ape common ancestors and man would have a human-like brain in an ape-like body. And that's what Piltdown Man had. When in fact what we found was that, we found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus Homo Erectus] which is people walking around with a very very human-like body but with a small more ape-like brain. It was the exact opposite of what they expected with Piltdown.<br />
<br />
P: Like Jay!<br />
<br />
S: But by the time, with each new fossil discovery, Piltdown Man became more and more out of step with the evidence until it was written off completely as an anomaly, even before it was disproven to be a fraud, it was relegated to anomalous status because it didn't fit with the evidence. That's ultimately how fraud gets rooted out. Fraud's not true, and if you keep testing things against reality, whatever's not true has to be -<br />
<br />
P: It also helps to lock the evidence away for 40 years.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
B: That's one for the quote files: "Fraud is not true."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Fraud is not true, right. That's the ultimate weakness of it.<br />
<br />
J: I swear to Jesus and I know it sounds corny but -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(37.00)</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6864SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T20:45:59Z<p>Hesterk: /* Dino Bigbird Discovered (26.11) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from ?? Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer. I'm a big big fan of the show, been listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet and so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100s more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commenter as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I really don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.02)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
Various: Hmmm.<br />
<br />
B: Yes I do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve. You know we know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know, it's a rhetorical question.<br />
<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold Kenneth Arnold], a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnessed what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement like a saucer would be skipped over the water, and that phrase, he was describing the movement of these objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up, flying saucer, and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
E: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
P: Thank God we went with saucers.<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It has become a word in and of itself.<br />
<br />
Various: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 National Post], by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that "okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never ever materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded, when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devices become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and elusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Foot, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, explain xx Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so nobody sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Drake Equation] - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book [http://www.amazon.com/Yes-We-Have-Neutrons-Eye-Opening/dp/0471295868/ Yes We Have No Neutrons], science writer AK Dewdney showed that a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables, just then define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(21.35)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
E?: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaucoma glaucoma]. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos directly into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brain_barrier blood-brain barrier]. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that do not cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle that's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one...<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and -<br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
B: - looking at the world - <br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load their payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and then however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(26.11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
(Original article link now broken, perhaps like this one - http://voices.yahoo.com/dinosaur-town-makes-species-discovery-396230.html)<br />
<br />
S: The other news item which has sparked some discussion is a discovery of a new species that is a dinosaur, a bird-like dinosaur.<br />
<br />
R: A Big Bird-like dinosaur.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is Big Bird, this is dinosaur Big Bird.<br />
<br />
E: Sesame Street [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bird Big Bird]?<br />
<br />
R: It's like 30-ft tall but it's like Big Bird if Big Bird were a dinosaur.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, if Big Bird were a dinosaur. So it is a raptor, it's from the kind of dinosaurs that evolved into birds and this one's being called [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantoraptor Gigantoraptor]. The early claims that are being made for it is that they think it has feathers. <br />
<br />
B: Based on what?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the scientist Xu Xing at the Chinese Academy (all these fossils are being discovered in China, that's where they lived and where the fossil beds are that we're finding all these bird-like dinosaurs), and Xu Xing is quoted as saying "It had no teeth, it had a beak. Its forelimbs were very long and we believe it had feathers." Sometimes the decision whether or not it had feathers can be very difficult because they can leave only very faint impressions.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah and you know there are guys out there who just study the evolution of the feather, and I was reading a comment from one of them online today saying that you don't see any instances of skin that quickly changes from having feathers to not having feathers, it's much more complex change than you might think. Which might be why they're kind of thinking it had feathers.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is a really fascinating area of evolutionary biology - the evolution of birds. It is also one of the best stories in evolution, I mean, going all the way back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopteryx Archeopteryx], the first sort of half-bird, half-dinosaur that was discovered. Creationists have such a hard time with this, their basic approach to all this is to declare any fossil either a full dinosaur or full bird, which is, they just ignore all of the half-way features that they have. One of the things they used to say about Archeopteryx was that its feathers were fully modern, which is true. The structure of the Archeopteryx feather is identical to modern birds, or very nearly so. It is a feather designed for flight and it has the asymmetrical shaft and the stiff feathers that you would expect. But since then, with all of these other intermediate fossils being found in China, they've started to find more primitive or transitional feathers - feathers that are symmetrical, they're not asymmetrical, they're clearly not optimized for flight.<br />
<br />
B: Remember years ago that great discovery that was all these different intermediary feathers that was such an incredible find.<br />
<br />
S: So again it's one of those things where the creationists say "there's no transition between major groups!" Oh, here's a transition between dinosaurs and birds. "Well, there's no transition with the feathers, the feathers are fully modern." Oh!, here's a transitional feather, Well, you can't prove that - <br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: - really evolved from one to the other, keep moving that goalpost back and back and back. But I love to see these fossils, they're so gorgeous. The [http://peabody.yale.edu/ Peabody Museum] a couple years ago had a display of all of the China feathered dinosaurs, it was really great. Probably still moving around the world, if you can see it locally try to catch it.<br />
<br />
P: Steve - is all this just your lame attempt on our 100<sup>th</sup> show to breed life into the long slumbering monkey-bird debate with your 30-ft bird here.<br />
<br />
R: There's a chance that this bird could kick a monkey's ass.<br />
<br />
S: It hadn't occurred to me.<br />
<br />
J: But Perry, this thing could kill any monkey you throw at it.<br />
<br />
P: Must I remind you of Kingus Kongus?<br />
<br />
R: Thousands of listeners are right now slapping their foreheads.<br />
<br />
J: Now wait a second, what about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus Gigantopithecus]?<br />
<br />
P: Right, I was going to mention him too, but I like Kingus Kongus better. And either of them could grab this 30-ft bird by his toothless beak and smack him around. <br />
<br />
J: Well Gigantopithecus actually existed though, wouldn't that be a better argument?<br />
<br />
S: It does have that advantage. Gigantoraptor's like almost as big as T-Rex, in fact they thought it was a T-Rex when they first started pulling up the …<br />
<br />
R: And it might actually be larger than a T-Rex -<br />
<br />
J: It was a baby, it was an 11 year old one.<br />
<br />
R: A teenager yeah. And they can't really tell how it would have grown.<br />
<br />
J: But it was flightless and they thought the wings were to, what, warm the eggs?<br />
<br />
R: Or for show possibly.<br />
<br />
S: That's, yeah, there's lot of hypothesis about what the feathers, what purpose did they serve before they were optimized for flight. They are really good insulators so that's an obvious use.<br />
<br />
E: Protection?<br />
<br />
S: I don't know if they'd be more protective than scales, but that's a possibility as well. So insulation, or -<br />
<br />
B: Gliding?<br />
<br />
S: - or display as Rebecca said, and then yeah, then you get onto the gliding to flight path. Once they get to a certain size then they could have increased the length of predatory pounces or they could have been used to capture insects, basically like a little fly-swatter. Or they could have been used to slow descent from like dropping from a low branch and then eventually to the gliding and then to flapping flight. It's still controversial as to whether or not birds evolved from the ground up or the tree down. I think the latest fossils pushed that in the direction of the ground up.<br />
<br />
P: Feathers also make really good hand-holds for species with opposable thumbs.<br />
<br />
R: That's true. Um. And I found the quote that I was thinking of about feathers on the tetrapod zoology blog which is on science blogs. He asks a friend of his, an expert on feather evolution, what his thoughts were and he argued that "due to the fundamental reorganization of dermal anatomy involved in feather growth, any lineage that starts out with feathers simply cannot switch back to naked skin."<br />
<br />
S: Interesting.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, a little nitpick, you mentioned in the evolution of the feather, the asymmetric shaft, it's not really the shaft itself that's asymmetric, it's the distribution of feathers on either side right?<br />
<br />
S: Well, yeah, the shaft is asymmetrically positioned.<br />
<br />
R: Can we stop saying asymmetric shaft, because otherwise I have to make a comment you'll have to edit out.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Like that one. One final point on this story, this has been discussed on the board for a little bit and a couple people brought up skepticism about whether or not we should accept these fossils at face value. That's an interesting point. I think that these are probably legitimate - this paper was published in Nature - although that doesn't preclude the possibility of fraud and the reason this even comes up is because a number of years ago National Geographic went on record as promoting feathered dinosaur fossils from China that turned out to be a total fraud, they were fabricated. And the reason that that kind of thing could happen was because the paleontologists in China essentially were buying a lot of their fossils from private prospectors - basically hiring people to find fossils, bring them to the scientists and get paid money. It became a little industry which created a demand and someone filled that demand by fabricating a fake fossil. And then it wasn't discovered until the bones were examined first-hand. Sometimes when a fossil is discovered, casts are made and the casts are sent to scientists around the world, but the originals are kept safe and that can sometimes preclude first-hand investigation. That's in fact what happened with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man Piltdown fossils], they were kept locked away for, what was it, forty years? <br />
<br />
B: Yeah, quite some time.<br />
<br />
S: It wasn't until they were taken out of cold storage and somebody drilled through them to realize it was not a fossil but fresh bone underneath. And the same thing happened with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeoraptor Archeoraptor], the fake one that was promoted by National Geographic Society.<br />
<br />
P: Yen is the root of all evil. Truth.<br />
<br />
S: But since then the scientists have become a lot more careful but still we have to, it would be nice when the fossils get examined.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I'm sure over time if there's anything inaccurate about it it'll be rooted out.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it'll get rooted out.<br />
<br />
B: Well Steve, wasn't one of the problems with Piltdown was that when the Piltdown was created, it perfectly matched what everyone was expecting to see. It was exactly what they thought that type of fossil would look like, so nobody really questioned it that hard. It was only years later as other fossils were uncovered that diverged from what everyone though how evolution went, that they said "wait a second, what's going on with the Piltdown Man? How come that's the only one that seems out of whack?" Then they really examined it and woah it's not right.<br />
<br />
S: And specifically, to give it a little more detail, the preconception was that early man or the transitional species between ape common ancestors and man would have a human-like brain in an ape-like body. And that's what Piltdown Man had. When in fact what we found was that, we found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus Homo Erectus] which is people walking around with a very very human-like body but with a small more ape-like brain. It was the exact opposite of what they expected with Piltdown.<br />
<br />
P: Like Jay!<br />
<br />
S: But by the time, with each new fossil discovery, Piltdown Man became more and more out of step with the evidence until it was written off completely as an anomaly, even before it was disproven to be a fraud, it was relegated to anomalous status because it didn't fit with the evidence. That's ultimately how fraud gets rooted out. Fraud's not true, and if you keep testing things against reality, whatever's not true has to be -<br />
<br />
P: It also helps to lock the evidence away for 40 years.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
B: That's one for the quote files: "Fraud is not true."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Fraud is not true, right. That's the ultimate weakness of it.<br />
<br />
J: I swear to Jesus and I know it sounds corny but -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6863SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T20:17:15Z<p>Hesterk: /* Dino Bigbird Discovered (26.11) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from ?? Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer. I'm a big big fan of the show, been listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet and so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100s more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commenter as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I really don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.02)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
Various: Hmmm.<br />
<br />
B: Yes I do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve. You know we know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know, it's a rhetorical question.<br />
<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold Kenneth Arnold], a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnessed what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement like a saucer would be skipped over the water, and that phrase, he was describing the movement of these objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up, flying saucer, and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
E: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
P: Thank God we went with saucers.<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It has become a word in and of itself.<br />
<br />
Various: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 National Post], by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that "okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never ever materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded, when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devices become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and elusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Foot, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, explain xx Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so nobody sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Drake Equation] - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book [http://www.amazon.com/Yes-We-Have-Neutrons-Eye-Opening/dp/0471295868/ Yes We Have No Neutrons], science writer AK Dewdney showed that a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables, just then define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(21.35)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
E?: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaucoma glaucoma]. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos directly into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brain_barrier blood-brain barrier]. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that do not cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle that's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one...<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and -<br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
B: - looking at the world - <br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load their payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and then however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(26.11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
(Original article link now broken, perhaps like this one - http://voices.yahoo.com/dinosaur-town-makes-species-discovery-396230.html)<br />
<br />
S: The other news item which has sparked some discussion is a discovery of a new species that is a dinosaur, a bird-like dinosaur.<br />
<br />
R: A Big Bird-like dinosaur.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is Big Bird, this is dinosaur Big Bird.<br />
<br />
E: Sesame Street [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bird Big Bird]?<br />
<br />
R: It's like 30-ft tall but it's like Big Bird if Big Bird were a dinosaur.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, if Big Bird were a dinosaur. So it is a raptor, it's from the kind of dinosaurs that evolved into birds and this one's being called [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantoraptor Gigantoraptor]. The early claims that are being made for it is that they think it has feathers. <br />
<br />
B: Based on what?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the scientist Xu Xing at the Chinese Academy (all these fossils are being discovered in China, that's where they lived and where the fossil beds are that we're finding all these bird-like dinosaurs), and Xu Xing is quoted as saying "It had no teeth, it had a beak. Its forelimbs were very long and we believe it had feathers." Sometimes the decision whether or not it had feathers can be very difficult because they can leave only very faint impressions.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah and you know there are guys out there who just study the evolution of the feather, and I was reading a comment from one of them online today saying that you don't see any instances of skin that quickly changes from having feathers to not having feathers, it's much more complex change than you might think. Which might be why they're kind of thinking it had feathers.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is a really fascinating area of evolutionary biology - the evolution of birds. It is also one of the best stories in evolution, I mean, going all the way back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopteryx Archeopteryx], the first sort of half-bird, half-dinosaur that was discovered. Creationists have such a hard time with this, their basic approach to all this is to declare any fossil either a full dinosaur or full bird, which is, they just ignore all of the half-way features that they have. One of the things they used to say about Archeopteryx was that its feathers were fully modern, which is true. The structure of the Archeopteryx feather is identical to modern birds, or very nearly so. It is a feather designed for flight and it has the asymmetrical shaft and the stiff feathers that you would expect. But since then, with all of these other intermediate fossils being found in China, they've started to find more primitive or transitional feathers - feathers that are symmetrical, they're not asymmetrical, they're clearly not optimized for flight.<br />
<br />
B: Remember years ago that great discovery that was all these different intermediary feathers that was such an incredible find.<br />
<br />
S: So again it's one of those things where the creationists say "there's no transition between major groups!" Oh, here's a transition between dinosaurs and birds. "Well, there's no transition with the feathers, the feathers are fully modern." Oh!, here's a transitional feather, Well, you can't prove that - <br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: - really evolved from one to the other, keep moving that goalpost back and back and back. But I love to see these fossils, they're so gorgeous. The [http://peabody.yale.edu/ Peabody Museum] a couple years ago had a display of all of the China feathered dinosaurs, it was really great. Probably still moving around the world, if you can see it locally try to catch it.<br />
<br />
P: Steve - is all this just your lame attempt on our 100[sup]th[/sup] show to breed life into the long slumbering monkey-bird debate with your 30-ft bird here.<br />
<br />
R: There's a chance that this bird could kick a monkey's ass.<br />
<br />
S: It hadn't occurred to me.<br />
<br />
J: But Perry, this thing could kill any monkey you throw at it.<br />
<br />
P: Must I remind you of Kingus Kongus?<br />
<br />
R: Thousands of listeners are right now slapping their foreheads.<br />
<br />
J: Now wait a second, what about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus Gigantopithecus]?<br />
<br />
P: Right, I was going to mention him too, but I like Kingus Kongus better. And either of them could grab this 30-ft bird by his toothless beak and smack him around. <br />
<br />
J: Well Gigantopithecus actually existed though, wouldn't that be a better argument?<br />
<br />
S: It does have that advantage. Gigantoraptor's like almost as big as T-Rex, in fact they thought it was a T-Rex when they first started pulling up the …<br />
<br />
R: And it might actually be larger than a T-Rex -<br />
<br />
J: It was a baby, it was an 11 year old one.<br />
<br />
R: A teenager yeah. And they can't really tell how it would have grown.<br />
<br />
J: But it was flightless and they thought the wings were to, what, warm the eggs?<br />
<br />
R: Or for show possibly.<br />
<br />
S: That's, yeah, there's lot of hypothesis about what the feathers, what purpose did they serve before they were optimized for flight. They are really good insulators so that's an obvious use.<br />
<br />
E: Protection?<br />
<br />
S: I don't know if they'd be more protective than scales, but that's a possibility as well. So insulation, or -<br />
<br />
B: Gliding?<br />
<br />
S: - or display as Rebecca said, and then yeah, then you get onto the gliding to flight path. Once they get to a certain size then they could have increased the length of predatory pounces or they could have been used to capture insects, basically like a little fly-swatter. Or they could have been used to slow descent from like dropping from a low branch and then eventually to the gliding and then to flapping flight. It's still controversial as to whether or not birds evolved from the ground up or the tree down. I think the latest fossils pushed that in the direction of the ground up.<br />
<br />
P: Feathers also make really good hand-holds for species with opposable thumbs.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6862SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T20:07:19Z<p>Hesterk: /* Dino Bigbird Discovered (xx) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from ?? Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer. I'm a big big fan of the show, been listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet and so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100s more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commenter as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I really don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.02)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
Various: Hmmm.<br />
<br />
B: Yes I do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve. You know we know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know, it's a rhetorical question.<br />
<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold Kenneth Arnold], a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnessed what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement like a saucer would be skipped over the water, and that phrase, he was describing the movement of these objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up, flying saucer, and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
E: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
P: Thank God we went with saucers.<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It has become a word in and of itself.<br />
<br />
Various: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 National Post], by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that "okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never ever materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded, when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devices become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and elusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Foot, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, explain xx Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so nobody sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Drake Equation] - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book [http://www.amazon.com/Yes-We-Have-Neutrons-Eye-Opening/dp/0471295868/ Yes We Have No Neutrons], science writer AK Dewdney showed that a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables, just then define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(21.35)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
E?: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaucoma glaucoma]. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos directly into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brain_barrier blood-brain barrier]. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that do not cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle that's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one...<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and -<br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
B: - looking at the world - <br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load their payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and then however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(26.11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
(Original article link now broken, perhaps like this one - http://voices.yahoo.com/dinosaur-town-makes-species-discovery-396230.html)<br />
<br />
S: The other news item which has sparked some discussion is a discovery of a new species that is a dinosaur, a bird-like dinosaur.<br />
<br />
R: A Big Bird-like dinosaur.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, this is Big Bird, this is dinosaur Big Bird.<br />
<br />
E: Sesame Street [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bird Big Bird]?<br />
<br />
R: It's like 30-ft tall but it's like Big Bird if Big Bird were a dinosaur.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, if Big Bird were a dinosaur. So it is a raptor, it's from the kind of dinosaurs that evolved into birds and this one's being called [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantoraptor Gigantoraptor]. The early claims that are being made for it is that they think it has feathers. <br />
<br />
B: Based on what?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the scientist Xu Xing at the Chinese Academy (all these fossils are being discovered in China, that's where they lived and where the fossil beds are that we're finding all these bird-like dinosaurs), and Xu Xing is quoted as saying "It had no teeth, it had a beak. Its forelimbs were very long and we believe it had feathers." Sometimes the decision whether or not it had feathers can be very difficult because they can leave only very faint impressions.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6861SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T19:28:25Z<p>Hesterk: /* Nanoparticle Drug Delivery (xx) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from ?? Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer. I'm a big big fan of the show, been listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet and so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100s more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commenter as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I really don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.02)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
Various: Hmmm.<br />
<br />
B: Yes I do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve. You know we know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know, it's a rhetorical question.<br />
<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold Kenneth Arnold], a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnessed what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement like a saucer would be skipped over the water, and that phrase, he was describing the movement of these objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up, flying saucer, and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
E: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
P: Thank God we went with saucers.<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It has become a word in and of itself.<br />
<br />
Various: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 National Post], by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that "okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never ever materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded, when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devices become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and elusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Foot, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, explain xx Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so nobody sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Drake Equation] - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book [http://www.amazon.com/Yes-We-Have-Neutrons-Eye-Opening/dp/0471295868/ Yes We Have No Neutrons], science writer AK Dewdney showed that a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables, just then define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(21.35)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
E?: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaucoma glaucoma]. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos directly into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brain_barrier blood-brain barrier]. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that do not cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle that's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one...<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and -<br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
B: - looking at the world - <br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load their payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and then however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6860SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T19:19:50Z<p>Hesterk: /* 60 Years of Flying Saucers (16.00) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from ?? Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer. I'm a big big fan of the show, been listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet and so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100s more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commenter as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I really don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.02)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
Various: Hmmm.<br />
<br />
B: Yes I do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve. You know we know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know, it's a rhetorical question.<br />
<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold Kenneth Arnold], a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnessed what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement like a saucer would be skipped over the water, and that phrase, he was describing the movement of these objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up, flying saucer, and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
E: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
P: Thank God we went with saucers.<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It has become a word in and of itself.<br />
<br />
Various: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 National Post], by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that "okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never ever materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded, when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devices become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and elusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Foot, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, explain xx Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so nobody sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Drake Equation] - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book [http://www.amazon.com/Yes-We-Have-Neutrons-Eye-Opening/dp/0471295868/ Yes We Have No Neutrons], science writer AK Dewdney showed that a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables, just then define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6859SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T19:18:46Z<p>Hesterk: /* 60 Years of Flying Saucers (16.00) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from ?? Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer. I'm a big big fan of the show, been listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet and so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100s more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commenter as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I really don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.02)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
Various: Hmmm.<br />
<br />
B: Yes I do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve. You know we know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know, it's a rhetorical question.<br />
<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold Kenneth Arnold], a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnessed what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement like a saucer would be skipped over the water, and that phrase, he was describing the movement of these objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up, flying saucer, and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
E: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
P: Thank God we went with saucers.<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It has become a word in and of itself.<br />
<br />
Various: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 National Post], by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that "okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never ever materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded, when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devices become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and elusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Foot, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, explain xx Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so nobody sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Drake Equation] - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book [http://www.amazon.com/Yes-We-Have-Neutrons-Eye-Opening/dp/0471295868/ Yes We Have No Neutrons], science writer AK Dewdney showed that a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables, just then define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
21.35<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
B: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat glaucoma. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos direction into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the blood-brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that don't cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle, it's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and <br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load the payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6858SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T19:08:05Z<p>Hesterk: /* 60 Years of Flying Saucers (16.00) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from ?? Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer. I'm a big big fan of the show, been listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet and so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100s more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commenter as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I really don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.02)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
Various: Hmmm.<br />
<br />
B: Yes I do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve. You know we know.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know, it's a rhetorical question.<br />
<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnessed what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement like a saucer would be skipped over the water, and that phrase, he was describing the movement of these objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up, flying saucer, and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
E: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
P: Thank God we went with saucers.<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It has become a word in and of itself.<br />
<br />
Various: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the National Post, by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that "okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never never materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devised become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but that doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and illusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Food, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Explain… Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so no-one sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the Drake Equation - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book 'Yes We Have No Neutrons', science writer AK Dudeney showed a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables that define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
21.35<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
B: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat glaucoma. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos direction into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the blood-brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that don't cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle, it's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and <br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load the payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6857SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T18:58:35Z<p>Hesterk: /* Updates of Prior Stories (8.04) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from ?? Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer. I'm a big big fan of the show, been listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet and so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100s more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commenter as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I really don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.02)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
hmmm<br />
<br />
yes i do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve<br />
<br />
??<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnesses what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement as like "a saucer that skipped over the water," and that phrase, he was describing the movement of the objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
lfdjkds<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It's a common word .. stuff<br />
<br />
mmm<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the National Post, by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that<br />
"okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never never materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devised become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but that doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and illusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Food, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Explain… Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so no-one sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the Drake Equation - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book 'Yes We Have No Neutrons', science writer AK Dudeney showed a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables that define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
21.35<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
B: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat glaucoma. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos direction into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the blood-brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that don't cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle, it's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and <br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load the payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6856SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T18:56:45Z<p>Hesterk: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from ?? Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer. I'm a big big fan of the show, been listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet and so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100s more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commenter as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I really don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.04)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
hmmm<br />
<br />
yes i do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve<br />
<br />
??<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnesses what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement as like "a saucer that skipped over the water," and that phrase, he was describing the movement of the objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
lfdjkds<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It's a common word .. stuff<br />
<br />
mmm<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the National Post, by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that<br />
"okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never never materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devised become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but that doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and illusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Food, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Explain… Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so no-one sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the Drake Equation - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book 'Yes We Have No Neutrons', science writer AK Dudeney showed a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables that define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
21.35<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
B: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat glaucoma. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos direction into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the blood-brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that don't cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle, it's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and <br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load the payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6855SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T18:49:08Z<p>Hesterk: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
J: I'm still holding out for that. <br />
<br />
S: So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer, I'm a big big fan of the show, listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100 more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commentary as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ[?] wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.04)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
hmmm<br />
<br />
yes i do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve<br />
<br />
??<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnesses what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement as like "a saucer that skipped over the water," and that phrase, he was describing the movement of the objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
lfdjkds<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It's a common word .. stuff<br />
<br />
mmm<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the National Post, by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that<br />
"okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never never materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devised become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but that doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and illusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Food, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Explain… Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so no-one sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the Drake Equation - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book 'Yes We Have No Neutrons', science writer AK Dudeney showed a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables that define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
21.35<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
B: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat glaucoma. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos direction into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the blood-brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that don't cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle, it's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and <br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load the payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=6854SGU Episode 1002013-06-28T18:45:49Z<p>Hesterk: /* 60 Years of Flying Saucers (16.00) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
S: I'm still holding out for that. So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer, I'm a big big fan of the show, listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100 more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commentary as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ[?] wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.04)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
<br />
S: There's another bit of an anniversary this week. Do you guys know what happened 60 years ago on June 25<sup>th</sup>?<br />
<br />
hmmm<br />
<br />
yes i do<br />
<br />
J: Well we all do, Steve<br />
<br />
??<br />
R: Let's not pretend.<br />
<br />
S: Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot, Kenneth Ahhhnold, made an observation, he witnesses what he thought were bizarre objects flying in an aerial formation and it was his sighting that led to the modern flying saucer craze or the modern UFO movement. That was 60 years ago. It's an interesting story in that the one aspect of that story I'd like to point out is that Arnold described the objects as being shaped more like a boomerang and he described their movement as like "a saucer that skipped over the water," and that phrase, he was describing the movement of the objects, but the word "saucer" was picked up and that led to the classic image of the saucer-shaped UFO.<br />
<br />
P: Well thank god they picked up on that word because I'd hate to be looking at pictures of boomerangs for sixty years.<br />
<br />
S: Flying boomerangs.<br />
<br />
lfdjkds<br />
<br />
S: Flying saucers are much better.<br />
<br />
R: And aliens with little Australian accents.<br />
<br />
J: It's funny when -<br />
<br />
E: It all makes sense now.<br />
<br />
J: - when you think of the word, the phrase "flying saucer" and you break it down and you realize the guy actually meant a flying saucer, because it's emblazoned in our heads as a spacecraft.<br />
<br />
S: It's a common word .. stuff<br />
<br />
mmm<br />
<br />
S: That's true. There's been some articles discussing this. This was one that was sent to us, in the National Post, by a journalist Scott Van Winsburg, and it's fairly skeptical although I disagree with some of the things that he says in here. The basic point he's making is that<br />
"okay, so we have 60 years of the UFO hunt and what has it produced?" And basically it's produced nothing. We essentially have today the same things that we had going all the way back to Kenneth Arnold. We have people seeing weird stuff and we don't have one bit of solid physical evidence, one bit of evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny.<br />
<br />
P: Well, it's only been 60 years!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah! All of the promises of evidence that's just around the corner, of making contact with aliens, of the proof to come never never materialized, and that's very telling.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if you just said "let's not even count anything up until the mid till late '90s to present day, when all of the video cameras and cellphones and all that technology exploded when there was recording going on all over the planet, 24 hours a day, you can even just wipe out the 30 years that precede that. We would have gotten something on film by now.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of people have made that observation too - as recording devised become ubiquitous, we would expect more pictures and videos of UFOs.<br />
<br />
P: They haven't turned up anything - there's no Big Foot, there's no Nessie, there's no UFOs, ghosts, there's nothing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but that doesn't that just go to prove just how sophisticated and illusive those aliens are?<br />
<br />
J: That's a good point, Bob.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they've managed to keep one step ahead of our technology.<br />
<br />
P: But how do you explain Big Food, Bob, you're not going to tell me he's sophisticated.<br />
<br />
J: Explain… Bob, c'mon.<br />
<br />
B: He's psychic, he's psychic.<br />
<br />
P: Heh heh.<br />
<br />
S: And extra-dimensional.<br />
<br />
P: That's true. That is true.<br />
<br />
S: There's always a post hoc rationalization for the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
E: It all comes down to quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'm sure it's got something to do with El Nino and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
B: He's quantum tunneling through the earth so no-one sees.<br />
<br />
S: There was one thing in this article that I thought was a little bit of a howler. He is going through numerous reasons why the whole UFO hypothesis is not compelling and he said that the "lack of enthusiasm" basically is as it should be because "much of their enthusiasm is based on false assumptions made by an astronomer named Frank Drake." He had the Drake Equation - 1961 Drake devised a famous equation proving, he thought, that our galaxy was teeming with advanced species. Alas the 1997 book 'Yes We Have No Neutrons', science writer AK Dudeney showed a simple and logical reinterpretation of the equation yields a result of just one species, meaning us. So I totally disagree with that characterization of the Drake equation. We talked about this before.<br />
<br />
B: Right, did Drake ever say "here's my estimates for all these variables in the equation and here's the answer to - did he ever say that ever?<br />
<br />
S: No, it was not offered as proof of -<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
S: - of a lot of aliens. It was offered as "these are the variables that define the variables.<br />
<br />
B: Right, a thought experiment, but this guy's making it sound like he plugged in his numbers and came up with the many many civilizations, when I don't think he ever did that.<br />
<br />
S: Well reading the article, which of course we'll link to, it seems like he's trying to be skeptical but he really is making a very superficial reading of a lot of these points and doesn't really understand the topic to any depth. If you read a lot of the points too, he pulled out a couple quotes from some sources and, but doesn't really get down to the nub of the matter.<br />
<br />
21.35<br />
<br />
S: A couple other bits of interesting science news this week I thought we would chat about. The first one is a pretty significant breakthrough in nanotechnology, which I know Bob always loves to talk about.<br />
<br />
B: Woo hooo.<br />
<br />
S: Now any time there's anything that's really small or any piece of it is on the nano-scale, that's technically nano-technology.<br />
<br />
B: Right, right.<br />
<br />
S: So the term could be used very vaguely. This one is a company developed a nano-particle that could be used to deliver drugs which is very interesting application. This one is designed to treat glaucoma. Glaucoma, which is an eye disease, basically an increase of pressure inside the eye that can actually cause blindness if it's not treated, one of the limitations of treating it is that medications have a hard time penetrating the eye or getting from the blood into the eye where it needs to be.<br />
<br />
B: 3% I think it said, 3% of medicines.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, just 3% of the drug that gets into your system actually gets to where it's going. A delivery system that can increase that penetration could allow the delivery of more medication without having so much of the medication being systemically in the body, so you get a fewer side effects.<br />
<br />
P: It doesn't work like all those horror movies where they jam hypos direction into the guy's eyeball?<br />
<br />
S: No, what happens is the nano-particles are able to cross the blood-brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier's exactly what it says - it's basically a physiological mechanism to keep stuff from getting into the brain, the central nervous system, through the blood. It's basically just cells that line the blood vessels, and it carefully regulates what crosses across that barrier. It keeps out a lot of drugs. Physicians have to know which drugs cross the barrier and which ones don't, because the ones that don't cross it like an antibiotic that doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier shouldn't be used to treat infection in the brain. But ones that do cross the blood-brain barrier will get there in higher concentration. So this is a particle, it's engineered basically to be able to move across the blood-brain barrier. This could be used to deliver lots of drugs, not just the one<br />
<br />
J: But how does it deliver the drug? I don't picture it yet. Do you know exactly how it works?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, is it in little baggies?<br />
<br />
S: It's actually coated on the outside with the drug.<br />
<br />
J: And your body just absorbs it?<br />
<br />
S: Yes, but the key is that the particles will cross the blood-brain barrier and get into the eye where it needs to be, needs to have its action.<br />
<br />
E: It's literally a carrier.<br />
<br />
B: So would these be eye drops, Steve? I've never heard of a drug getting into the eye, being referred to as getting past the blood-brain barrier, although your eyes technically are bits of your brain that are kind of poking out and <br />
<br />
R/P/J: Ew.<br />
<br />
E: That's cooool.<br />
<br />
B: That's really what your eyes are, so.<br />
<br />
S: The optic nerve and the retena are part of the central nervous system.<br />
<br />
E: That's very cool.<br />
<br />
S: It is actually exactly that, it is sort of an extension of the brain, of the central nervous system. It doesn't actually specifically say but what it does say is that the size of the particles are less abrasive than some of the complex polymers now used in most eye drops, so it makes it sound like this drug is being delivered as a drop, which needs to get across, but it also says that the particles are designed to cross the blood-brain barrier, so that may not be for this particular application but potentially future applications.<br />
<br />
B: My question is what happens to the particles once they off-load the payload? <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I guess they're just cleared out.<br />
<br />
B: They don't mention that, okay.<br />
<br />
S: Well, they're just .. cleaned out. I don't think they build up and stay there forever. But I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of this, of high-tech drug delivery systems rather than just taking it, and it's absorbed into your stomach, it goes into your blood and however much of it goes wherever you want it to, but actually using some kind of nano-delivery system to get drugs where we want them to and keep them away from other parts of the body, that's a good way to minimize side-effects basically which can be a very limiting factor.<br />
<br />
R: I wonder how long before nano-technology ends up on the black market. Could you use it to get a better high? I'm not asking for personal reasons, just curious.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's interesting, I guess it depends on how easy and cost-effective the manufacturing techniques become. Right now I think you need a pretty high-end lab to do it, I don't think you could do it in a street lab. But you're right, I wonder, that's when we'll know it's really mainstream, when you can get nano-tech street drugs.<br />
<br />
P: Nano-tech street drugs! Heh heh.<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=4458SGU Episode 1002012-10-29T20:37:10Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
S: I'm still holding out for that. So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer, I'm a big big fan of the show, listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100 more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commentary as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ[?] wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.04)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=4457SGU Episode 1002012-10-29T20:36:38Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
S: I'm still holding out for that. So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer, I'm a big big fan of the show, listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100 more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commentary as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ[?] wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.04)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
<br />
=== Nanoparticle Drug Delivery <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
=== Dino Bigbird Discovered <small>(xx)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=4456SGU Episode 1002012-10-29T20:34:55Z<p>Hesterk: /* News Items: Updates of Prior Stories */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
S: I'm still holding out for that. So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer, I'm a big big fan of the show, listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100 more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commentary as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ[?] wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Updates of Prior Stories <small>(8.04)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: A couple of our listeners have asked that we include some follow-ups to previous stories that we have talked about. And we do do that from time to time but I thought since this is the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I would look back and try to get some follow-up on some of the stories that we've told over the last couple of years. We've actually done several updates on [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy] and I wanted to find out the latest on him. This is the 16-year-old who is not eating or drinking.<br />
<br />
P: Is he still in the ditch?<br />
<br />
S: Well, he's missing again, that's the update?<br />
<br />
E: Is he on a milk carton somewhere?<br />
<br />
S: Buddha Boy is missing again.<br />
<br />
R: Did you check McDonalds?<br />
<br />
S: He comes and goes. He's under a tree, in a ditch, he goes missing for weeks on end.<br />
<br />
R: He's like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character) Bat Boy.]<br />
<br />
J: He's roaming the world like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine Caine] from Kung Ru, right, is that what -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Steve, does he disappear every day, like at teatime or something like that?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: He just disappears, they don't know where he is.<br />
<br />
J: What's the first thing he says when he arrives again somewhere.<br />
<br />
E: Namaste.<br />
<br />
J: "I'm back. I have not eaten or drank anything, I promise."<br />
<br />
E: As he burps and picks something from his teeth.<br />
<br />
S: Right. I also found, just for some further update, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind Kent Hovind] is still in jail.<br />
<br />
All: Yay, woo hoo.<br />
<br />
P: That's a plus.<br />
<br />
S: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams#Advocacy_of_Expanding_Earth_theory Neal Adams] still doesn't have a clue. <ref>[[SGU_Episode_51]]</ref><ref>Post-dating this podcast, [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/debate-with-hallow-earth-proponent-neal-adams/ Neurologica blog]</ref><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Aw, poor Neal, he tries really hard.<br />
<br />
S: And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Warren Ed Warren] is still dead.<br />
<br />
B: Aw come on, what are you saying.<br />
<br />
P: I wonder if he's been communicating with Lorraine.<br />
<br />
J: Of course he is.<br />
<br />
P: Or anybody else for that matter.<br />
<br />
R: Now there's a follow-up I'd like to see.<br />
<br />
S: He didn't send me any cards, no phone calls.<br />
<br />
E: Nobody channeled him for you Steve?<br />
<br />
S: No channeling. And seriously I tried to find follow-up on a lot of the other pieces, like remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramids Bosnian pyramid?]<br />
<br />
Various: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing on that, nothing's happened. <br />
<br />
E: You saying it was a pyramid scheme.<br />
<br />
S: Yes, it was a pyramid scam.<br />
<br />
B: It's good that stuff like that just kind of fades away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, a lot of it does, I search on the stories and the articles that come up would date from the original news stories that we talked about on the podcast, really nothing's up there -<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, remember James Cameron finding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus tomb of Jesus?]<br />
<br />
S: I searched on that. There's a really nice website now on the lost tomb of Jesus, just promoting the show, and all of the claims that Cameron and the other producers of that show made, but there was nothing new scholarly published on it that I could find. Which also brings up the point that we do ask our listeners, since you guys are many more people than we are, if you do come across any updates to any of the stories that we discuss, send them to us because we'll definitely want to do the follow-up on the show. So hopefully with many more eyes and ears we'll pick up on stuff.<br />
<br />
P: We get a lot of leads from emails.<br />
<br />
S: We do. And we appreciate it, we do. And on the boards as well.<br />
<br />
P: And on the boards.<br />
<br />
S: And I cull them for items and I do pick up a lot of items from that.<br />
<br />
=== Psychic Arrested for Fraud <small>(10.55)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca, you sent me an item that was kind of an update about the whole discussion of sending psychics to prison.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that spawned a pretty big discussion both on the podcast and on the boards, people trying to figure out whether or not we should outlaw psychics. Just on Tuesday, this past Tuesday, a fortune teller was sent to jail in Maryland for bilking customers out of nearly $257,000. She basically got it all out of sad desperate middle-aged women.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm Hmm.<br />
<br />
R: They threw the book at her and the best quote that she could offer was "I promise in Jesus' name I'm not going to do this again. I know it sounds like I'm using Jesus. I am ashamed."<br />
<br />
J: Oh, my God, that's the best thing she could come up with?<br />
<br />
R: Take that as you will.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: That's pretty lame.<br />
<br />
R: I find it interesting though. She's being sent away on fraud charges I guess. It's funny that we can send her away because she took money from them, but it seems like that's the only way to really get psychics is when they're taking actual money and property, but not necessarily when they're doing great amounts of psychological harm to people.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Like what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne Sylvia Brown] does to people - parents of missing children, for instance.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it seems that if there's a fee for service, that's considered entertainment, but if part of the fortune telling involves a scam to get large amounts of cash and property from people, then that's over the line to fraud. It seems that that's the line that's been drawn now. The Montgomery Assistant State Attorney, Carol Crawford, was quoted as saying "This is beyond fortune telling for entertainment purposes."<br />
<br />
P: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And she compared her to a leech who was draining money off of vulnerable middle aged women.<br />
<br />
P: That's because the legal system is set up to deal with frauds and thieves. It's not set up to deal with people who commit psychological damage.<br />
<br />
R: Well if you look at it, there are laws against, for instance, therapists using their relationship with patients in an inappropriate way -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - to take advantage of them.<br />
<br />
S: But that falls under professional ethics and malpractice, but there is no professional ethics for psychics.<br />
<br />
E: That's an oxymoron.<br />
<br />
S: It's just fraud. You're over the line to fraud or you're not. And if you're not over the line to fraud, then everything else is fine.<br />
<br />
J: You also have to imagine that she was turned in too. It wasn't like someone was policing this.<br />
<br />
P: Isn't the definition of being a professional, being paid for service?<br />
<br />
S: That is one definition, but the definition I was using was a professional meaning you are a member of a profession, and not all jobs are a profession. A profession implies that there is a certain recognized relationship with society where the profession is given certain privileges and rights in exchange for ethical guidelines and other guarantees of quality of service.<br />
<br />
J: Like a doctor, a lawyer, a police officer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and implies there are ethical guidelines that can be enforced. But psychics are not professionals in that they are not given a privileged status for exchange for being held to ethical guidelines.<br />
<br />
J: I think, would you guys consider this a precedent? Has this ever happened before?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah, this is old news.<br />
<br />
P: Many times.<br />
<br />
S: And this is usually, the cases I've heard about are very similar to this where hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars was involved in a long term con. It basically was a con game where being a psychic or giving some kind of psychic service was just the mechanism of the con. And really they were convicted for being a con artist and for fraud, not for giving fortunes. So that's I think the difference.<br />
<br />
P: Jay, I remember Sergeant Friday and Officer Gannon busting fortune tellers on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(series) Dragnet] in the '60s.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: You're talking about TV now, right? Okay.<br />
<br />
P: Just saying it goes back a long way. It's certainly not a precedent, that's all I'm saying.<br />
<br />
S: That is true, that was the "bunco squad."<br />
<br />
E: "Bunco squad."<br />
<br />
P: That's right, "bunco," that's exactly right.<br />
<br />
R: It seems like more often than not when this con comes under the context of being a psychic, it's just like in this story where the so-called psychic told the women that they had a curse on them that needed to be relieved, only through her, and which would require a long-term plan where they kept having to pay and pay and pay and she basically freaked them out into thinking that if they didn't pay, they would have this awful curse looming over them. So it seems like it's like this by-the-book psychic scam that you just see over and over again.<br />
<br />
J: What was the curse? That every month they're going to bleed? What are we talking about?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you really trying to get us back into that?<br />
<br />
E: We got in trouble for that too, didn't we?<br />
<br />
S: Let's not go there again. They're cursed to tell bad jokes forever.<br />
<br />
J: I caught that curse a long time ago.<br />
<br />
=== 60 Years of Flying Saucers <small>(16.00)</small> ===<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=4455SGU Episode 1002012-10-29T19:17:13Z<p>Hesterk: /* Buddha Boyth Episode (8.04) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
S: I'm still holding out for that. So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer, I'm a big big fan of the show, listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100 more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commentary as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ[?] wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items: Updates of Prior Stories==<br />
=== Buddha Boy <small>(8.04)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy]<br />
<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=4454SGU Episode 1002012-10-29T19:16:51Z<p>Hesterk: /* News Items */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
S: I'm still holding out for that. So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer, I'm a big big fan of the show, listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100 more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commentary as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ[?] wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items: Updates of Prior Stories==<br />
=== Buddha Boy<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(8.04)</small> ===<br />
<br />
[http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy]<br />
<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=4453SGU Episode 1002012-10-29T19:15:44Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(0.42)</small> ===<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
S: I'm still holding out for that. So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer, I'm a big big fan of the show, listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100 more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commentary as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ[?] wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(8.04)</small> ===<br />
Updates of prior stories:<br />
[http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy]<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=4452SGU Episode 1002012-10-29T19:14:10Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday June 19<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: Hey.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Happy Juneteenth everyone.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening.<br />
<br />
J: Great, how you doing Steve?<br />
<br />
E/P/etc: Fine<br />
<br />
SGU Reaches its 100th Episode (0.42?)<br />
<br />
S: Especially tonight, because as you all know, this is a completely arbitrarily special podcast in that this is our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
Various: Yay.<br />
<br />
R: I feel like we're turning into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series) Blossom] - I feel like every episode is a "very special episode" of the Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
S: "Tonight, a ''very special'' episode."<br />
<br />
R: Jay is going to get into drugs.<br />
<br />
E: Look out Simpsons, we only have about 300 more to catch you.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but we can go into syndication now.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Oh that's right, according to TV we could actually start our syndication after this recording.<br />
<br />
R: And then comes the money.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Finally the big dough.<br />
<br />
J: We have officially made more recordings than the original Star Trek.<br />
<br />
B: Ha.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we passed that.<br />
<br />
R: That's sad.<br />
<br />
B: ..27.. (mumbling)<br />
<br />
J: That's really ridiculous when you think about it.<br />
<br />
R: It's a lot of episodes.<br />
<br />
S: Now some of our listeners sent in little audio recordings of them congratulating us on our 100<sup>th</sup> episode.<br />
<br />
E: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Making this milestone.<br />
<br />
J: You asked people on the board, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: I did ask for it, yeah. I mean it wasn't spontaneous.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: It wasn't a huge groundswell of love and support.<br />
<br />
J: "I think I'll send in an audio recording."<br />
<br />
R: About that ticker-tape parade, are you saying that was all set up too?<br />
<br />
S: I'm still holding out for that. So thanks to all of our listeners who sent in audio clips and we're going to play a selection of them for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Will from Ontario, also on the message boards as Havermayer, I'm a big big fan of the show, listening since around episode 48 or so. And you guys have helped encourage me to found a skeptic society at my own university, so I may do battle with the forces of woo. So keep up the good work and let's hope for another 100 episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congratulations from Hershey Pennsylvania on 100 excellent episodes of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to Dr. Novella, all the rogues and everybody's who's appeared on the show. It's the best 1 hour programming anywhere. Keep up the good work and good luck and if there's any way to email a 2-pound bar of thank you chocolate over the internet, I would have done it, but I guess technology isn't there yet. Thanks a lot and keep it up.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is James from Edmonton Alberta Canada, wishing the SGU congratulations on reaching 100 incredible episodes. I'm a few months away from completing a doctoral degree in physics and after all the exams and all the papers, after all the late night hours toiling away in the lab, it's your weekly podcast which has provided me with the tools that I treasure most. Nothing has been or will be more valuable to my education than what you have offered: namely the know-how for proper application of rational and critical thought to all arenas of life, the understanding of the logical fallacies that people make every day and in every way, and have found appreciation for the fallibility of human reason. This knowledge should be the birthright of every person on the planet so I thank you sincerely for having shared it with me. Once again, congratulations.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys, this is Rudism[?] from your forum. I just want to say congratulations on your 100<sup>th</sup> and here's hoping for 100 more to come, at least as long as Perry stays on the panel. Otherwise I'll have no more reason to live.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Greetings from London to Dr Novella and his skeptical rogues. This is Jared, a fellow Connecticut native, frequent commentary as 'ex-patriot' on Rebecca's blog and a faithful SGU listener. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you all on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode. Yours is my favorite podcast each week and I'd like to thank you for fighting the good fight against the evil forces of pseudoscience. I'd also like to thank you for giving me solid grounds from which to argue whenever a friend or family member tries to convince me that homoeopathy, chiropractic or astrology has any validity in what we like to call "real life." Keep up the great work and here's to another 100 episodes. Cheers. </blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hi this is RMZ[?] wishing the skeptical rogues well deserved congratulations for their 100<sup>th</sup> podcast and taking a quick second to talk about both what the Skeptics' Guide as well as the NESS have meant to me. I knew about the NESS because I knew Steve in med school and it wasn't long after he graduated that I was given my first copy of the NESS newsletter. Years later, when I should have been working, I went online and saw they had put up their first podcast. I downloaded it, listened to it and was hooked. And now 100 episodes later, I'm grateful to the entire set of skeptical rogues for showing me that there's this whole class of people out there who aren't even necessarily scientists who want to approach problems and questions through logical reasoning and critical thinking. So from the early days of the newsletter through the website to the fantastic recent addition of Rebecca, you guys have really evolved and let's look forward to another 100 fantastic episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is GiggiRock wishing you guys a happy 100<sup>th</sup> episode and a big thanks for making my weeks a little brighter and my mind a little bit sharper and for making skepticism a whole lot funnier. I wish you guys the best, even Perry.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello, my name is Travis. I go by chionactis in the forums and I'm just sending you this message to congratulate you on your 100<sup>th</sup> episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. It is a fantastic podcast, I very much enjoy it. You guys are a great combination of personalities and it's really refreshing to hear people actually do research to effectively discredit these pseudoscientific claims that can often cause harm. I look forward to many future episodes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey, this is Mike from SGUfans.net. Just wanted to congratulate the panel for achieving the 100<sup>th</sup> episode milestone. From the very first time I listened to an episode I was hooked. I was very new to the world of skepticism and the panel on the Skeptics' Guide have been my mentors ever since. I can honestly say that because of the SGU I look at the world around me very differently now, and I've made a few friends in the process. Rebecca - you've made me realize that even hippies can be good people. You've brought an attitude to the show that was needed. Perry - what can I say? There should be way more people like you on this planet, and way less birds. Evan - you've shown me that one needs the most when faced with a puzzling situation is to use their common sense. You know, they should make an International Evan Day. Bob - every time you speak I learn something new. The government should invest billions and billions in people like you. Jay, buddy - bring on the bacon! Without you I would never have known what the hucklebuck was, and for that I thank you. Steve - Dr. Novella - is your doctorate in everything? Because sometimes it just seems that there's nothing you don't know. Thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into this awesome show. It doesn't go unnoticed. You have no idea how much everyone really appreciates it. Again, congratulations guys.</blockquote><br />
<br />
P: Wasn't that nice?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Thank you very much everybody. That was very very very kind of all of you.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, thank you everyone.<br />
<br />
S: It's good to get some positive feedback.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah. Thanks.<br />
<br />
J: We usually don't hear the voices of our listeners.<br />
<br />
E: No, podcasting is one-way, Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Wait you're saying they don't call you?<br />
<br />
J: You know, unless I'm taking 3 or 4 xanax, I don't hear their voices when we do the show.<br />
<br />
B: I thought you took the pills to stop you hearing voices.<br />
<br />
P: I hear quite a few of them Jay in the chat room on the SGU fan site.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>(8.04)</small> ===<br />
Updates of prior stories:<br />
[http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy]<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=4450SGU Episode 1002012-10-29T17:29:43Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
<!-- |guest1 = JR: James Randi remove if no guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3445.0.html<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100<sup>th</sup> Episode <small>()</small> ===<br />
Updates of prior stories:<br />
[http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318 Buddha boy]<br />
[http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44 60 Years of Flying Saucers]<br />
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml Nanoparticle Drug Delivery]<br />
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE Dino Bigbird Discovered]<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=4449SGU Episode 1002012-10-29T17:26:12Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:100th_episode_300.gif <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = JR: James Randi <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-06-19.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=100<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=00000.0<br />
|qowText = The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== SGU Reaches its 100th Episode <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Updates of prior stories:<br />
Buddha boy: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006696318<br />
60 Years of Flying Saucers http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=b4e4889a-6886-4b6f-a848-9f0439d4da44<br />
Nanoparticle Drug Delivery http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070619-14033900-bc-us-glaucoma.xml<br />
Dino Bigbird Discovered news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Arljr2DM29i4Uik2AXkUhPys0NUE<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Home Buying Pseudoscience <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
I have been house hunting lately and have bumped into some pseudoscience during that time. I was wondering if you guys could cut through the BS for me. <br />
<br />
1) My real estate agent insists that it is a bad idea to buy a house near power lines since they cause cancer and therefore the value is reduced. I believe her that the value is reduced, but not because the threat is real, but because so many people have this mistaken belief.<br />
<br />
2) A home inspector that I know told me that UFFI (Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation) was used as an insulation in the 70s. There was a brief health scare that this insulation caused health problems and now any house that ever had the insulation, even if it was removed at great cost, has had its value greatly reduced. And apparently there was no scientific basis behind the scare.<br />
<br />
A link to info about UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
<br />
Thanks for your great show, it's by far the best podcast of the 10 or so I listen to every week.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Abrams<br />
Ottawa, Canada<br />
<br />
Skeptical article on power lines: http://www.csicop.org/sb/9509/rothman.html<br />
UFFI: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm' target='_blank' class='podcast_link'>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_008.cfm<br />
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html<br />
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml82/82005.html<br />
<br />
=== Magneto and Son <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Found this video of magnetic father and son in Taiwan. Any suggestions on how they pull this off? (Or put it on, as it were)<br />
<br />
videoholicsanonymous.blogspot.com/2007/06/amazing-magnetic-child.html<br />
<br />
Brandon Adams <br />
Long Beach, CA<br />
<br />
=== Acupuncture Brain Surgery <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
here are a some topics i thought might be interesting to research and discuss for the show...<br />
<br />
1. I saw a show with Leanord Nemoy (can't remember the name) he showed a video of a woman in China having brain surgery with supposedly only acupuncture to numb the pain, she was fully awake during the procedure.<br />
<br />
2. the war on drugs is an interesting topic, specifically is the research true that the netherlands has lower addiction rates than the u.s. (these statistics are all over the internet by advocates for the decriminalization of drugs in the u.s. - is it the government's right to intervene in people's choice to use drugs if they are not putting anyone else in danger<br />
-"plan columbia: cashing in on the drug war failure" was an interesting movie that stated that the u.s.government is supposedly giving money to the columbian military even though it is one of the leading smugglers of drugs out of its own country. - america has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population; most non-violent drug offenders (penn and teller's bullshit has an episode about the drug war)<br />
<br />
3.the "holding back of the electric car" i know you discussed this before but the movie "who killed the electric car" says that the electric car was not given money by the government to succeed because pressure by the oil companies was put on the government to sustain the popularity of gasoline fueled cars. the movie also states that the hydrogen fuel cell cars were given government money because they knew the technology wouldn't become public or affordable for a long, long time.<br />
<br />
4.the alleged danger of PVC, aspartame, flouride, and aluminum<br />
<br />
5. pagan roots of christianity (more specific examples)<br />
<br />
6. is premium gas really better than regular for some engines, and is water added to gasoline to extend it in warmer months.<br />
<br />
7. do women cheat as much, less, or more than men? ( evolutionary theories as to why or why not)<br />
<br />
sorry about the length, let me know if this is helpful.<br />
<br />
Brad Carlson <br />
Illinois, USA<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Archaeologists have discovered the first known example of money, copper coins more than 8000 years old.<br />
Question #2 Physicists announced the discovery of a new elementary particle, in the same category as protons and neutrons known as baryons.<br />
Question #3 Neuroscientists have discovered that two independent brain networks share ultimate behavioral control.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
I notably lurk on the fringes of physics<br />
I rely on people's ignorance of water's specific capacity<br />
I was the world's only teacher of my practice from 1977-1984<br />
I don't spend much time doing what I do<br />
I keep my momentum, yet try to stay uneven<br />
And if those dollars are burning a hole in your pocket, I can teach you to attain virtually any goal<br />
<br />
Who am I?<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's Puzzle<br />
<br />
Franklin D. Roosevelt<br />
Mark Twain<br />
Herbert Hoover<br />
J. Paul Getty<br />
Napoleon Bonaparte<br />
Rudolph Giuliani<br />
<br />
What un-skeptical trait do all of these famous people have in common?<br />
<br />
Answer: Triskaidekaphobia<br />
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
"The amount of years that she will live longer than us because of the diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life." <br />
</blockquote><br />
Perry John DeAngelis commenting on Rebecca Watson's vegetarian diet: <br />
1963 - Present; a skeptical philosopher of some note<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=4448SGU Episode 1002012-10-29T16:52:47Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Transcribing all<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:LogoSGU.png <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = JR: James Randi <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|guest3 = <!-- leave blank if no third guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2012-00-00.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=00000.0<br />
|qowText = Death is an engineering problem. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Kosko Bart Kosko] <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Item 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
=== Question 2 <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Interview with "..." <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}} <!-- inserts the template containing the voiceover outro (including links) for episodes 301 onwards. For older episodes use:<br />
{{Outro291}} - episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
episodes 289 & 290 use the same text as 291-300, but are voiced by Steve<br />
{{Outro119}} - episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro61}} - episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro39}} - episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro30}} - episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro18}} - episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
--><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_100&diff=4447SGU Episode 1002012-10-29T16:51:52Z<p>Hesterk: saving template</p>
<hr />
<div>''This is a draft of the episode page skeleton, you can use it to structure your transcription page''<br />
{{LatestEpisode}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 100<br />
|episodeDate = 19<sup>th</sup> June 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:LogoSGU.png <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = JR: James Randi <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|guest3 = <!-- leave blank if no third guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2012-00-00.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=00000.0<br />
|qowText = Death is an engineering problem. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Kosko Bart Kosko] <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Item 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>()</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
=== Question 2 <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Interview with "..." <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro1}} <!-- inserts the template containing the voiceover outro (including links) for episodes 301 onwards. For older episodes use:<br />
{{Outro291}} - episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
episodes 289 & 290 use the same text as 291-300, but are voiced by Steve<br />
{{Outro119}} - episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro61}} - episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro39}} - episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro30}} - episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
{{Outro18}} - episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
--><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=4446Template:SGU episode list2012-10-29T16:50:53Z<p>Hesterk: adding 100</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.<br />
<br />
Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon. <br />
<br />
Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon.</noinclude><br />
{|style="margin:1em 3em"<br />
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<span id="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2011"><big>'''2011'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011{{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2008"><big>'''2008'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 {{Open}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}</div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4442SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T05:23:22Z<p>Hesterk: all done?</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow [[July 4]]<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
The next email comes from Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
R: Wait, I know a Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: You do? Maybe it's the same person. <br />
<blockquote>This [http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html link] tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxyhttp://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm true] that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very interesting: What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky. I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the "energy levels" of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Perry is now probably liking this guy. It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest [http://www.ipcc.ch/ IPCC] report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics to maneuver. I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argue with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. Late congratulations on the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000<sup>th</sup> episode, 17.3 years from now.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, I'm not going to get into the global warming part of this, I haven't really heard that myself, I don't think anyone seriously is proposing that.<br />
<br />
B: No, it's pathetic.<br />
<br />
J: We don't need to talk about that anymore anyway. Come on, guys.<br />
<br />
R: I just want to mention that just today there was a report released saying that there was no link between cosmic rays and global warming.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, in fact Fraser Cain, who does the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_Cast Astronomy Cast] wrote an article for Wired Science and we can have the [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/ link] on the news page.<br />
<br />
S: The core claim that the sun in our solar system came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not native to the Milky Way has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait Phil Plait,] the [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Bad Astronomer,] has done a very thorough job of analyzing and debunking this claim on his blog which we'll [http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup link] to. So we don't have to have him on the show because I can just tell you what he wrote in his blog. Basically there's a lot of problems with this hypothesis. The first is that the sun is in fact in the plane of the galaxy. The stars from the Dwarf Galaxy, which is oblique to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, are not orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, they're orbiting at an angle. So right there pretty much rules out that the sun is from the Dwarf Galaxy. The second thing is that our sun has a ratio of heavy metals, like iron, that match the stars in the Milky Way and do not match the stars in the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. So just in composition it looks like a Milky Way star. Also the notion that the, so the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is in fact being cannibalized by the Milky Way - it's a smaller galaxy, two galaxies collide, if one's a lot bigger than the other, the big galaxy just eats the little galaxy, so that's what's happening. These stars are just being incorporated into the Milky Way. And where the sun is right now is kind of close to where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy's intersecting the Milky Way, but it's not right in the stream of stars. So it's actually far enough away that in fact that's an argument against us coming from the Sagittarius Galaxy. Also you have to note the fact that since we're revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, millions of years ago we would have been half-way around the galaxy from where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is. So our position is not objectively near the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, it's just kind of near now. But historically we would have been at every other point in the galactic disc away from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, so that's actually not a point in the favor of that position. <br />
<br />
E: Are there any points in favor?<br />
<br />
S: No! There's no line of argument that legitimately argues that the sun came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Then why argue it?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it was just an observation that "hey, we're kind of near where this galaxy is, maybe we came from that galaxy." But on closer inspection, the arguments don't pan out as I described.<br />
<br />
B: Also Steve, the other point that he was saying is that if you look at the Milky Way from the earth, if you have very little light pollution you'll see a huge, it's really fairly distinct and quite beautiful and that's basically just you looking towards the center of the Milky Way, with the stars so much more dense, you can see so many more stars and dust and all sorts of stuff. The plane of the Milky Way doesn't match the plane that the earth orbits our solar system or the way the earth orbits the sun, so this guy is trying to say that this has been a puzzle for astronomers for years, but really it's not a puzzle.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: The orientation of the plane of a solar system can be pretty much in any direction depending on numerous factors. It doesn't have to be in the plane of the galaxy itself, so that was one of the main premises that he started his article with, and it's clearly wrong.<br />
<br />
S: It's just a false premise. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>(42.52)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have one more email. This one is a follow-up to our piece from [[SGU_Episode_101 last week]] about the Belgium Skeptical Society being sued and on the brink of non-existence. This one comes from Anne Frid de Vries from the Netherlands and she writes: "Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court." And then she gives [http://anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html links to her blog] about it. She has the links to the podcast and she graciously links to the Skeptics' Guide and talks about the fact that Perry was - <br />
<br />
P: What's the name of this blog?<br />
<br />
S: The blog was, I can't quite make it out. What does that say?<br />
<br />
(laughter and muttering)<br />
<br />
J: Perry DeAngelis is tight!<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is tight.<br />
<br />
E: Perry DeAgeis is light.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is right. Basically, just to quickly reiterate, Sickesz is a woman who is promoting some kind of manipulative alternative medicine and the skeptical organization listed her as one of the top 20 quacks in the Netherlands. And they were sued for slander and the lawsuit was successful and part of the judgement was that they have to take out advertising all over the country saying that she's not a quack. And Perry made the point that if he ran a skeptical organization, he absolutely wouldn't spend a dime to advertise that somebody like her was legitimate or was not a quack. So Anne is basically agreeing with Perry, which I think we all also agree with him on that.<br />
<br />
P: It'd be a shame to lose 125 years history. Have to come up with a new company but it's worth it.<br />
<br />
S: We also had another email from somebody who's giving us some legal follow-up, who's saying that there is still an appeal left, they can appeal to the supreme court basically. He actually offered as a lawyer to give them any help but only if they're going to appeal the decision, and vowed not to give them any money if in fact they're going to use it on these advertisements, these court ordered advertisements.<br />
<br />
P: I sure hope they appeal.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. We'll have to continue to follow this case and hopefully they will appeal, hopefully justice will be done in the end. So again we'll have to keep an eye on this case.<br />
<br />
J: In her blog she writes in Dutch that Mrs Sickesz is a quack and it goes, I can't even pronounce this, it's funny, the quack in Dutch is "kwakzalver."<br />
<br />
S: Kwakzalver. They actually coined the term - the term kwakzalver is taken from the Dutch, so that term is actually -<br />
<br />
E: It was the original term.<br />
<br />
S: - originally a Dutch term. Kwakzalver.<br />
<br />
E: Benjamin Franklin referred to it way back when in some of his writing.<br />
<br />
S: Talking about mesmer?<br />
<br />
P: No doubt.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Way to allude to one of our first podcasts, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: So Perry, how does it feel to be written about?<br />
<br />
P: Well, I've been written about most of my life. Various medical institutions.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Psychiatric facilities.<br />
<br />
R: Speeding tickets.<br />
<br />
P: Nothing new.<br />
<br />
J: It's old hat to you, Perry.<br />
<br />
P: It is.<br />
<br />
E: Are you tired of being right, Perry?<br />
<br />
S: It is a burden to be right all the time, isn't it Perry?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Some of us are born to it.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>(46.24)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: We do have one "name that logical fallacy" this week. This is an email that was sent to us and we're going to use it as our "name that logical fallacy." This one comes from Athanasios Zacharakopoulos -<br />
<br />
R: Well done!<br />
<br />
S: - from Athens, Greece, and he writes "Hello guys! Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job.... To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance..."<br />
<br />
E: Ooooh.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning," when in many cases things are much more complex... You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question... Best regards." You have to be cautious before you send a really critical email to us because we just might use it in our "name that logical fallacy" section.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
(more laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Not because it's critical, we're open to logically valid criticism of course. But there are a couple of points in this email that are fairly typical. First of all, the fact that we analyze scientific claims and we pick out those that are especially egregious or dubious in order to expose them, doesn't, I think, equate to arrogance. It's like accusing every single movie critic of being arrogant, every type of critic of every kind of being arrogant. It's scientific analysis - this is what scientists do, and we're just bringing scientific analysis to those people who are essentially lurking in the shadows of science and trying to evade the critical light of science.<br />
<br />
The other point that he makes is, basically accusing our arguments, accusing us of using simplistic arguments and then just labeling them logical reasoning, when in many cases the topics are much more complex. And this is really just an unfounded accusation and it's a bit of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) non-sequitur.] It's also, in my opinion, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ad hominem] attack, because.. Essentially what he's doing, and I pointed this out to him, and I responded to his email and I pointed this out to him, is that we're open to criticism. If we've made a mis-statement of fact or if we have committed a logical fallacy in our arguments, point it out to us and if it's valid we'll make a correction, which we have done in the past. So I challenged him to do that and he actually couldn't do that in response. So what he's doing in this email is trying to focus on us personally - calling us "arrogant", that we "lack humility", that we're "simplistic" in our approach.<br />
<br />
R: All of which is true, don't get us wrong.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: True or not, it's still an ad hominem logical fallacy, rather than actually bringing up points that relate to any specific argument that we made. It's a very common tactic for dismissing criticism, just to attack the criticizer basically.<br />
<br />
R: And there's just the basic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man straw man] of saying that we act as if we know everything -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - on every subject matter. When we again and again and again say "all the evidence isn't in on this yet," or "this isn't my area of expertise but," you know, I think we're constantly trying to qualify ourselves.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly.<br />
<br />
R: And speaking personally, this entire podcast I've got like 7 things wrong thus far.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: So, we're definitely always admitting when we get things wrong. When people write in and clarify things for us, I think we're pretty open about all that. So i think that's definitely a straw man.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And also, when we get out of our area of expertise we try to distill the consensus of scientific opinion, not interject our own opinion. So we are not, I don't think that we are inappropriately setting ourselves up as experts in areas that we do not have expertise. <br />
<br />
What I did point out is that actually there is a certain type of expertise that we do bring to the entire endeavor at the Skeptics' Guide, in that we are, I believe, very experienced, even expert, skeptics. And skepticism is, in my opinion, a legitimate intellectual, even academic, area of interest, that brings together various disciplines that are very important. One is '''knowledge of logical fallacies''' - of logic in general, of how to make a valid argument. Another is '''mechanisms of self deception''' - the psychology and neurology of memory and perception and delusion and even stage illusion and magic. The '''nature of scientific research''' - of peer review, and replication etc. These various fields that we have endeavored to study and to become knowledgeable about and to bring them all together to give us the tools - the skeptical tools - to analyze claims to truth, especially those that are unusual, bizarre, on the fringe, on the borderlands of science. Sometimes we talk about things that are barely science but are legitimate even though they might at first seem unusual. And of course we spend a lot of time talking about interesting but bizarre or absurd claims. Part of it is to understand why people believe really absurd bizarre things. How is it that people can come to conclusions that are so demonstrably false? What is the malfunction in the human brain that allows that to happen? So I do claim collectively for the Skeptics' Guide that this is an area of legitimate expertise of ours, that's something we always try to teach in these podcasts and to bring to bear in our analysis.<br />
<br />
J: One of the lines that you read, Steve, you said "You are acting as if you know everything, every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility." Well, you know what? We read up on these topics before we discuss them. We try to get as educated as we can in the time allowed and if that's us acting as if we know everything, well we do know our subject matter.<br />
<br />
S: There is a little bit of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_trebeck Alex Trebeck] syndrome in that we have the answers in front of us, which is why we can look smart sometimes. We just read up on it to prepare for the podcast! <br />
<br />
E: Yes, especially the neurological stuff!<br />
<br />
P: This letter is juvenile, I mean it's really, it's pathetic. Come on.<br />
<br />
S: But it's typical, but Perry it's very typical.<br />
<br />
P: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: I include it because I've heard all of these arguments a thousand times before in emails from other people. Let's go on to "Science or Fiction."<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(53.13)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious. Then I challenge my panel of skeptics and my listeners at home to tell me which one is the fake. There is a theme this week.<br />
<br />
J: Yey theme!<br />
<br />
S: It's a big theme, the theme is medicine. These are all medically related.<br />
<br />
E: Oh god.<br />
<br />
R: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
E: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
S: It's a theme.<br />
<br />
R: It's not a theme!<br />
<br />
S: Medicine is a theme!<br />
<br />
R: A theme is cross-dressing dictators from the '20s.<br />
<br />
S: That's true, that's a narrower theme, it's hard to find three items in such a narrow theme. Hey, if I can find any theme at all I am happy. Okay, the theme this week is science!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Or fiction!<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Item number 1 - a new study finds that teens can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette. Item number 2 - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity. And item number 3 - researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma. Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: Well, these are interesting. Teens can become addicted after smoking one cigarette, they can become addicted to nicotine?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: What level of addiction are we talking about.<br />
<br />
P: What are you f- what? Just answer the question! Jesus! You people always do this.<br />
<br />
J: That's me stalling so I can think about it a little more, you jack-ass. <br />
<br />
B: So addicted that they have to smoke a carton a day.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I don't think that after one cigarette, nah, I don't think that. Going on, stress can cause obesity, I definitely agree with that, and Perry I'm sure you agree with that as well. And an extract of elderberries can treat asthma - I have no clue. I'm going to go with the cigarettes as being the fake.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: I'm leaning towards what Jay's saying, that I don't think there's a study saying you can become addicted, or a teen can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Ah. I'm going to say, I can believe the single cigarette thing.<br />
<br />
E: The single cigarette theory?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: The single cigarette theory. Ah, so I think I'm going to go with stress causing obesity.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
R: That seems like it makes sense but I think you're zigging when we think you're zagging.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Um. The single cigarette one sounds, doesn't sound very likely. I could see that maybe there's some people that one cigarette could kind of give them such a, do something that gives them some level of addiction, very very minor I would think after one, but that doesn't seem impossible. <br />
<br />
J: But Bob. Full physical addiction?<br />
<br />
R: He didn't say "physical."<br />
<br />
B: Right, there's different, yeah, is it a chemical addiction or just a physical addicition, he didn't specify, so i'm going to go with that, plausible, feasible. Stress can cause obesity, that sounds, that seems like a no-brainer to me, that sounds very likely. Extract of elderberries treating asthma. I'm going to say "no" on that one.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
B: That's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Perry.<br />
<br />
P: I have to agree with Bob on number 3. Aren't elderberries poisonous? What do they use in arsenic? They put it in elderberry wine.<br />
<br />
J: Lots of things are poisonous that they use in medicine you idiot.<br />
<br />
P: That's right, they put it in elderberry wine. Anyway, number 3 is false.<br />
<br />
S: The extract of elderberries?<br />
<br />
P: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: So you guys are all over the place this week.<br />
<br />
J? (silly voice): Of course I was drunk at the time. Sorry. <br />
<br />
E: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAy4zULKFDU Your mother smelled of elderberries.]<br />
<br />
S: I'll just take them in order.<br />
<br />
R: Your father smelled of elderberries.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, don't talk about my father.<br />
<br />
P: Really. Gosh sakes.<br />
<br />
J: Did you say you're going to do them in order, Steve?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'll just do them in order.<br />
<br />
J: Oh boy. <br />
<br />
S: The title of the first news item I used is "Inhaling from just one cigarette can lead to nicotine addiction."<ref>[http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=570706] Symptoms of Tobacco Dependence After Brief Intermittent Use] (title Steve gives is probably for blog article, not research paper)</ref> So that one is in fact science. What this shows, this is interesting because the neurological physiological mechanism of addiction to nicotine is different than the mechanism (on a reductionist neurological biochemical level) than the mechanism of addiction to most other things that we study such as barbiturates, narcotics, cocaine, heroin etc. And in many ways nicotine can be even more addictive. What they found is that the amount of nicotine in even a single cigarette is enough to saturate all of the nicotine receptors and cause symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. What they also found is that for young and new smokers, that smoking a single cigarette can actually treat the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal for weeks. They may only have to smoke one cigarette every two or three weeks in order to treat those symptoms of addiction - the irritability, trouble concentrating, cravings, restlessness. And as you smoke, one of the things that happens over time is the duration of time that smoking will treat the withdrawal symptoms from nicotine addiction decreases. So the longer you smoke, the more frequently you have to smoke in order to keep the withdrawal symptoms at bay. Of course until you're smoking two packs a day, or whatever advanced smokers get to. So that was a little surprising. Certainly I was surprised when I saw that headline so I thought that one would be challenging.<br />
<br />
The second one - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity - who thought this one was fake?<br />
<br />
R: I think that's me.<br />
<br />
S: This one is also science. This one also is a little tricky. The connection between stress and obesity is in the stress hormones which are steroids and it's known that they do shift metabolism in the direction of fat storage. But this is the first time a study has specifically linked stress to obesity in this kind of research model. They actually looked at mice and they had several groups in this study, they had mice that were under stress and mice that were not under stress, and mice that were getting a diet that had a lot of fat and sugar in it and mice that were not getting a lot of fat and sugar. And what they found that only the group that both was subjected to stress and also had the high-fat-sugar diet became obese. And they got abdominal obesity, the dangerous kind of obesity, and also had higher risk for insulin resistance and for fatty liver and a lot of the bad consequences of that kind of obesity. Interestingly, the high fat and sugar group without the stress didn't become obese. They in fact didn't gain any weight at all. The high stress alone group actually lost a little weight - they didn't become obese - and of course the group with neither didn't gain any weight, so you needed the combination of more fat and sugar with the stress in order to cause the obesity. <br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: The purpose of the research is to hopefully find out biochemically what is it about chronic stress that does lead or contribute to obesity, and to hopefully pharmacologically short-circuit that connection. We've talked a lot about dieting and weight gain and weight loss on the podcast, and how, although there are obviously physiological factors at play, that the dominant factor is calories in/calories out. And I still think that's true, but it is true that if you give people steroids, they'll gain a lot of weight and they'll redistribute their fat in a very abnormal pattern. So there is a real significant physiological forcing of fat storage when you chronically expose people to lots of steroids, and I guess this shows that stress by itself, chronic stress, can do that in addition to taking exogenous steroids. That was a very interesting finding.<br />
<br />
But all this means that "researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma" is in fact fiction - that one is fake.<br />
<br />
B: You took a real story and twisted it.<br />
<br />
S: I did. I saw there was a press release having to do with elderberries and I couldn't resist using a news item that had the word "elderberry" in it. I just knew it would prompt -<br />
<br />
R: Because you're a nerd.<br />
<br />
S: - because I'm a nerd and it would prompt a quote from, what's that movie?<br />
<br />
R: Monty Python <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/ Monty Python and the Holy Grail] quotes.<br />
<br />
P: You got [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036613/ Arsenic and Old Lace] out of me.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry's just a funny name, I had to use it. The study, it was actually about a study that's just beginning, so not a study that had results already, so I couldn't use it as a real item. Otherwise I would have. So I just used it as my fake item. They're planning a study looking at elderberry extract to see if it will be beneficial for skin, basically as a skincare product.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Although there's other studies going on and there's lots of interest in a specific chemical called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthocyanin anthocyanin] - it's actually a category of compounds that are found not just in elderberries but lots of different kinds of berries. And it's an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidant antioxidant] and antioxidants still garner a lot of interest as possible therapeutic agents, although they really had their heyday back in the '90s. They didn't pan out as well as people were hoping. Some people were touting them as a panacea, reducing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress oxidative stress] which is the cause of all aging and degenerative diseases. It turns out that we probably naturally evolved a pretty good balance between oxidant stress and anti-oxidant mechanisms. If you force it too much in one direction, if you take a lot of antioxidants, you may be causing more harm than good. The oxidative compounds may be necessary as part of our natural defense system, for example.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wait, how could it be bad to sop up these free radicals careening around, damaging DNA, how could that be bad?<br />
<br />
S: Because they may be serving a beneficial purpose in the body, and if they were all bad and we make natural antioxidants, why wouldn't we just make more antioxidants naturally and sop them all up?<br />
<br />
B: Because it doesn't pay to do that later in life.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's all plausible but the thing is, plausibility only gets you so far. Eventually you have to show that it actually works. It's hard to figure out from basic science principles what is supposed to happen in the body because it's such a complex system. At some point you just have to see what actually does happen and again it just turns out that empirically the bottom line long-term clinical benefits of antioxidants really haven't materialized. In fact there's a lot of studies that show that long-term high-dose antioxidant use may be associated with higher risks of things like heart disease. So we shouldn't assume that just because it seems to make sense that antioxidants are a good idea that they in fact are a good idea. But again, this is still an area that needs further study, legitimately needs further study. All the implications have not been worked out. There may be certain disease states where antioxidants are still useful but they certainly have not been established as beneficial in routine supplementation and in fact there's evidence to show that we should be cautious about using them, especially in high doses.<br />
<br />
R: You just blew my mind.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Seriously - blueberries out. What's in? Cake? Is cake good for us now? Something else needs to take the place.<br />
<br />
E: What kind of cake?<br />
<br />
R: Um?<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry.<br />
<br />
E - Bundt cake.<br />
<br />
R - Elderberry cake.<br />
<br />
S: [http://tinyurl.com/8glxbc9 Elderberry pie.]<br />
<br />
R: Okay, let's say that's good for you.<br />
<br />
E: Hold the whipped cream<br />
<br />
J: Good job.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, good job Bob and Perry, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's right.<br />
<br />
S: Good job guys.<br />
<br />
E: Eh.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(1.06.02)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Evan, please tell us, read last week's puzzle and give us the answer.<br />
<br />
E: Okay, last week's puzzle was in fact a logic puzzle. You had to identify the 6<sup>th</sup> number in this sequence. First five numbers were: <br><br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
???<br><br />
So what would the sixth number in that sequence be, everyone?<br />
<br />
J: No idea.<br />
<br />
E: No clue, huh. Won't take a guess. Well the answer is .408 and what this sequence represents is the highest batting averages in Major League baseball since the year 1900. In order.<br />
<br />
R: You're kidding.<br />
<br />
E: No, I kid you not. So the trick was to recognize that the sequence actually involved baseball and batting average.<br />
<br />
P: A lot of Yankees on that list.<br />
<br />
E: And we had several people on the message boards go along those lines and make their attempt at guessing, but in fact -<br />
<br />
S: Who was the winner?<br />
<br />
E: The winner was Kanuck from Vancouver Canada who came up with .408 first. So congratulations to Kanuck for being the first one to get it right.<br />
<br />
S: So a Canadian got that right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, isn't that interesting.<br />
<br />
R: A Canuck if you will.<br />
<br />
E: And then some people went on to moan a little bit when they realized "oh baseball."<br />
<br />
P: Not bad for a filthy Canadian considering it's not even a hockey question.<br />
<br />
S: Right. They have a baseball team, right, don't they have the Toronto Bluejays or something?<br />
<br />
E/P: They do.<br />
<br />
R: They have a couple -<br />
<br />
P: Montreal Expos too.<br />
<br />
S: Well Evan, give us this week's puzzle.<br />
<br />
E: Okay, this week's puzzle is a trivia question for everyone. I know how much we all like trivia questions. It is as follows: "In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed." So, gentle listeners, name the building that was under attack in 1967. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you Evan, interesting as always.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I found it interesting.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1.08.16)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Perry do you have a quote to close out the show for us?<br />
<br />
P: I do. It's as follows:<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
That was by Mike Huben, currently alive, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thank you perry<br />
<br />
R: Thank you perry<br />
<br />
P: You're welcome.<br />
<br />
R: And can I get in a quick note before we close things out?<br />
<br />
S: But of course.<br />
<br />
R: Just a few days left to vote in the public radio talent quest that I'm in. Yeah, so there are a few days left to vote in the public radio talent quest, that is my American Idol-like bid to become the next host of a public radio show. So we'll have the link on the news page. Go vote for me. Yey! That's all.<br />
<br />
S: Good luck Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Thank you.<br />
<br />
E/J: (unexcitedly) Good luck Rebecca.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Thank you all for joining me once again.<br />
<br />
R: So much feeling there. Thank you Steve, good times.<br />
<br />
S: Have a wonderful Independence Day everybody.<br />
<br />
J: See you tomorrow Steve.<br />
<br />
P: Good night [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_waltons Mary Ellen.]<br />
<br />
S: Until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4441SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T05:22:39Z<p>Hesterk: /* Skeptical Quote of the Week (1.08.16) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow [[July 4]]<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
The next email comes from Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
R: Wait, I know a Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: You do? Maybe it's the same person. <br />
<blockquote>This [http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html link] tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxyhttp://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm true] that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very interesting: What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky. I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the "energy levels" of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Perry is now probably liking this guy. It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest [http://www.ipcc.ch/ IPCC] report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics to maneuver. I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argue with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. Late congratulations on the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000<sup>th</sup> episode, 17.3 years from now.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, I'm not going to get into the global warming part of this, I haven't really heard that myself, I don't think anyone seriously is proposing that.<br />
<br />
B: No, it's pathetic.<br />
<br />
J: We don't need to talk about that anymore anyway. Come on, guys.<br />
<br />
R: I just want to mention that just today there was a report released saying that there was no link between cosmic rays and global warming.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, in fact Fraser Cain, who does the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_Cast Astronomy Cast] wrote an article for Wired Science and we can have the [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/ link] on the news page.<br />
<br />
S: The core claim that the sun in our solar system came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not native to the Milky Way has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait Phil Plait,] the [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Bad Astronomer,] has done a very thorough job of analyzing and debunking this claim on his blog which we'll [http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup link] to. So we don't have to have him on the show because I can just tell you what he wrote in his blog. Basically there's a lot of problems with this hypothesis. The first is that the sun is in fact in the plane of the galaxy. The stars from the Dwarf Galaxy, which is oblique to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, are not orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, they're orbiting at an angle. So right there pretty much rules out that the sun is from the Dwarf Galaxy. The second thing is that our sun has a ratio of heavy metals, like iron, that match the stars in the Milky Way and do not match the stars in the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. So just in composition it looks like a Milky Way star. Also the notion that the, so the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is in fact being cannibalized by the Milky Way - it's a smaller galaxy, two galaxies collide, if one's a lot bigger than the other, the big galaxy just eats the little galaxy, so that's what's happening. These stars are just being incorporated into the Milky Way. And where the sun is right now is kind of close to where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy's intersecting the Milky Way, but it's not right in the stream of stars. So it's actually far enough away that in fact that's an argument against us coming from the Sagittarius Galaxy. Also you have to note the fact that since we're revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, millions of years ago we would have been half-way around the galaxy from where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is. So our position is not objectively near the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, it's just kind of near now. But historically we would have been at every other point in the galactic disc away from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, so that's actually not a point in the favor of that position. <br />
<br />
E: Are there any points in favor?<br />
<br />
S: No! There's no line of argument that legitimately argues that the sun came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Then why argue it?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it was just an observation that "hey, we're kind of near where this galaxy is, maybe we came from that galaxy." But on closer inspection, the arguments don't pan out as I described.<br />
<br />
B: Also Steve, the other point that he was saying is that if you look at the Milky Way from the earth, if you have very little light pollution you'll see a huge, it's really fairly distinct and quite beautiful and that's basically just you looking towards the center of the Milky Way, with the stars so much more dense, you can see so many more stars and dust and all sorts of stuff. The plane of the Milky Way doesn't match the plane that the earth orbits our solar system or the way the earth orbits the sun, so this guy is trying to say that this has been a puzzle for astronomers for years, but really it's not a puzzle.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: The orientation of the plane of a solar system can be pretty much in any direction depending on numerous factors. It doesn't have to be in the plane of the galaxy itself, so that was one of the main premises that he started his article with, and it's clearly wrong.<br />
<br />
S: It's just a false premise. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>(42.52)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have one more email. This one is a follow-up to our piece from [[SGU_Episode_101 last week]] about the Belgium Skeptical Society being sued and on the brink of non-existence. This one comes from Anne Frid de Vries from the Netherlands and she writes: "Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court." And then she gives [http://anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html links to her blog] about it. She has the links to the podcast and she graciously links to the Skeptics' Guide and talks about the fact that Perry was - <br />
<br />
P: What's the name of this blog?<br />
<br />
S: The blog was, I can't quite make it out. What does that say?<br />
<br />
(laughter and muttering)<br />
<br />
J: Perry DeAngelis is tight!<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is tight.<br />
<br />
E: Perry DeAgeis is light.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is right. Basically, just to quickly reiterate, Sickesz is a woman who is promoting some kind of manipulative alternative medicine and the skeptical organization listed her as one of the top 20 quacks in the Netherlands. And they were sued for slander and the lawsuit was successful and part of the judgement was that they have to take out advertising all over the country saying that she's not a quack. And Perry made the point that if he ran a skeptical organization, he absolutely wouldn't spend a dime to advertise that somebody like her was legitimate or was not a quack. So Anne is basically agreeing with Perry, which I think we all also agree with him on that.<br />
<br />
P: It'd be a shame to lose 125 years history. Have to come up with a new company but it's worth it.<br />
<br />
S: We also had another email from somebody who's giving us some legal follow-up, who's saying that there is still an appeal left, they can appeal to the supreme court basically. He actually offered as a lawyer to give them any help but only if they're going to appeal the decision, and vowed not to give them any money if in fact they're going to use it on these advertisements, these court ordered advertisements.<br />
<br />
P: I sure hope they appeal.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. We'll have to continue to follow this case and hopefully they will appeal, hopefully justice will be done in the end. So again we'll have to keep an eye on this case.<br />
<br />
J: In her blog she writes in Dutch that Mrs Sickesz is a quack and it goes, I can't even pronounce this, it's funny, the quack in Dutch is "kwakzalver."<br />
<br />
S: Kwakzalver. They actually coined the term - the term kwakzalver is taken from the Dutch, so that term is actually -<br />
<br />
E: It was the original term.<br />
<br />
S: - originally a Dutch term. Kwakzalver.<br />
<br />
E: Benjamin Franklin referred to it way back when in some of his writing.<br />
<br />
S: Talking about mesmer?<br />
<br />
P: No doubt.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Way to allude to one of our first podcasts, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: So Perry, how does it feel to be written about?<br />
<br />
P: Well, I've been written about most of my life. Various medical institutions.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Psychiatric facilities.<br />
<br />
R: Speeding tickets.<br />
<br />
P: Nothing new.<br />
<br />
J: It's old hat to you, Perry.<br />
<br />
P: It is.<br />
<br />
E: Are you tired of being right, Perry?<br />
<br />
S: It is a burden to be right all the time, isn't it Perry?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Some of us are born to it.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>(46.24)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: We do have one "name that logical fallacy" this week. This is an email that was sent to us and we're going to use it as our "name that logical fallacy." This one comes from Athanasios Zacharakopoulos -<br />
<br />
R: Well done!<br />
<br />
S: - from Athens, Greece, and he writes "Hello guys! Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job.... To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance..."<br />
<br />
E: Ooooh.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning," when in many cases things are much more complex... You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question... Best regards." You have to be cautious before you send a really critical email to us because we just might use it in our "name that logical fallacy" section.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
(more laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Not because it's critical, we're open to logically valid criticism of course. But there are a couple of points in this email that are fairly typical. First of all, the fact that we analyze scientific claims and we pick out those that are especially egregious or dubious in order to expose them, doesn't, I think, equate to arrogance. It's like accusing every single movie critic of being arrogant, every type of critic of every kind of being arrogant. It's scientific analysis - this is what scientists do, and we're just bringing scientific analysis to those people who are essentially lurking in the shadows of science and trying to evade the critical light of science.<br />
<br />
The other point that he makes is, basically accusing our arguments, accusing us of using simplistic arguments and then just labeling them logical reasoning, when in many cases the topics are much more complex. And this is really just an unfounded accusation and it's a bit of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) non-sequitur.] It's also, in my opinion, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ad hominem] attack, because.. Essentially what he's doing, and I pointed this out to him, and I responded to his email and I pointed this out to him, is that we're open to criticism. If we've made a mis-statement of fact or if we have committed a logical fallacy in our arguments, point it out to us and if it's valid we'll make a correction, which we have done in the past. So I challenged him to do that and he actually couldn't do that in response. So what he's doing in this email is trying to focus on us personally - calling us "arrogant", that we "lack humility", that we're "simplistic" in our approach.<br />
<br />
R: All of which is true, don't get us wrong.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: True or not, it's still an ad hominem logical fallacy, rather than actually bringing up points that relate to any specific argument that we made. It's a very common tactic for dismissing criticism, just to attack the criticizer basically.<br />
<br />
R: And there's just the basic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man straw man] of saying that we act as if we know everything -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - on every subject matter. When we again and again and again say "all the evidence isn't in on this yet," or "this isn't my area of expertise but," you know, I think we're constantly trying to qualify ourselves.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly.<br />
<br />
R: And speaking personally, this entire podcast I've got like 7 things wrong thus far.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: So, we're definitely always admitting when we get things wrong. When people write in and clarify things for us, I think we're pretty open about all that. So i think that's definitely a straw man.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And also, when we get out of our area of expertise we try to distill the consensus of scientific opinion, not interject our own opinion. So we are not, I don't think that we are inappropriately setting ourselves up as experts in areas that we do not have expertise. <br />
<br />
What I did point out is that actually there is a certain type of expertise that we do bring to the entire endeavor at the Skeptics' Guide, in that we are, I believe, very experienced, even expert, skeptics. And skepticism is, in my opinion, a legitimate intellectual, even academic, area of interest, that brings together various disciplines that are very important. One is '''knowledge of logical fallacies''' - of logic in general, of how to make a valid argument. Another is '''mechanisms of self deception''' - the psychology and neurology of memory and perception and delusion and even stage illusion and magic. The '''nature of scientific research''' - of peer review, and replication etc. These various fields that we have endeavored to study and to become knowledgeable about and to bring them all together to give us the tools - the skeptical tools - to analyze claims to truth, especially those that are unusual, bizarre, on the fringe, on the borderlands of science. Sometimes we talk about things that are barely science but are legitimate even though they might at first seem unusual. And of course we spend a lot of time talking about interesting but bizarre or absurd claims. Part of it is to understand why people believe really absurd bizarre things. How is it that people can come to conclusions that are so demonstrably false? What is the malfunction in the human brain that allows that to happen? So I do claim collectively for the Skeptics' Guide that this is an area of legitimate expertise of ours, that's something we always try to teach in these podcasts and to bring to bear in our analysis.<br />
<br />
J: One of the lines that you read, Steve, you said "You are acting as if you know everything, every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility." Well, you know what? We read up on these topics before we discuss them. We try to get as educated as we can in the time allowed and if that's us acting as if we know everything, well we do know our subject matter.<br />
<br />
S: There is a little bit of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_trebeck Alex Trebeck] syndrome in that we have the answers in front of us, which is why we can look smart sometimes. We just read up on it to prepare for the podcast! <br />
<br />
E: Yes, especially the neurological stuff!<br />
<br />
P: This letter is juvenile, I mean it's really, it's pathetic. Come on.<br />
<br />
S: But it's typical, but Perry it's very typical.<br />
<br />
P: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: I include it because I've heard all of these arguments a thousand times before in emails from other people. Let's go on to "Science or Fiction."<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(53.13)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious. Then I challenge my panel of skeptics and my listeners at home to tell me which one is the fake. There is a theme this week.<br />
<br />
J: Yey theme!<br />
<br />
S: It's a big theme, the theme is medicine. These are all medically related.<br />
<br />
E: Oh god.<br />
<br />
R: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
E: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
S: It's a theme.<br />
<br />
R: It's not a theme!<br />
<br />
S: Medicine is a theme!<br />
<br />
R: A theme is cross-dressing dictators from the '20s.<br />
<br />
S: That's true, that's a narrower theme, it's hard to find three items in such a narrow theme. Hey, if I can find any theme at all I am happy. Okay, the theme this week is science!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Or fiction!<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Item number 1 - a new study finds that teens can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette. Item number 2 - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity. And item number 3 - researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma. Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: Well, these are interesting. Teens can become addicted after smoking one cigarette, they can become addicted to nicotine?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: What level of addiction are we talking about.<br />
<br />
P: What are you f- what? Just answer the question! Jesus! You people always do this.<br />
<br />
J: That's me stalling so I can think about it a little more, you jack-ass. <br />
<br />
B: So addicted that they have to smoke a carton a day.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I don't think that after one cigarette, nah, I don't think that. Going on, stress can cause obesity, I definitely agree with that, and Perry I'm sure you agree with that as well. And an extract of elderberries can treat asthma - I have no clue. I'm going to go with the cigarettes as being the fake.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: I'm leaning towards what Jay's saying, that I don't think there's a study saying you can become addicted, or a teen can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Ah. I'm going to say, I can believe the single cigarette thing.<br />
<br />
E: The single cigarette theory?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: The single cigarette theory. Ah, so I think I'm going to go with stress causing obesity.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
R: That seems like it makes sense but I think you're zigging when we think you're zagging.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Um. The single cigarette one sounds, doesn't sound very likely. I could see that maybe there's some people that one cigarette could kind of give them such a, do something that gives them some level of addiction, very very minor I would think after one, but that doesn't seem impossible. <br />
<br />
J: But Bob. Full physical addiction?<br />
<br />
R: He didn't say "physical."<br />
<br />
B: Right, there's different, yeah, is it a chemical addiction or just a physical addicition, he didn't specify, so i'm going to go with that, plausible, feasible. Stress can cause obesity, that sounds, that seems like a no-brainer to me, that sounds very likely. Extract of elderberries treating asthma. I'm going to say "no" on that one.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
B: That's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Perry.<br />
<br />
P: I have to agree with Bob on number 3. Aren't elderberries poisonous? What do they use in arsenic? They put it in elderberry wine.<br />
<br />
J: Lots of things are poisonous that they use in medicine you idiot.<br />
<br />
P: That's right, they put it in elderberry wine. Anyway, number 3 is false.<br />
<br />
S: The extract of elderberries?<br />
<br />
P: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: So you guys are all over the place this week.<br />
<br />
J? (silly voice): Of course I was drunk at the time. Sorry. <br />
<br />
E: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAy4zULKFDU Your mother smelled of elderberries.]<br />
<br />
S: I'll just take them in order.<br />
<br />
R: Your father smelled of elderberries.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, don't talk about my father.<br />
<br />
P: Really. Gosh sakes.<br />
<br />
J: Did you say you're going to do them in order, Steve?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'll just do them in order.<br />
<br />
J: Oh boy. <br />
<br />
S: The title of the first news item I used is "Inhaling from just one cigarette can lead to nicotine addiction."<ref>[http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=570706] Symptoms of Tobacco Dependence After Brief Intermittent Use] (title Steve gives is probably for blog article, not research paper)</ref> So that one is in fact science. What this shows, this is interesting because the neurological physiological mechanism of addiction to nicotine is different than the mechanism (on a reductionist neurological biochemical level) than the mechanism of addiction to most other things that we study such as barbiturates, narcotics, cocaine, heroin etc. And in many ways nicotine can be even more addictive. What they found is that the amount of nicotine in even a single cigarette is enough to saturate all of the nicotine receptors and cause symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. What they also found is that for young and new smokers, that smoking a single cigarette can actually treat the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal for weeks. They may only have to smoke one cigarette every two or three weeks in order to treat those symptoms of addiction - the irritability, trouble concentrating, cravings, restlessness. And as you smoke, one of the things that happens over time is the duration of time that smoking will treat the withdrawal symptoms from nicotine addiction decreases. So the longer you smoke, the more frequently you have to smoke in order to keep the withdrawal symptoms at bay. Of course until you're smoking two packs a day, or whatever advanced smokers get to. So that was a little surprising. Certainly I was surprised when I saw that headline so I thought that one would be challenging.<br />
<br />
The second one - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity - who thought this one was fake?<br />
<br />
R: I think that's me.<br />
<br />
S: This one is also science. This one also is a little tricky. The connection between stress and obesity is in the stress hormones which are steroids and it's known that they do shift metabolism in the direction of fat storage. But this is the first time a study has specifically linked stress to obesity in this kind of research model. They actually looked at mice and they had several groups in this study, they had mice that were under stress and mice that were not under stress, and mice that were getting a diet that had a lot of fat and sugar in it and mice that were not getting a lot of fat and sugar. And what they found that only the group that both was subjected to stress and also had the high-fat-sugar diet became obese. And they got abdominal obesity, the dangerous kind of obesity, and also had higher risk for insulin resistance and for fatty liver and a lot of the bad consequences of that kind of obesity. Interestingly, the high fat and sugar group without the stress didn't become obese. They in fact didn't gain any weight at all. The high stress alone group actually lost a little weight - they didn't become obese - and of course the group with neither didn't gain any weight, so you needed the combination of more fat and sugar with the stress in order to cause the obesity. <br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: The purpose of the research is to hopefully find out biochemically what is it about chronic stress that does lead or contribute to obesity, and to hopefully pharmacologically short-circuit that connection. We've talked a lot about dieting and weight gain and weight loss on the podcast, and how, although there are obviously physiological factors at play, that the dominant factor is calories in/calories out. And I still think that's true, but it is true that if you give people steroids, they'll gain a lot of weight and they'll redistribute their fat in a very abnormal pattern. So there is a real significant physiological forcing of fat storage when you chronically expose people to lots of steroids, and I guess this shows that stress by itself, chronic stress, can do that in addition to taking exogenous steroids. That was a very interesting finding.<br />
<br />
But all this means that "researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma" is in fact fiction - that one is fake.<br />
<br />
B: You took a real story and twisted it.<br />
<br />
S: I did. I saw there was a press release having to do with elderberries and I couldn't resist using a news item that had the word "elderberry" in it. I just knew it would prompt -<br />
<br />
R: Because you're a nerd.<br />
<br />
S: - because I'm a nerd and it would prompt a quote from, what's that movie?<br />
<br />
R: Monty Python <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/ Monty Python and the Holy Grail] quotes.<br />
<br />
P: You got [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036613/ Arsenic and Old Lace] out of me.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry's just a funny name, I had to use it. The study, it was actually about a study that's just beginning, so not a study that had results already, so I couldn't use it as a real item. Otherwise I would have. So I just used it as my fake item. They're planning a study looking at elderberry extract to see if it will be beneficial for skin, basically as a skincare product.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Although there's other studies going on and there's lots of interest in a specific chemical called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthocyanin anthocyanin] - it's actually a category of compounds that are found not just in elderberries but lots of different kinds of berries. And it's an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidant antioxidant] and antioxidants still garner a lot of interest as possible therapeutic agents, although they really had their heyday back in the '90s. They didn't pan out as well as people were hoping. Some people were touting them as a panacea, reducing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress oxidative stress] which is the cause of all aging and degenerative diseases. It turns out that we probably naturally evolved a pretty good balance between oxidant stress and anti-oxidant mechanisms. If you force it too much in one direction, if you take a lot of antioxidants, you may be causing more harm than good. The oxidative compounds may be necessary as part of our natural defense system, for example.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wait, how could it be bad to sop up these free radicals careening around, damaging DNA, how could that be bad?<br />
<br />
S: Because they may be serving a beneficial purpose in the body, and if they were all bad and we make natural antioxidants, why wouldn't we just make more antioxidants naturally and sop them all up?<br />
<br />
B: Because it doesn't pay to do that later in life.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's all plausible but the thing is, plausibility only gets you so far. Eventually you have to show that it actually works. It's hard to figure out from basic science principles what is supposed to happen in the body because it's such a complex system. At some point you just have to see what actually does happen and again it just turns out that empirically the bottom line long-term clinical benefits of antioxidants really haven't materialized. In fact there's a lot of studies that show that long-term high-dose antioxidant use may be associated with higher risks of things like heart disease. So we shouldn't assume that just because it seems to make sense that antioxidants are a good idea that they in fact are a good idea. But again, this is still an area that needs further study, legitimately needs further study. All the implications have not been worked out. There may be certain disease states where antioxidants are still useful but they certainly have not been established as beneficial in routine supplementation and in fact there's evidence to show that we should be cautious about using them, especially in high doses.<br />
<br />
R: You just blew my mind.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Seriously - blueberries out. What's in? Cake? Is cake good for us now? Something else needs to take the place.<br />
<br />
E: What kind of cake?<br />
<br />
R: Um?<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry.<br />
<br />
E - Bundt cake.<br />
<br />
R - Elderberry cake.<br />
<br />
S: [http://tinyurl.com/8glxbc9 Elderberry pie.]<br />
<br />
R: Okay, let's say that's good for you.<br />
<br />
E: Hold the whipped cream<br />
<br />
J: Good job.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, good job Bob and Perry, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's right.<br />
<br />
S: Good job guys.<br />
<br />
E: Eh.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(1.06.02)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Evan, please tell us, read last week's puzzle and give us the answer.<br />
<br />
E: Okay, last week's puzzle was in fact a logic puzzle. You had to identify the 6<sup>th</sup> number in this sequence. First five numbers were: <br><br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
???<br><br />
So what would the sixth number in that sequence be, everyone?<br />
<br />
J: No idea.<br />
<br />
E: No clue, huh. Won't take a guess. Well the answer is .408 and what this sequence represents is the highest batting averages in Major League baseball since the year 1900. In order.<br />
<br />
R: You're kidding.<br />
<br />
E: No, I kid you not. So the trick was to recognize that the sequence actually involved baseball and batting average.<br />
<br />
P: A lot of Yankees on that list.<br />
<br />
E: And we had several people on the message boards go along those lines and make their attempt at guessing, but in fact -<br />
<br />
S: Who was the winner?<br />
<br />
E: The winner was Kanuck from Vancouver Canada who came up with .408 first. So congratulations to Kanuck for being the first one to get it right.<br />
<br />
S: So a Canadian got that right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, isn't that interesting.<br />
<br />
R: A Canuck if you will.<br />
<br />
E: And then some people went on to moan a little bit when they realized "oh baseball."<br />
<br />
P: Not bad for a filthy Canadian considering it's not even a hockey question.<br />
<br />
S: Right. They have a baseball team, right, don't they have the Toronto Bluejays or something?<br />
<br />
E/P: They do.<br />
<br />
R: They have a couple -<br />
<br />
P: Montreal Expos too.<br />
<br />
S: Well Evan, give us this week's puzzle.<br />
<br />
E: Okay, this week's puzzle is a trivia question for everyone. I know how much we all like trivia questions. It is as follows: "In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed." So, gentle listeners, name the building that was under attack in 1967. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you Evan, interesting as always.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I found it interesting.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1.08.16)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Perry do you have a quote to close out the show for us?<br />
<br />
P: I do. It's as follows:<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
That was by Mike Huben, currently alive, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thank you perry<br />
<br />
R: Thank you perry<br />
<br />
P: You're welcome.<br />
<br />
R: And can I get in a quick note before we close things out?<br />
<br />
S: But of course.<br />
<br />
R: Just a few days left to vote in the public radio talent quest that I'm in. Yeah, so there are a few days left to vote in the public radio talent quest, that is my American Idol-like bid to become the next host of a public radio show. So we'll have the link on the news page. Go vote for me. Yey! That's all.<br />
<br />
S: Good luck Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Thank you.<br />
<br />
E/J: (unexcitedly) Good luck Rebecca.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Thank you all for joining me once again.<br />
<br />
R: So much feeling there. Thank you Steve, good times.<br />
<br />
S: Have a wonderful Independence Day everybody.<br />
<br />
J: See you tomorrow Steve.<br />
<br />
P: Good night [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_waltons Mary Ellen.]<br />
<br />
S: Until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4440SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T05:16:30Z<p>Hesterk: /* Skeptical Quote of the Week () */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow [[July 4]]<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
The next email comes from Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
R: Wait, I know a Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: You do? Maybe it's the same person. <br />
<blockquote>This [http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html link] tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxyhttp://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm true] that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very interesting: What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky. I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the "energy levels" of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Perry is now probably liking this guy. It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest [http://www.ipcc.ch/ IPCC] report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics to maneuver. I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argue with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. Late congratulations on the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000<sup>th</sup> episode, 17.3 years from now.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, I'm not going to get into the global warming part of this, I haven't really heard that myself, I don't think anyone seriously is proposing that.<br />
<br />
B: No, it's pathetic.<br />
<br />
J: We don't need to talk about that anymore anyway. Come on, guys.<br />
<br />
R: I just want to mention that just today there was a report released saying that there was no link between cosmic rays and global warming.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, in fact Fraser Cain, who does the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_Cast Astronomy Cast] wrote an article for Wired Science and we can have the [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/ link] on the news page.<br />
<br />
S: The core claim that the sun in our solar system came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not native to the Milky Way has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait Phil Plait,] the [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Bad Astronomer,] has done a very thorough job of analyzing and debunking this claim on his blog which we'll [http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup link] to. So we don't have to have him on the show because I can just tell you what he wrote in his blog. Basically there's a lot of problems with this hypothesis. The first is that the sun is in fact in the plane of the galaxy. The stars from the Dwarf Galaxy, which is oblique to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, are not orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, they're orbiting at an angle. So right there pretty much rules out that the sun is from the Dwarf Galaxy. The second thing is that our sun has a ratio of heavy metals, like iron, that match the stars in the Milky Way and do not match the stars in the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. So just in composition it looks like a Milky Way star. Also the notion that the, so the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is in fact being cannibalized by the Milky Way - it's a smaller galaxy, two galaxies collide, if one's a lot bigger than the other, the big galaxy just eats the little galaxy, so that's what's happening. These stars are just being incorporated into the Milky Way. And where the sun is right now is kind of close to where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy's intersecting the Milky Way, but it's not right in the stream of stars. So it's actually far enough away that in fact that's an argument against us coming from the Sagittarius Galaxy. Also you have to note the fact that since we're revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, millions of years ago we would have been half-way around the galaxy from where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is. So our position is not objectively near the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, it's just kind of near now. But historically we would have been at every other point in the galactic disc away from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, so that's actually not a point in the favor of that position. <br />
<br />
E: Are there any points in favor?<br />
<br />
S: No! There's no line of argument that legitimately argues that the sun came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Then why argue it?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it was just an observation that "hey, we're kind of near where this galaxy is, maybe we came from that galaxy." But on closer inspection, the arguments don't pan out as I described.<br />
<br />
B: Also Steve, the other point that he was saying is that if you look at the Milky Way from the earth, if you have very little light pollution you'll see a huge, it's really fairly distinct and quite beautiful and that's basically just you looking towards the center of the Milky Way, with the stars so much more dense, you can see so many more stars and dust and all sorts of stuff. The plane of the Milky Way doesn't match the plane that the earth orbits our solar system or the way the earth orbits the sun, so this guy is trying to say that this has been a puzzle for astronomers for years, but really it's not a puzzle.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: The orientation of the plane of a solar system can be pretty much in any direction depending on numerous factors. It doesn't have to be in the plane of the galaxy itself, so that was one of the main premises that he started his article with, and it's clearly wrong.<br />
<br />
S: It's just a false premise. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>(42.52)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have one more email. This one is a follow-up to our piece from [[SGU_Episode_101 last week]] about the Belgium Skeptical Society being sued and on the brink of non-existence. This one comes from Anne Frid de Vries from the Netherlands and she writes: "Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court." And then she gives [http://anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html links to her blog] about it. She has the links to the podcast and she graciously links to the Skeptics' Guide and talks about the fact that Perry was - <br />
<br />
P: What's the name of this blog?<br />
<br />
S: The blog was, I can't quite make it out. What does that say?<br />
<br />
(laughter and muttering)<br />
<br />
J: Perry DeAngelis is tight!<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is tight.<br />
<br />
E: Perry DeAgeis is light.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is right. Basically, just to quickly reiterate, Sickesz is a woman who is promoting some kind of manipulative alternative medicine and the skeptical organization listed her as one of the top 20 quacks in the Netherlands. And they were sued for slander and the lawsuit was successful and part of the judgement was that they have to take out advertising all over the country saying that she's not a quack. And Perry made the point that if he ran a skeptical organization, he absolutely wouldn't spend a dime to advertise that somebody like her was legitimate or was not a quack. So Anne is basically agreeing with Perry, which I think we all also agree with him on that.<br />
<br />
P: It'd be a shame to lose 125 years history. Have to come up with a new company but it's worth it.<br />
<br />
S: We also had another email from somebody who's giving us some legal follow-up, who's saying that there is still an appeal left, they can appeal to the supreme court basically. He actually offered as a lawyer to give them any help but only if they're going to appeal the decision, and vowed not to give them any money if in fact they're going to use it on these advertisements, these court ordered advertisements.<br />
<br />
P: I sure hope they appeal.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. We'll have to continue to follow this case and hopefully they will appeal, hopefully justice will be done in the end. So again we'll have to keep an eye on this case.<br />
<br />
J: In her blog she writes in Dutch that Mrs Sickesz is a quack and it goes, I can't even pronounce this, it's funny, the quack in Dutch is "kwakzalver."<br />
<br />
S: Kwakzalver. They actually coined the term - the term kwakzalver is taken from the Dutch, so that term is actually -<br />
<br />
E: It was the original term.<br />
<br />
S: - originally a Dutch term. Kwakzalver.<br />
<br />
E: Benjamin Franklin referred to it way back when in some of his writing.<br />
<br />
S: Talking about mesmer?<br />
<br />
P: No doubt.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Way to allude to one of our first podcasts, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: So Perry, how does it feel to be written about?<br />
<br />
P: Well, I've been written about most of my life. Various medical institutions.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Psychiatric facilities.<br />
<br />
R: Speeding tickets.<br />
<br />
P: Nothing new.<br />
<br />
J: It's old hat to you, Perry.<br />
<br />
P: It is.<br />
<br />
E: Are you tired of being right, Perry?<br />
<br />
S: It is a burden to be right all the time, isn't it Perry?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Some of us are born to it.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>(46.24)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: We do have one "name that logical fallacy" this week. This is an email that was sent to us and we're going to use it as our "name that logical fallacy." This one comes from Athanasios Zacharakopoulos -<br />
<br />
R: Well done!<br />
<br />
S: - from Athens, Greece, and he writes "Hello guys! Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job.... To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance..."<br />
<br />
E: Ooooh.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning," when in many cases things are much more complex... You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question... Best regards." You have to be cautious before you send a really critical email to us because we just might use it in our "name that logical fallacy" section.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
(more laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Not because it's critical, we're open to logically valid criticism of course. But there are a couple of points in this email that are fairly typical. First of all, the fact that we analyze scientific claims and we pick out those that are especially egregious or dubious in order to expose them, doesn't, I think, equate to arrogance. It's like accusing every single movie critic of being arrogant, every type of critic of every kind of being arrogant. It's scientific analysis - this is what scientists do, and we're just bringing scientific analysis to those people who are essentially lurking in the shadows of science and trying to evade the critical light of science.<br />
<br />
The other point that he makes is, basically accusing our arguments, accusing us of using simplistic arguments and then just labeling them logical reasoning, when in many cases the topics are much more complex. And this is really just an unfounded accusation and it's a bit of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) non-sequitur.] It's also, in my opinion, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ad hominem] attack, because.. Essentially what he's doing, and I pointed this out to him, and I responded to his email and I pointed this out to him, is that we're open to criticism. If we've made a mis-statement of fact or if we have committed a logical fallacy in our arguments, point it out to us and if it's valid we'll make a correction, which we have done in the past. So I challenged him to do that and he actually couldn't do that in response. So what he's doing in this email is trying to focus on us personally - calling us "arrogant", that we "lack humility", that we're "simplistic" in our approach.<br />
<br />
R: All of which is true, don't get us wrong.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: True or not, it's still an ad hominem logical fallacy, rather than actually bringing up points that relate to any specific argument that we made. It's a very common tactic for dismissing criticism, just to attack the criticizer basically.<br />
<br />
R: And there's just the basic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man straw man] of saying that we act as if we know everything -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - on every subject matter. When we again and again and again say "all the evidence isn't in on this yet," or "this isn't my area of expertise but," you know, I think we're constantly trying to qualify ourselves.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly.<br />
<br />
R: And speaking personally, this entire podcast I've got like 7 things wrong thus far.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: So, we're definitely always admitting when we get things wrong. When people write in and clarify things for us, I think we're pretty open about all that. So i think that's definitely a straw man.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And also, when we get out of our area of expertise we try to distill the consensus of scientific opinion, not interject our own opinion. So we are not, I don't think that we are inappropriately setting ourselves up as experts in areas that we do not have expertise. <br />
<br />
What I did point out is that actually there is a certain type of expertise that we do bring to the entire endeavor at the Skeptics' Guide, in that we are, I believe, very experienced, even expert, skeptics. And skepticism is, in my opinion, a legitimate intellectual, even academic, area of interest, that brings together various disciplines that are very important. One is '''knowledge of logical fallacies''' - of logic in general, of how to make a valid argument. Another is '''mechanisms of self deception''' - the psychology and neurology of memory and perception and delusion and even stage illusion and magic. The '''nature of scientific research''' - of peer review, and replication etc. These various fields that we have endeavored to study and to become knowledgeable about and to bring them all together to give us the tools - the skeptical tools - to analyze claims to truth, especially those that are unusual, bizarre, on the fringe, on the borderlands of science. Sometimes we talk about things that are barely science but are legitimate even though they might at first seem unusual. And of course we spend a lot of time talking about interesting but bizarre or absurd claims. Part of it is to understand why people believe really absurd bizarre things. How is it that people can come to conclusions that are so demonstrably false? What is the malfunction in the human brain that allows that to happen? So I do claim collectively for the Skeptics' Guide that this is an area of legitimate expertise of ours, that's something we always try to teach in these podcasts and to bring to bear in our analysis.<br />
<br />
J: One of the lines that you read, Steve, you said "You are acting as if you know everything, every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility." Well, you know what? We read up on these topics before we discuss them. We try to get as educated as we can in the time allowed and if that's us acting as if we know everything, well we do know our subject matter.<br />
<br />
S: There is a little bit of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_trebeck Alex Trebeck] syndrome in that we have the answers in front of us, which is why we can look smart sometimes. We just read up on it to prepare for the podcast! <br />
<br />
E: Yes, especially the neurological stuff!<br />
<br />
P: This letter is juvenile, I mean it's really, it's pathetic. Come on.<br />
<br />
S: But it's typical, but Perry it's very typical.<br />
<br />
P: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: I include it because I've heard all of these arguments a thousand times before in emails from other people. Let's go on to "Science or Fiction."<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(53.13)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious. Then I challenge my panel of skeptics and my listeners at home to tell me which one is the fake. There is a theme this week.<br />
<br />
J: Yey theme!<br />
<br />
S: It's a big theme, the theme is medicine. These are all medically related.<br />
<br />
E: Oh god.<br />
<br />
R: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
E: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
S: It's a theme.<br />
<br />
R: It's not a theme!<br />
<br />
S: Medicine is a theme!<br />
<br />
R: A theme is cross-dressing dictators from the '20s.<br />
<br />
S: That's true, that's a narrower theme, it's hard to find three items in such a narrow theme. Hey, if I can find any theme at all I am happy. Okay, the theme this week is science!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Or fiction!<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Item number 1 - a new study finds that teens can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette. Item number 2 - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity. And item number 3 - researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma. Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: Well, these are interesting. Teens can become addicted after smoking one cigarette, they can become addicted to nicotine?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: What level of addiction are we talking about.<br />
<br />
P: What are you f- what? Just answer the question! Jesus! You people always do this.<br />
<br />
J: That's me stalling so I can think about it a little more, you jack-ass. <br />
<br />
B: So addicted that they have to smoke a carton a day.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I don't think that after one cigarette, nah, I don't think that. Going on, stress can cause obesity, I definitely agree with that, and Perry I'm sure you agree with that as well. And an extract of elderberries can treat asthma - I have no clue. I'm going to go with the cigarettes as being the fake.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: I'm leaning towards what Jay's saying, that I don't think there's a study saying you can become addicted, or a teen can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Ah. I'm going to say, I can believe the single cigarette thing.<br />
<br />
E: The single cigarette theory?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: The single cigarette theory. Ah, so I think I'm going to go with stress causing obesity.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
R: That seems like it makes sense but I think you're zigging when we think you're zagging.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Um. The single cigarette one sounds, doesn't sound very likely. I could see that maybe there's some people that one cigarette could kind of give them such a, do something that gives them some level of addiction, very very minor I would think after one, but that doesn't seem impossible. <br />
<br />
J: But Bob. Full physical addiction?<br />
<br />
R: He didn't say "physical."<br />
<br />
B: Right, there's different, yeah, is it a chemical addiction or just a physical addicition, he didn't specify, so i'm going to go with that, plausible, feasible. Stress can cause obesity, that sounds, that seems like a no-brainer to me, that sounds very likely. Extract of elderberries treating asthma. I'm going to say "no" on that one.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
B: That's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Perry.<br />
<br />
P: I have to agree with Bob on number 3. Aren't elderberries poisonous? What do they use in arsenic? They put it in elderberry wine.<br />
<br />
J: Lots of things are poisonous that they use in medicine you idiot.<br />
<br />
P: That's right, they put it in elderberry wine. Anyway, number 3 is false.<br />
<br />
S: The extract of elderberries?<br />
<br />
P: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: So you guys are all over the place this week.<br />
<br />
J? (silly voice): Of course I was drunk at the time. Sorry. <br />
<br />
E: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAy4zULKFDU Your mother smelled of elderberries.]<br />
<br />
S: I'll just take them in order.<br />
<br />
R: Your father smelled of elderberries.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, don't talk about my father.<br />
<br />
P: Really. Gosh sakes.<br />
<br />
J: Did you say you're going to do them in order, Steve?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'll just do them in order.<br />
<br />
J: Oh boy. <br />
<br />
S: The title of the first news item I used is "Inhaling from just one cigarette can lead to nicotine addiction."<ref>[http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=570706] Symptoms of Tobacco Dependence After Brief Intermittent Use] (title Steve gives is probably for blog article, not research paper)</ref> So that one is in fact science. What this shows, this is interesting because the neurological physiological mechanism of addiction to nicotine is different than the mechanism (on a reductionist neurological biochemical level) than the mechanism of addiction to most other things that we study such as barbiturates, narcotics, cocaine, heroin etc. And in many ways nicotine can be even more addictive. What they found is that the amount of nicotine in even a single cigarette is enough to saturate all of the nicotine receptors and cause symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. What they also found is that for young and new smokers, that smoking a single cigarette can actually treat the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal for weeks. They may only have to smoke one cigarette every two or three weeks in order to treat those symptoms of addiction - the irritability, trouble concentrating, cravings, restlessness. And as you smoke, one of the things that happens over time is the duration of time that smoking will treat the withdrawal symptoms from nicotine addiction decreases. So the longer you smoke, the more frequently you have to smoke in order to keep the withdrawal symptoms at bay. Of course until you're smoking two packs a day, or whatever advanced smokers get to. So that was a little surprising. Certainly I was surprised when I saw that headline so I thought that one would be challenging.<br />
<br />
The second one - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity - who thought this one was fake?<br />
<br />
R: I think that's me.<br />
<br />
S: This one is also science. This one also is a little tricky. The connection between stress and obesity is in the stress hormones which are steroids and it's known that they do shift metabolism in the direction of fat storage. But this is the first time a study has specifically linked stress to obesity in this kind of research model. They actually looked at mice and they had several groups in this study, they had mice that were under stress and mice that were not under stress, and mice that were getting a diet that had a lot of fat and sugar in it and mice that were not getting a lot of fat and sugar. And what they found that only the group that both was subjected to stress and also had the high-fat-sugar diet became obese. And they got abdominal obesity, the dangerous kind of obesity, and also had higher risk for insulin resistance and for fatty liver and a lot of the bad consequences of that kind of obesity. Interestingly, the high fat and sugar group without the stress didn't become obese. They in fact didn't gain any weight at all. The high stress alone group actually lost a little weight - they didn't become obese - and of course the group with neither didn't gain any weight, so you needed the combination of more fat and sugar with the stress in order to cause the obesity. <br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: The purpose of the research is to hopefully find out biochemically what is it about chronic stress that does lead or contribute to obesity, and to hopefully pharmacologically short-circuit that connection. We've talked a lot about dieting and weight gain and weight loss on the podcast, and how, although there are obviously physiological factors at play, that the dominant factor is calories in/calories out. And I still think that's true, but it is true that if you give people steroids, they'll gain a lot of weight and they'll redistribute their fat in a very abnormal pattern. So there is a real significant physiological forcing of fat storage when you chronically expose people to lots of steroids, and I guess this shows that stress by itself, chronic stress, can do that in addition to taking exogenous steroids. That was a very interesting finding.<br />
<br />
But all this means that "researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma" is in fact fiction - that one is fake.<br />
<br />
B: You took a real story and twisted it.<br />
<br />
S: I did. I saw there was a press release having to do with elderberries and I couldn't resist using a news item that had the word "elderberry" in it. I just knew it would prompt -<br />
<br />
R: Because you're a nerd.<br />
<br />
S: - because I'm a nerd and it would prompt a quote from, what's that movie?<br />
<br />
R: Monty Python <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/ Monty Python and the Holy Grail] quotes.<br />
<br />
P: You got [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036613/ Arsenic and Old Lace] out of me.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry's just a funny name, I had to use it. The study, it was actually about a study that's just beginning, so not a study that had results already, so I couldn't use it as a real item. Otherwise I would have. So I just used it as my fake item. They're planning a study looking at elderberry extract to see if it will be beneficial for skin, basically as a skincare product.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Although there's other studies going on and there's lots of interest in a specific chemical called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthocyanin anthocyanin] - it's actually a category of compounds that are found not just in elderberries but lots of different kinds of berries. And it's an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidant antioxidant] and antioxidants still garner a lot of interest as possible therapeutic agents, although they really had their heyday back in the '90s. They didn't pan out as well as people were hoping. Some people were touting them as a panacea, reducing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress oxidative stress] which is the cause of all aging and degenerative diseases. It turns out that we probably naturally evolved a pretty good balance between oxidant stress and anti-oxidant mechanisms. If you force it too much in one direction, if you take a lot of antioxidants, you may be causing more harm than good. The oxidative compounds may be necessary as part of our natural defense system, for example.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wait, how could it be bad to sop up these free radicals careening around, damaging DNA, how could that be bad?<br />
<br />
S: Because they may be serving a beneficial purpose in the body, and if they were all bad and we make natural antioxidants, why wouldn't we just make more antioxidants naturally and sop them all up?<br />
<br />
B: Because it doesn't pay to do that later in life.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's all plausible but the thing is, plausibility only gets you so far. Eventually you have to show that it actually works. It's hard to figure out from basic science principles what is supposed to happen in the body because it's such a complex system. At some point you just have to see what actually does happen and again it just turns out that empirically the bottom line long-term clinical benefits of antioxidants really haven't materialized. In fact there's a lot of studies that show that long-term high-dose antioxidant use may be associated with higher risks of things like heart disease. So we shouldn't assume that just because it seems to make sense that antioxidants are a good idea that they in fact are a good idea. But again, this is still an area that needs further study, legitimately needs further study. All the implications have not been worked out. There may be certain disease states where antioxidants are still useful but they certainly have not been established as beneficial in routine supplementation and in fact there's evidence to show that we should be cautious about using them, especially in high doses.<br />
<br />
R: You just blew my mind.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Seriously - blueberries out. What's in? Cake? Is cake good for us now? Something else needs to take the place.<br />
<br />
E: What kind of cake?<br />
<br />
R: Um?<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry.<br />
<br />
E - Bundt cake.<br />
<br />
R - Elderberry cake.<br />
<br />
S: [http://tinyurl.com/8glxbc9 Elderberry pie.]<br />
<br />
R: Okay, let's say that's good for you.<br />
<br />
E: Hold the whipped cream<br />
<br />
J: Good job.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, good job Bob and Perry, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's right.<br />
<br />
S: Good job guys.<br />
<br />
E: Eh.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(1.06.02)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Evan, please tell us, read last week's puzzle and give us the answer.<br />
<br />
E: Okay, last week's puzzle was in fact a logic puzzle. You had to identify the 6<sup>th</sup> number in this sequence. First five numbers were: <br><br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
???<br><br />
So what would the sixth number in that sequence be, everyone?<br />
<br />
J: No idea.<br />
<br />
E: No clue, huh. Won't take a guess. Well the answer is .408 and what this sequence represents is the highest batting averages in Major League baseball since the year 1900. In order.<br />
<br />
R: You're kidding.<br />
<br />
E: No, I kid you not. So the trick was to recognize that the sequence actually involved baseball and batting average.<br />
<br />
P: A lot of Yankees on that list.<br />
<br />
E: And we had several people on the message boards go along those lines and make their attempt at guessing, but in fact -<br />
<br />
S: Who was the winner?<br />
<br />
E: The winner was Kanuck from Vancouver Canada who came up with .408 first. So congratulations to Kanuck for being the first one to get it right.<br />
<br />
S: So a Canadian got that right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, isn't that interesting.<br />
<br />
R: A Canuck if you will.<br />
<br />
E: And then some people went on to moan a little bit when they realized "oh baseball."<br />
<br />
P: Not bad for a filthy Canadian considering it's not even a hockey question.<br />
<br />
S: Right. They have a baseball team, right, don't they have the Toronto Bluejays or something?<br />
<br />
E/P: They do.<br />
<br />
R: They have a couple -<br />
<br />
P: Montreal Expos too.<br />
<br />
S: Well Evan, give us this week's puzzle.<br />
<br />
E: Okay, this week's puzzle is a trivia question for everyone. I know how much we all like trivia questions. It is as follows: "In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed." So, gentle listeners, name the building that was under attack in 1967. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you Evan, interesting as always.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I found it interesting.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1.08.16)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Perry do you have a quote to close out the show for us?<br />
<br />
P: I do. It's as follows:<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
That was by Mike Huben, currently alive, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thank you perry<br />
<br />
R: Thank you perry<br />
<br />
P: You're welcome.<br />
<br />
R: And can I get in a quick note before we close things out?<br />
<br />
S: But of course.<br />
<br />
R: Just a few days left to vote in the public radio talent quest that I'm in. Yeah, so there are a few days left to vote in the public radio talent quest, that is my American Idol-like bid to become the next host of a public radio show. So we'll have the link on the news page. Go vote for me. Yey! That's all.<br />
<br />
S: Good luck Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Thank you.<br />
<br />
E/J: (unexcitedly) Good luck Rebecca.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Thank you all for joining me once again.<br />
<br />
R: So much feeling there. Thank you Steve, good times.<br />
<br />
S: Have a wonderful Independence Day everybody.<br />
<br />
J: See you tomorrow Steve.<br />
<br />
P: Good night Mary Ellen.<br />
<br />
S: Until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4439SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T05:09:08Z<p>Hesterk: /* Skeptical Puzzle (1.06.02) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow [[July 4]]<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
The next email comes from Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
R: Wait, I know a Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: You do? Maybe it's the same person. <br />
<blockquote>This [http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html link] tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxyhttp://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm true] that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very interesting: What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky. I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the "energy levels" of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Perry is now probably liking this guy. It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest [http://www.ipcc.ch/ IPCC] report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics to maneuver. I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argue with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. Late congratulations on the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000<sup>th</sup> episode, 17.3 years from now.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, I'm not going to get into the global warming part of this, I haven't really heard that myself, I don't think anyone seriously is proposing that.<br />
<br />
B: No, it's pathetic.<br />
<br />
J: We don't need to talk about that anymore anyway. Come on, guys.<br />
<br />
R: I just want to mention that just today there was a report released saying that there was no link between cosmic rays and global warming.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, in fact Fraser Cain, who does the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_Cast Astronomy Cast] wrote an article for Wired Science and we can have the [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/ link] on the news page.<br />
<br />
S: The core claim that the sun in our solar system came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not native to the Milky Way has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait Phil Plait,] the [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Bad Astronomer,] has done a very thorough job of analyzing and debunking this claim on his blog which we'll [http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup link] to. So we don't have to have him on the show because I can just tell you what he wrote in his blog. Basically there's a lot of problems with this hypothesis. The first is that the sun is in fact in the plane of the galaxy. The stars from the Dwarf Galaxy, which is oblique to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, are not orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, they're orbiting at an angle. So right there pretty much rules out that the sun is from the Dwarf Galaxy. The second thing is that our sun has a ratio of heavy metals, like iron, that match the stars in the Milky Way and do not match the stars in the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. So just in composition it looks like a Milky Way star. Also the notion that the, so the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is in fact being cannibalized by the Milky Way - it's a smaller galaxy, two galaxies collide, if one's a lot bigger than the other, the big galaxy just eats the little galaxy, so that's what's happening. These stars are just being incorporated into the Milky Way. And where the sun is right now is kind of close to where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy's intersecting the Milky Way, but it's not right in the stream of stars. So it's actually far enough away that in fact that's an argument against us coming from the Sagittarius Galaxy. Also you have to note the fact that since we're revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, millions of years ago we would have been half-way around the galaxy from where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is. So our position is not objectively near the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, it's just kind of near now. But historically we would have been at every other point in the galactic disc away from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, so that's actually not a point in the favor of that position. <br />
<br />
E: Are there any points in favor?<br />
<br />
S: No! There's no line of argument that legitimately argues that the sun came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Then why argue it?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it was just an observation that "hey, we're kind of near where this galaxy is, maybe we came from that galaxy." But on closer inspection, the arguments don't pan out as I described.<br />
<br />
B: Also Steve, the other point that he was saying is that if you look at the Milky Way from the earth, if you have very little light pollution you'll see a huge, it's really fairly distinct and quite beautiful and that's basically just you looking towards the center of the Milky Way, with the stars so much more dense, you can see so many more stars and dust and all sorts of stuff. The plane of the Milky Way doesn't match the plane that the earth orbits our solar system or the way the earth orbits the sun, so this guy is trying to say that this has been a puzzle for astronomers for years, but really it's not a puzzle.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: The orientation of the plane of a solar system can be pretty much in any direction depending on numerous factors. It doesn't have to be in the plane of the galaxy itself, so that was one of the main premises that he started his article with, and it's clearly wrong.<br />
<br />
S: It's just a false premise. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>(42.52)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have one more email. This one is a follow-up to our piece from [[SGU_Episode_101 last week]] about the Belgium Skeptical Society being sued and on the brink of non-existence. This one comes from Anne Frid de Vries from the Netherlands and she writes: "Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court." And then she gives [http://anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html links to her blog] about it. She has the links to the podcast and she graciously links to the Skeptics' Guide and talks about the fact that Perry was - <br />
<br />
P: What's the name of this blog?<br />
<br />
S: The blog was, I can't quite make it out. What does that say?<br />
<br />
(laughter and muttering)<br />
<br />
J: Perry DeAngelis is tight!<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is tight.<br />
<br />
E: Perry DeAgeis is light.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is right. Basically, just to quickly reiterate, Sickesz is a woman who is promoting some kind of manipulative alternative medicine and the skeptical organization listed her as one of the top 20 quacks in the Netherlands. And they were sued for slander and the lawsuit was successful and part of the judgement was that they have to take out advertising all over the country saying that she's not a quack. And Perry made the point that if he ran a skeptical organization, he absolutely wouldn't spend a dime to advertise that somebody like her was legitimate or was not a quack. So Anne is basically agreeing with Perry, which I think we all also agree with him on that.<br />
<br />
P: It'd be a shame to lose 125 years history. Have to come up with a new company but it's worth it.<br />
<br />
S: We also had another email from somebody who's giving us some legal follow-up, who's saying that there is still an appeal left, they can appeal to the supreme court basically. He actually offered as a lawyer to give them any help but only if they're going to appeal the decision, and vowed not to give them any money if in fact they're going to use it on these advertisements, these court ordered advertisements.<br />
<br />
P: I sure hope they appeal.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. We'll have to continue to follow this case and hopefully they will appeal, hopefully justice will be done in the end. So again we'll have to keep an eye on this case.<br />
<br />
J: In her blog she writes in Dutch that Mrs Sickesz is a quack and it goes, I can't even pronounce this, it's funny, the quack in Dutch is "kwakzalver."<br />
<br />
S: Kwakzalver. They actually coined the term - the term kwakzalver is taken from the Dutch, so that term is actually -<br />
<br />
E: It was the original term.<br />
<br />
S: - originally a Dutch term. Kwakzalver.<br />
<br />
E: Benjamin Franklin referred to it way back when in some of his writing.<br />
<br />
S: Talking about mesmer?<br />
<br />
P: No doubt.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Way to allude to one of our first podcasts, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: So Perry, how does it feel to be written about?<br />
<br />
P: Well, I've been written about most of my life. Various medical institutions.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Psychiatric facilities.<br />
<br />
R: Speeding tickets.<br />
<br />
P: Nothing new.<br />
<br />
J: It's old hat to you, Perry.<br />
<br />
P: It is.<br />
<br />
E: Are you tired of being right, Perry?<br />
<br />
S: It is a burden to be right all the time, isn't it Perry?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Some of us are born to it.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>(46.24)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: We do have one "name that logical fallacy" this week. This is an email that was sent to us and we're going to use it as our "name that logical fallacy." This one comes from Athanasios Zacharakopoulos -<br />
<br />
R: Well done!<br />
<br />
S: - from Athens, Greece, and he writes "Hello guys! Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job.... To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance..."<br />
<br />
E: Ooooh.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning," when in many cases things are much more complex... You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question... Best regards." You have to be cautious before you send a really critical email to us because we just might use it in our "name that logical fallacy" section.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
(more laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Not because it's critical, we're open to logically valid criticism of course. But there are a couple of points in this email that are fairly typical. First of all, the fact that we analyze scientific claims and we pick out those that are especially egregious or dubious in order to expose them, doesn't, I think, equate to arrogance. It's like accusing every single movie critic of being arrogant, every type of critic of every kind of being arrogant. It's scientific analysis - this is what scientists do, and we're just bringing scientific analysis to those people who are essentially lurking in the shadows of science and trying to evade the critical light of science.<br />
<br />
The other point that he makes is, basically accusing our arguments, accusing us of using simplistic arguments and then just labeling them logical reasoning, when in many cases the topics are much more complex. And this is really just an unfounded accusation and it's a bit of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) non-sequitur.] It's also, in my opinion, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ad hominem] attack, because.. Essentially what he's doing, and I pointed this out to him, and I responded to his email and I pointed this out to him, is that we're open to criticism. If we've made a mis-statement of fact or if we have committed a logical fallacy in our arguments, point it out to us and if it's valid we'll make a correction, which we have done in the past. So I challenged him to do that and he actually couldn't do that in response. So what he's doing in this email is trying to focus on us personally - calling us "arrogant", that we "lack humility", that we're "simplistic" in our approach.<br />
<br />
R: All of which is true, don't get us wrong.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: True or not, it's still an ad hominem logical fallacy, rather than actually bringing up points that relate to any specific argument that we made. It's a very common tactic for dismissing criticism, just to attack the criticizer basically.<br />
<br />
R: And there's just the basic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man straw man] of saying that we act as if we know everything -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - on every subject matter. When we again and again and again say "all the evidence isn't in on this yet," or "this isn't my area of expertise but," you know, I think we're constantly trying to qualify ourselves.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly.<br />
<br />
R: And speaking personally, this entire podcast I've got like 7 things wrong thus far.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: So, we're definitely always admitting when we get things wrong. When people write in and clarify things for us, I think we're pretty open about all that. So i think that's definitely a straw man.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And also, when we get out of our area of expertise we try to distill the consensus of scientific opinion, not interject our own opinion. So we are not, I don't think that we are inappropriately setting ourselves up as experts in areas that we do not have expertise. <br />
<br />
What I did point out is that actually there is a certain type of expertise that we do bring to the entire endeavor at the Skeptics' Guide, in that we are, I believe, very experienced, even expert, skeptics. And skepticism is, in my opinion, a legitimate intellectual, even academic, area of interest, that brings together various disciplines that are very important. One is '''knowledge of logical fallacies''' - of logic in general, of how to make a valid argument. Another is '''mechanisms of self deception''' - the psychology and neurology of memory and perception and delusion and even stage illusion and magic. The '''nature of scientific research''' - of peer review, and replication etc. These various fields that we have endeavored to study and to become knowledgeable about and to bring them all together to give us the tools - the skeptical tools - to analyze claims to truth, especially those that are unusual, bizarre, on the fringe, on the borderlands of science. Sometimes we talk about things that are barely science but are legitimate even though they might at first seem unusual. And of course we spend a lot of time talking about interesting but bizarre or absurd claims. Part of it is to understand why people believe really absurd bizarre things. How is it that people can come to conclusions that are so demonstrably false? What is the malfunction in the human brain that allows that to happen? So I do claim collectively for the Skeptics' Guide that this is an area of legitimate expertise of ours, that's something we always try to teach in these podcasts and to bring to bear in our analysis.<br />
<br />
J: One of the lines that you read, Steve, you said "You are acting as if you know everything, every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility." Well, you know what? We read up on these topics before we discuss them. We try to get as educated as we can in the time allowed and if that's us acting as if we know everything, well we do know our subject matter.<br />
<br />
S: There is a little bit of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_trebeck Alex Trebeck] syndrome in that we have the answers in front of us, which is why we can look smart sometimes. We just read up on it to prepare for the podcast! <br />
<br />
E: Yes, especially the neurological stuff!<br />
<br />
P: This letter is juvenile, I mean it's really, it's pathetic. Come on.<br />
<br />
S: But it's typical, but Perry it's very typical.<br />
<br />
P: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: I include it because I've heard all of these arguments a thousand times before in emails from other people. Let's go on to "Science or Fiction."<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(53.13)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious. Then I challenge my panel of skeptics and my listeners at home to tell me which one is the fake. There is a theme this week.<br />
<br />
J: Yey theme!<br />
<br />
S: It's a big theme, the theme is medicine. These are all medically related.<br />
<br />
E: Oh god.<br />
<br />
R: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
E: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
S: It's a theme.<br />
<br />
R: It's not a theme!<br />
<br />
S: Medicine is a theme!<br />
<br />
R: A theme is cross-dressing dictators from the '20s.<br />
<br />
S: That's true, that's a narrower theme, it's hard to find three items in such a narrow theme. Hey, if I can find any theme at all I am happy. Okay, the theme this week is science!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Or fiction!<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Item number 1 - a new study finds that teens can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette. Item number 2 - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity. And item number 3 - researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma. Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: Well, these are interesting. Teens can become addicted after smoking one cigarette, they can become addicted to nicotine?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: What level of addiction are we talking about.<br />
<br />
P: What are you f- what? Just answer the question! Jesus! You people always do this.<br />
<br />
J: That's me stalling so I can think about it a little more, you jack-ass. <br />
<br />
B: So addicted that they have to smoke a carton a day.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I don't think that after one cigarette, nah, I don't think that. Going on, stress can cause obesity, I definitely agree with that, and Perry I'm sure you agree with that as well. And an extract of elderberries can treat asthma - I have no clue. I'm going to go with the cigarettes as being the fake.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: I'm leaning towards what Jay's saying, that I don't think there's a study saying you can become addicted, or a teen can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Ah. I'm going to say, I can believe the single cigarette thing.<br />
<br />
E: The single cigarette theory?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: The single cigarette theory. Ah, so I think I'm going to go with stress causing obesity.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
R: That seems like it makes sense but I think you're zigging when we think you're zagging.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Um. The single cigarette one sounds, doesn't sound very likely. I could see that maybe there's some people that one cigarette could kind of give them such a, do something that gives them some level of addiction, very very minor I would think after one, but that doesn't seem impossible. <br />
<br />
J: But Bob. Full physical addiction?<br />
<br />
R: He didn't say "physical."<br />
<br />
B: Right, there's different, yeah, is it a chemical addiction or just a physical addicition, he didn't specify, so i'm going to go with that, plausible, feasible. Stress can cause obesity, that sounds, that seems like a no-brainer to me, that sounds very likely. Extract of elderberries treating asthma. I'm going to say "no" on that one.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
B: That's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Perry.<br />
<br />
P: I have to agree with Bob on number 3. Aren't elderberries poisonous? What do they use in arsenic? They put it in elderberry wine.<br />
<br />
J: Lots of things are poisonous that they use in medicine you idiot.<br />
<br />
P: That's right, they put it in elderberry wine. Anyway, number 3 is false.<br />
<br />
S: The extract of elderberries?<br />
<br />
P: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: So you guys are all over the place this week.<br />
<br />
J? (silly voice): Of course I was drunk at the time. Sorry. <br />
<br />
E: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAy4zULKFDU Your mother smelled of elderberries.]<br />
<br />
S: I'll just take them in order.<br />
<br />
R: Your father smelled of elderberries.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, don't talk about my father.<br />
<br />
P: Really. Gosh sakes.<br />
<br />
J: Did you say you're going to do them in order, Steve?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'll just do them in order.<br />
<br />
J: Oh boy. <br />
<br />
S: The title of the first news item I used is "Inhaling from just one cigarette can lead to nicotine addiction."<ref>[http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=570706] Symptoms of Tobacco Dependence After Brief Intermittent Use] (title Steve gives is probably for blog article, not research paper)</ref> So that one is in fact science. What this shows, this is interesting because the neurological physiological mechanism of addiction to nicotine is different than the mechanism (on a reductionist neurological biochemical level) than the mechanism of addiction to most other things that we study such as barbiturates, narcotics, cocaine, heroin etc. And in many ways nicotine can be even more addictive. What they found is that the amount of nicotine in even a single cigarette is enough to saturate all of the nicotine receptors and cause symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. What they also found is that for young and new smokers, that smoking a single cigarette can actually treat the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal for weeks. They may only have to smoke one cigarette every two or three weeks in order to treat those symptoms of addiction - the irritability, trouble concentrating, cravings, restlessness. And as you smoke, one of the things that happens over time is the duration of time that smoking will treat the withdrawal symptoms from nicotine addiction decreases. So the longer you smoke, the more frequently you have to smoke in order to keep the withdrawal symptoms at bay. Of course until you're smoking two packs a day, or whatever advanced smokers get to. So that was a little surprising. Certainly I was surprised when I saw that headline so I thought that one would be challenging.<br />
<br />
The second one - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity - who thought this one was fake?<br />
<br />
R: I think that's me.<br />
<br />
S: This one is also science. This one also is a little tricky. The connection between stress and obesity is in the stress hormones which are steroids and it's known that they do shift metabolism in the direction of fat storage. But this is the first time a study has specifically linked stress to obesity in this kind of research model. They actually looked at mice and they had several groups in this study, they had mice that were under stress and mice that were not under stress, and mice that were getting a diet that had a lot of fat and sugar in it and mice that were not getting a lot of fat and sugar. And what they found that only the group that both was subjected to stress and also had the high-fat-sugar diet became obese. And they got abdominal obesity, the dangerous kind of obesity, and also had higher risk for insulin resistance and for fatty liver and a lot of the bad consequences of that kind of obesity. Interestingly, the high fat and sugar group without the stress didn't become obese. They in fact didn't gain any weight at all. The high stress alone group actually lost a little weight - they didn't become obese - and of course the group with neither didn't gain any weight, so you needed the combination of more fat and sugar with the stress in order to cause the obesity. <br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: The purpose of the research is to hopefully find out biochemically what is it about chronic stress that does lead or contribute to obesity, and to hopefully pharmacologically short-circuit that connection. We've talked a lot about dieting and weight gain and weight loss on the podcast, and how, although there are obviously physiological factors at play, that the dominant factor is calories in/calories out. And I still think that's true, but it is true that if you give people steroids, they'll gain a lot of weight and they'll redistribute their fat in a very abnormal pattern. So there is a real significant physiological forcing of fat storage when you chronically expose people to lots of steroids, and I guess this shows that stress by itself, chronic stress, can do that in addition to taking exogenous steroids. That was a very interesting finding.<br />
<br />
But all this means that "researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma" is in fact fiction - that one is fake.<br />
<br />
B: You took a real story and twisted it.<br />
<br />
S: I did. I saw there was a press release having to do with elderberries and I couldn't resist using a news item that had the word "elderberry" in it. I just knew it would prompt -<br />
<br />
R: Because you're a nerd.<br />
<br />
S: - because I'm a nerd and it would prompt a quote from, what's that movie?<br />
<br />
R: Monty Python <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/ Monty Python and the Holy Grail] quotes.<br />
<br />
P: You got [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036613/ Arsenic and Old Lace] out of me.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry's just a funny name, I had to use it. The study, it was actually about a study that's just beginning, so not a study that had results already, so I couldn't use it as a real item. Otherwise I would have. So I just used it as my fake item. They're planning a study looking at elderberry extract to see if it will be beneficial for skin, basically as a skincare product.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Although there's other studies going on and there's lots of interest in a specific chemical called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthocyanin anthocyanin] - it's actually a category of compounds that are found not just in elderberries but lots of different kinds of berries. And it's an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidant antioxidant] and antioxidants still garner a lot of interest as possible therapeutic agents, although they really had their heyday back in the '90s. They didn't pan out as well as people were hoping. Some people were touting them as a panacea, reducing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress oxidative stress] which is the cause of all aging and degenerative diseases. It turns out that we probably naturally evolved a pretty good balance between oxidant stress and anti-oxidant mechanisms. If you force it too much in one direction, if you take a lot of antioxidants, you may be causing more harm than good. The oxidative compounds may be necessary as part of our natural defense system, for example.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wait, how could it be bad to sop up these free radicals careening around, damaging DNA, how could that be bad?<br />
<br />
S: Because they may be serving a beneficial purpose in the body, and if they were all bad and we make natural antioxidants, why wouldn't we just make more antioxidants naturally and sop them all up?<br />
<br />
B: Because it doesn't pay to do that later in life.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's all plausible but the thing is, plausibility only gets you so far. Eventually you have to show that it actually works. It's hard to figure out from basic science principles what is supposed to happen in the body because it's such a complex system. At some point you just have to see what actually does happen and again it just turns out that empirically the bottom line long-term clinical benefits of antioxidants really haven't materialized. In fact there's a lot of studies that show that long-term high-dose antioxidant use may be associated with higher risks of things like heart disease. So we shouldn't assume that just because it seems to make sense that antioxidants are a good idea that they in fact are a good idea. But again, this is still an area that needs further study, legitimately needs further study. All the implications have not been worked out. There may be certain disease states where antioxidants are still useful but they certainly have not been established as beneficial in routine supplementation and in fact there's evidence to show that we should be cautious about using them, especially in high doses.<br />
<br />
R: You just blew my mind.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Seriously - blueberries out. What's in? Cake? Is cake good for us now? Something else needs to take the place.<br />
<br />
E: What kind of cake?<br />
<br />
R: Um?<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry.<br />
<br />
E - Bundt cake.<br />
<br />
R - Elderberry cake.<br />
<br />
S: [http://tinyurl.com/8glxbc9 Elderberry pie.]<br />
<br />
R: Okay, let's say that's good for you.<br />
<br />
E: Hold the whipped cream<br />
<br />
J: Good job.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, good job Bob and Perry, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's right.<br />
<br />
S: Good job guys.<br />
<br />
E: Eh.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(1.06.02)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Evan, please tell us, read last week's puzzle and give us the answer.<br />
<br />
E: Okay, last week's puzzle was in fact a logic puzzle. You had to identify the 6<sup>th</sup> number in this sequence. First five numbers were: <br><br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
???<br><br />
So what would the sixth number in that sequence be, everyone?<br />
<br />
J: No idea.<br />
<br />
E: No clue, huh. Won't take a guess. Well the answer is .408 and what this sequence represents is the highest batting averages in Major League baseball since the year 1900. In order.<br />
<br />
R: You're kidding.<br />
<br />
E: No, I kid you not. So the trick was to recognize that the sequence actually involved baseball and batting average.<br />
<br />
P: A lot of Yankees on that list.<br />
<br />
E: And we had several people on the message boards go along those lines and make their attempt at guessing, but in fact -<br />
<br />
S: Who was the winner?<br />
<br />
E: The winner was Kanuck from Vancouver Canada who came up with .408 first. So congratulations to Kanuck for being the first one to get it right.<br />
<br />
S: So a Canadian got that right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, isn't that interesting.<br />
<br />
R: A Canuck if you will.<br />
<br />
E: And then some people went on to moan a little bit when they realized "oh baseball."<br />
<br />
P: Not bad for a filthy Canadian considering it's not even a hockey question.<br />
<br />
S: Right. They have a baseball team, right, don't they have the Toronto Bluejays or something?<br />
<br />
E/P: They do.<br />
<br />
R: They have a couple -<br />
<br />
P: Montreal Expos too.<br />
<br />
S: Well Evan, give us this week's puzzle.<br />
<br />
E: Okay, this week's puzzle is a trivia question for everyone. I know how much we all like trivia questions. It is as follows: "In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed." So, gentle listeners, name the building that was under attack in 1967. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you Evan, interesting as always.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I found it interesting.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4438SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T05:08:32Z<p>Hesterk: /* Skeptical Puzzle (1.06.02) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow [[July 4]]<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
The next email comes from Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
R: Wait, I know a Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: You do? Maybe it's the same person. <br />
<blockquote>This [http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html link] tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxyhttp://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm true] that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very interesting: What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky. I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the "energy levels" of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Perry is now probably liking this guy. It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest [http://www.ipcc.ch/ IPCC] report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics to maneuver. I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argue with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. Late congratulations on the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000<sup>th</sup> episode, 17.3 years from now.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, I'm not going to get into the global warming part of this, I haven't really heard that myself, I don't think anyone seriously is proposing that.<br />
<br />
B: No, it's pathetic.<br />
<br />
J: We don't need to talk about that anymore anyway. Come on, guys.<br />
<br />
R: I just want to mention that just today there was a report released saying that there was no link between cosmic rays and global warming.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, in fact Fraser Cain, who does the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_Cast Astronomy Cast] wrote an article for Wired Science and we can have the [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/ link] on the news page.<br />
<br />
S: The core claim that the sun in our solar system came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not native to the Milky Way has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait Phil Plait,] the [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Bad Astronomer,] has done a very thorough job of analyzing and debunking this claim on his blog which we'll [http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup link] to. So we don't have to have him on the show because I can just tell you what he wrote in his blog. Basically there's a lot of problems with this hypothesis. The first is that the sun is in fact in the plane of the galaxy. The stars from the Dwarf Galaxy, which is oblique to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, are not orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, they're orbiting at an angle. So right there pretty much rules out that the sun is from the Dwarf Galaxy. The second thing is that our sun has a ratio of heavy metals, like iron, that match the stars in the Milky Way and do not match the stars in the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. So just in composition it looks like a Milky Way star. Also the notion that the, so the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is in fact being cannibalized by the Milky Way - it's a smaller galaxy, two galaxies collide, if one's a lot bigger than the other, the big galaxy just eats the little galaxy, so that's what's happening. These stars are just being incorporated into the Milky Way. And where the sun is right now is kind of close to where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy's intersecting the Milky Way, but it's not right in the stream of stars. So it's actually far enough away that in fact that's an argument against us coming from the Sagittarius Galaxy. Also you have to note the fact that since we're revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, millions of years ago we would have been half-way around the galaxy from where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is. So our position is not objectively near the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, it's just kind of near now. But historically we would have been at every other point in the galactic disc away from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, so that's actually not a point in the favor of that position. <br />
<br />
E: Are there any points in favor?<br />
<br />
S: No! There's no line of argument that legitimately argues that the sun came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Then why argue it?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it was just an observation that "hey, we're kind of near where this galaxy is, maybe we came from that galaxy." But on closer inspection, the arguments don't pan out as I described.<br />
<br />
B: Also Steve, the other point that he was saying is that if you look at the Milky Way from the earth, if you have very little light pollution you'll see a huge, it's really fairly distinct and quite beautiful and that's basically just you looking towards the center of the Milky Way, with the stars so much more dense, you can see so many more stars and dust and all sorts of stuff. The plane of the Milky Way doesn't match the plane that the earth orbits our solar system or the way the earth orbits the sun, so this guy is trying to say that this has been a puzzle for astronomers for years, but really it's not a puzzle.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: The orientation of the plane of a solar system can be pretty much in any direction depending on numerous factors. It doesn't have to be in the plane of the galaxy itself, so that was one of the main premises that he started his article with, and it's clearly wrong.<br />
<br />
S: It's just a false premise. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>(42.52)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have one more email. This one is a follow-up to our piece from [[SGU_Episode_101 last week]] about the Belgium Skeptical Society being sued and on the brink of non-existence. This one comes from Anne Frid de Vries from the Netherlands and she writes: "Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court." And then she gives [http://anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html links to her blog] about it. She has the links to the podcast and she graciously links to the Skeptics' Guide and talks about the fact that Perry was - <br />
<br />
P: What's the name of this blog?<br />
<br />
S: The blog was, I can't quite make it out. What does that say?<br />
<br />
(laughter and muttering)<br />
<br />
J: Perry DeAngelis is tight!<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is tight.<br />
<br />
E: Perry DeAgeis is light.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is right. Basically, just to quickly reiterate, Sickesz is a woman who is promoting some kind of manipulative alternative medicine and the skeptical organization listed her as one of the top 20 quacks in the Netherlands. And they were sued for slander and the lawsuit was successful and part of the judgement was that they have to take out advertising all over the country saying that she's not a quack. And Perry made the point that if he ran a skeptical organization, he absolutely wouldn't spend a dime to advertise that somebody like her was legitimate or was not a quack. So Anne is basically agreeing with Perry, which I think we all also agree with him on that.<br />
<br />
P: It'd be a shame to lose 125 years history. Have to come up with a new company but it's worth it.<br />
<br />
S: We also had another email from somebody who's giving us some legal follow-up, who's saying that there is still an appeal left, they can appeal to the supreme court basically. He actually offered as a lawyer to give them any help but only if they're going to appeal the decision, and vowed not to give them any money if in fact they're going to use it on these advertisements, these court ordered advertisements.<br />
<br />
P: I sure hope they appeal.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. We'll have to continue to follow this case and hopefully they will appeal, hopefully justice will be done in the end. So again we'll have to keep an eye on this case.<br />
<br />
J: In her blog she writes in Dutch that Mrs Sickesz is a quack and it goes, I can't even pronounce this, it's funny, the quack in Dutch is "kwakzalver."<br />
<br />
S: Kwakzalver. They actually coined the term - the term kwakzalver is taken from the Dutch, so that term is actually -<br />
<br />
E: It was the original term.<br />
<br />
S: - originally a Dutch term. Kwakzalver.<br />
<br />
E: Benjamin Franklin referred to it way back when in some of his writing.<br />
<br />
S: Talking about mesmer?<br />
<br />
P: No doubt.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Way to allude to one of our first podcasts, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: So Perry, how does it feel to be written about?<br />
<br />
P: Well, I've been written about most of my life. Various medical institutions.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Psychiatric facilities.<br />
<br />
R: Speeding tickets.<br />
<br />
P: Nothing new.<br />
<br />
J: It's old hat to you, Perry.<br />
<br />
P: It is.<br />
<br />
E: Are you tired of being right, Perry?<br />
<br />
S: It is a burden to be right all the time, isn't it Perry?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Some of us are born to it.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>(46.24)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: We do have one "name that logical fallacy" this week. This is an email that was sent to us and we're going to use it as our "name that logical fallacy." This one comes from Athanasios Zacharakopoulos -<br />
<br />
R: Well done!<br />
<br />
S: - from Athens, Greece, and he writes "Hello guys! Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job.... To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance..."<br />
<br />
E: Ooooh.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning," when in many cases things are much more complex... You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question... Best regards." You have to be cautious before you send a really critical email to us because we just might use it in our "name that logical fallacy" section.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
(more laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Not because it's critical, we're open to logically valid criticism of course. But there are a couple of points in this email that are fairly typical. First of all, the fact that we analyze scientific claims and we pick out those that are especially egregious or dubious in order to expose them, doesn't, I think, equate to arrogance. It's like accusing every single movie critic of being arrogant, every type of critic of every kind of being arrogant. It's scientific analysis - this is what scientists do, and we're just bringing scientific analysis to those people who are essentially lurking in the shadows of science and trying to evade the critical light of science.<br />
<br />
The other point that he makes is, basically accusing our arguments, accusing us of using simplistic arguments and then just labeling them logical reasoning, when in many cases the topics are much more complex. And this is really just an unfounded accusation and it's a bit of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) non-sequitur.] It's also, in my opinion, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ad hominem] attack, because.. Essentially what he's doing, and I pointed this out to him, and I responded to his email and I pointed this out to him, is that we're open to criticism. If we've made a mis-statement of fact or if we have committed a logical fallacy in our arguments, point it out to us and if it's valid we'll make a correction, which we have done in the past. So I challenged him to do that and he actually couldn't do that in response. So what he's doing in this email is trying to focus on us personally - calling us "arrogant", that we "lack humility", that we're "simplistic" in our approach.<br />
<br />
R: All of which is true, don't get us wrong.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: True or not, it's still an ad hominem logical fallacy, rather than actually bringing up points that relate to any specific argument that we made. It's a very common tactic for dismissing criticism, just to attack the criticizer basically.<br />
<br />
R: And there's just the basic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man straw man] of saying that we act as if we know everything -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - on every subject matter. When we again and again and again say "all the evidence isn't in on this yet," or "this isn't my area of expertise but," you know, I think we're constantly trying to qualify ourselves.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly.<br />
<br />
R: And speaking personally, this entire podcast I've got like 7 things wrong thus far.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: So, we're definitely always admitting when we get things wrong. When people write in and clarify things for us, I think we're pretty open about all that. So i think that's definitely a straw man.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And also, when we get out of our area of expertise we try to distill the consensus of scientific opinion, not interject our own opinion. So we are not, I don't think that we are inappropriately setting ourselves up as experts in areas that we do not have expertise. <br />
<br />
What I did point out is that actually there is a certain type of expertise that we do bring to the entire endeavor at the Skeptics' Guide, in that we are, I believe, very experienced, even expert, skeptics. And skepticism is, in my opinion, a legitimate intellectual, even academic, area of interest, that brings together various disciplines that are very important. One is '''knowledge of logical fallacies''' - of logic in general, of how to make a valid argument. Another is '''mechanisms of self deception''' - the psychology and neurology of memory and perception and delusion and even stage illusion and magic. The '''nature of scientific research''' - of peer review, and replication etc. These various fields that we have endeavored to study and to become knowledgeable about and to bring them all together to give us the tools - the skeptical tools - to analyze claims to truth, especially those that are unusual, bizarre, on the fringe, on the borderlands of science. Sometimes we talk about things that are barely science but are legitimate even though they might at first seem unusual. And of course we spend a lot of time talking about interesting but bizarre or absurd claims. Part of it is to understand why people believe really absurd bizarre things. How is it that people can come to conclusions that are so demonstrably false? What is the malfunction in the human brain that allows that to happen? So I do claim collectively for the Skeptics' Guide that this is an area of legitimate expertise of ours, that's something we always try to teach in these podcasts and to bring to bear in our analysis.<br />
<br />
J: One of the lines that you read, Steve, you said "You are acting as if you know everything, every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility." Well, you know what? We read up on these topics before we discuss them. We try to get as educated as we can in the time allowed and if that's us acting as if we know everything, well we do know our subject matter.<br />
<br />
S: There is a little bit of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_trebeck Alex Trebeck] syndrome in that we have the answers in front of us, which is why we can look smart sometimes. We just read up on it to prepare for the podcast! <br />
<br />
E: Yes, especially the neurological stuff!<br />
<br />
P: This letter is juvenile, I mean it's really, it's pathetic. Come on.<br />
<br />
S: But it's typical, but Perry it's very typical.<br />
<br />
P: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: I include it because I've heard all of these arguments a thousand times before in emails from other people. Let's go on to "Science or Fiction."<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(53.13)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious. Then I challenge my panel of skeptics and my listeners at home to tell me which one is the fake. There is a theme this week.<br />
<br />
J: Yey theme!<br />
<br />
S: It's a big theme, the theme is medicine. These are all medically related.<br />
<br />
E: Oh god.<br />
<br />
R: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
E: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
S: It's a theme.<br />
<br />
R: It's not a theme!<br />
<br />
S: Medicine is a theme!<br />
<br />
R: A theme is cross-dressing dictators from the '20s.<br />
<br />
S: That's true, that's a narrower theme, it's hard to find three items in such a narrow theme. Hey, if I can find any theme at all I am happy. Okay, the theme this week is science!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Or fiction!<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Item number 1 - a new study finds that teens can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette. Item number 2 - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity. And item number 3 - researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma. Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: Well, these are interesting. Teens can become addicted after smoking one cigarette, they can become addicted to nicotine?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: What level of addiction are we talking about.<br />
<br />
P: What are you f- what? Just answer the question! Jesus! You people always do this.<br />
<br />
J: That's me stalling so I can think about it a little more, you jack-ass. <br />
<br />
B: So addicted that they have to smoke a carton a day.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I don't think that after one cigarette, nah, I don't think that. Going on, stress can cause obesity, I definitely agree with that, and Perry I'm sure you agree with that as well. And an extract of elderberries can treat asthma - I have no clue. I'm going to go with the cigarettes as being the fake.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: I'm leaning towards what Jay's saying, that I don't think there's a study saying you can become addicted, or a teen can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Ah. I'm going to say, I can believe the single cigarette thing.<br />
<br />
E: The single cigarette theory?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: The single cigarette theory. Ah, so I think I'm going to go with stress causing obesity.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
R: That seems like it makes sense but I think you're zigging when we think you're zagging.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Um. The single cigarette one sounds, doesn't sound very likely. I could see that maybe there's some people that one cigarette could kind of give them such a, do something that gives them some level of addiction, very very minor I would think after one, but that doesn't seem impossible. <br />
<br />
J: But Bob. Full physical addiction?<br />
<br />
R: He didn't say "physical."<br />
<br />
B: Right, there's different, yeah, is it a chemical addiction or just a physical addicition, he didn't specify, so i'm going to go with that, plausible, feasible. Stress can cause obesity, that sounds, that seems like a no-brainer to me, that sounds very likely. Extract of elderberries treating asthma. I'm going to say "no" on that one.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
B: That's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Perry.<br />
<br />
P: I have to agree with Bob on number 3. Aren't elderberries poisonous? What do they use in arsenic? They put it in elderberry wine.<br />
<br />
J: Lots of things are poisonous that they use in medicine you idiot.<br />
<br />
P: That's right, they put it in elderberry wine. Anyway, number 3 is false.<br />
<br />
S: The extract of elderberries?<br />
<br />
P: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: So you guys are all over the place this week.<br />
<br />
J? (silly voice): Of course I was drunk at the time. Sorry. <br />
<br />
E: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAy4zULKFDU Your mother smelled of elderberries.]<br />
<br />
S: I'll just take them in order.<br />
<br />
R: Your father smelled of elderberries.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, don't talk about my father.<br />
<br />
P: Really. Gosh sakes.<br />
<br />
J: Did you say you're going to do them in order, Steve?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'll just do them in order.<br />
<br />
J: Oh boy. <br />
<br />
S: The title of the first news item I used is "Inhaling from just one cigarette can lead to nicotine addiction."<ref>[http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=570706] Symptoms of Tobacco Dependence After Brief Intermittent Use] (title Steve gives is probably for blog article, not research paper)</ref> So that one is in fact science. What this shows, this is interesting because the neurological physiological mechanism of addiction to nicotine is different than the mechanism (on a reductionist neurological biochemical level) than the mechanism of addiction to most other things that we study such as barbiturates, narcotics, cocaine, heroin etc. And in many ways nicotine can be even more addictive. What they found is that the amount of nicotine in even a single cigarette is enough to saturate all of the nicotine receptors and cause symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. What they also found is that for young and new smokers, that smoking a single cigarette can actually treat the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal for weeks. They may only have to smoke one cigarette every two or three weeks in order to treat those symptoms of addiction - the irritability, trouble concentrating, cravings, restlessness. And as you smoke, one of the things that happens over time is the duration of time that smoking will treat the withdrawal symptoms from nicotine addiction decreases. So the longer you smoke, the more frequently you have to smoke in order to keep the withdrawal symptoms at bay. Of course until you're smoking two packs a day, or whatever advanced smokers get to. So that was a little surprising. Certainly I was surprised when I saw that headline so I thought that one would be challenging.<br />
<br />
The second one - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity - who thought this one was fake?<br />
<br />
R: I think that's me.<br />
<br />
S: This one is also science. This one also is a little tricky. The connection between stress and obesity is in the stress hormones which are steroids and it's known that they do shift metabolism in the direction of fat storage. But this is the first time a study has specifically linked stress to obesity in this kind of research model. They actually looked at mice and they had several groups in this study, they had mice that were under stress and mice that were not under stress, and mice that were getting a diet that had a lot of fat and sugar in it and mice that were not getting a lot of fat and sugar. And what they found that only the group that both was subjected to stress and also had the high-fat-sugar diet became obese. And they got abdominal obesity, the dangerous kind of obesity, and also had higher risk for insulin resistance and for fatty liver and a lot of the bad consequences of that kind of obesity. Interestingly, the high fat and sugar group without the stress didn't become obese. They in fact didn't gain any weight at all. The high stress alone group actually lost a little weight - they didn't become obese - and of course the group with neither didn't gain any weight, so you needed the combination of more fat and sugar with the stress in order to cause the obesity. <br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: The purpose of the research is to hopefully find out biochemically what is it about chronic stress that does lead or contribute to obesity, and to hopefully pharmacologically short-circuit that connection. We've talked a lot about dieting and weight gain and weight loss on the podcast, and how, although there are obviously physiological factors at play, that the dominant factor is calories in/calories out. And I still think that's true, but it is true that if you give people steroids, they'll gain a lot of weight and they'll redistribute their fat in a very abnormal pattern. So there is a real significant physiological forcing of fat storage when you chronically expose people to lots of steroids, and I guess this shows that stress by itself, chronic stress, can do that in addition to taking exogenous steroids. That was a very interesting finding.<br />
<br />
But all this means that "researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma" is in fact fiction - that one is fake.<br />
<br />
B: You took a real story and twisted it.<br />
<br />
S: I did. I saw there was a press release having to do with elderberries and I couldn't resist using a news item that had the word "elderberry" in it. I just knew it would prompt -<br />
<br />
R: Because you're a nerd.<br />
<br />
S: - because I'm a nerd and it would prompt a quote from, what's that movie?<br />
<br />
R: Monty Python <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/ Monty Python and the Holy Grail] quotes.<br />
<br />
P: You got [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036613/ Arsenic and Old Lace] out of me.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry's just a funny name, I had to use it. The study, it was actually about a study that's just beginning, so not a study that had results already, so I couldn't use it as a real item. Otherwise I would have. So I just used it as my fake item. They're planning a study looking at elderberry extract to see if it will be beneficial for skin, basically as a skincare product.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Although there's other studies going on and there's lots of interest in a specific chemical called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthocyanin anthocyanin] - it's actually a category of compounds that are found not just in elderberries but lots of different kinds of berries. And it's an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidant antioxidant] and antioxidants still garner a lot of interest as possible therapeutic agents, although they really had their heyday back in the '90s. They didn't pan out as well as people were hoping. Some people were touting them as a panacea, reducing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress oxidative stress] which is the cause of all aging and degenerative diseases. It turns out that we probably naturally evolved a pretty good balance between oxidant stress and anti-oxidant mechanisms. If you force it too much in one direction, if you take a lot of antioxidants, you may be causing more harm than good. The oxidative compounds may be necessary as part of our natural defense system, for example.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wait, how could it be bad to sop up these free radicals careening around, damaging DNA, how could that be bad?<br />
<br />
S: Because they may be serving a beneficial purpose in the body, and if they were all bad and we make natural antioxidants, why wouldn't we just make more antioxidants naturally and sop them all up?<br />
<br />
B: Because it doesn't pay to do that later in life.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's all plausible but the thing is, plausibility only gets you so far. Eventually you have to show that it actually works. It's hard to figure out from basic science principles what is supposed to happen in the body because it's such a complex system. At some point you just have to see what actually does happen and again it just turns out that empirically the bottom line long-term clinical benefits of antioxidants really haven't materialized. In fact there's a lot of studies that show that long-term high-dose antioxidant use may be associated with higher risks of things like heart disease. So we shouldn't assume that just because it seems to make sense that antioxidants are a good idea that they in fact are a good idea. But again, this is still an area that needs further study, legitimately needs further study. All the implications have not been worked out. There may be certain disease states where antioxidants are still useful but they certainly have not been established as beneficial in routine supplementation and in fact there's evidence to show that we should be cautious about using them, especially in high doses.<br />
<br />
R: You just blew my mind.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Seriously - blueberries out. What's in? Cake? Is cake good for us now? Something else needs to take the place.<br />
<br />
E: What kind of cake?<br />
<br />
R: Um?<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry.<br />
<br />
E - Bundt cake.<br />
<br />
R - Elderberry cake.<br />
<br />
S: [http://tinyurl.com/8glxbc9 Elderberry pie.]<br />
<br />
R: Okay, let's say that's good for you.<br />
<br />
E: Hold the whipped cream<br />
<br />
J: Good job.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, good job Bob and Perry, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's right.<br />
<br />
S: Good job guys.<br />
<br />
E: Eh.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(1.06.02)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Evan, please tell us, read last week's puzzle and give us the answer.<br />
<br />
E: Okay, last week's puzzle was in fact a logic puzzle. You had to identify the 6<sup>th</sup> number in this sequence. First five numbers were: <br><br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
???<br><br />
So what would the sixth number in that sequence be, everyone?<br />
<br />
J: No idea.<br />
<br />
E: No clue, huh. Won't take a guess. Well the answer is .408 and what this sequence represents is the highest batting averages in Major League baseball since the year 1900. In order.<br />
<br />
R: You're kidding.<br />
<br />
E: No, I kid you not. So the trick was to recognize that the sequence actually involved baseball and batting average.<br />
<br />
P: A lot of Yankees on that list.<br />
<br />
E: And we had several people on the message boards go along those lines and make their attempt at guessing, but in fact -<br />
<br />
S: Who was the winner?<br />
<br />
E: The winner was Kanuck from Vancouver Canada who came up with .408 first. So congratulations to Kanuck for being the first one to get it right.<br />
<br />
S: So a Canadian got that right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, isn't that interesting.<br />
<br />
R: A Canuck if you will.<br />
<br />
E: And then some people went on to moan a little bit when they realized "oh baseball."<br />
<br />
P: Not bad for a filthy Canadian considering it's not even a hockey question.<br />
<br />
S: Right. They have a baseball team, right, don't they have the Toronto Bluejays or something?<br />
<br />
E/P: They do.<br />
<br />
P: Montreal Expos too.<br />
<br />
S: Well Evan, give us this week's puzzle.<br />
<br />
E: Okay, this week's puzzle is a trivia question for everyone. I know how much we all like trivia questions. It is as follows: "In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed." So, gentle listeners, name the building that was under attack in 1967. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you Evan, interesting as always.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, I found it interesting.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4437SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T04:55:29Z<p>Hesterk: /* Science or Fiction (53.14) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow [[July 4]]<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
The next email comes from Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
R: Wait, I know a Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: You do? Maybe it's the same person. <br />
<blockquote>This [http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html link] tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxyhttp://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm true] that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very interesting: What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky. I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the "energy levels" of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Perry is now probably liking this guy. It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest [http://www.ipcc.ch/ IPCC] report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics to maneuver. I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argue with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. Late congratulations on the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000<sup>th</sup> episode, 17.3 years from now.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, I'm not going to get into the global warming part of this, I haven't really heard that myself, I don't think anyone seriously is proposing that.<br />
<br />
B: No, it's pathetic.<br />
<br />
J: We don't need to talk about that anymore anyway. Come on, guys.<br />
<br />
R: I just want to mention that just today there was a report released saying that there was no link between cosmic rays and global warming.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, in fact Fraser Cain, who does the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_Cast Astronomy Cast] wrote an article for Wired Science and we can have the [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/ link] on the news page.<br />
<br />
S: The core claim that the sun in our solar system came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not native to the Milky Way has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait Phil Plait,] the [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Bad Astronomer,] has done a very thorough job of analyzing and debunking this claim on his blog which we'll [http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup link] to. So we don't have to have him on the show because I can just tell you what he wrote in his blog. Basically there's a lot of problems with this hypothesis. The first is that the sun is in fact in the plane of the galaxy. The stars from the Dwarf Galaxy, which is oblique to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, are not orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, they're orbiting at an angle. So right there pretty much rules out that the sun is from the Dwarf Galaxy. The second thing is that our sun has a ratio of heavy metals, like iron, that match the stars in the Milky Way and do not match the stars in the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. So just in composition it looks like a Milky Way star. Also the notion that the, so the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is in fact being cannibalized by the Milky Way - it's a smaller galaxy, two galaxies collide, if one's a lot bigger than the other, the big galaxy just eats the little galaxy, so that's what's happening. These stars are just being incorporated into the Milky Way. And where the sun is right now is kind of close to where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy's intersecting the Milky Way, but it's not right in the stream of stars. So it's actually far enough away that in fact that's an argument against us coming from the Sagittarius Galaxy. Also you have to note the fact that since we're revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, millions of years ago we would have been half-way around the galaxy from where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is. So our position is not objectively near the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, it's just kind of near now. But historically we would have been at every other point in the galactic disc away from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, so that's actually not a point in the favor of that position. <br />
<br />
E: Are there any points in favor?<br />
<br />
S: No! There's no line of argument that legitimately argues that the sun came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Then why argue it?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it was just an observation that "hey, we're kind of near where this galaxy is, maybe we came from that galaxy." But on closer inspection, the arguments don't pan out as I described.<br />
<br />
B: Also Steve, the other point that he was saying is that if you look at the Milky Way from the earth, if you have very little light pollution you'll see a huge, it's really fairly distinct and quite beautiful and that's basically just you looking towards the center of the Milky Way, with the stars so much more dense, you can see so many more stars and dust and all sorts of stuff. The plane of the Milky Way doesn't match the plane that the earth orbits our solar system or the way the earth orbits the sun, so this guy is trying to say that this has been a puzzle for astronomers for years, but really it's not a puzzle.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: The orientation of the plane of a solar system can be pretty much in any direction depending on numerous factors. It doesn't have to be in the plane of the galaxy itself, so that was one of the main premises that he started his article with, and it's clearly wrong.<br />
<br />
S: It's just a false premise. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>(42.52)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have one more email. This one is a follow-up to our piece from [[SGU_Episode_101 last week]] about the Belgium Skeptical Society being sued and on the brink of non-existence. This one comes from Anne Frid de Vries from the Netherlands and she writes: "Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court." And then she gives [http://anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html links to her blog] about it. She has the links to the podcast and she graciously links to the Skeptics' Guide and talks about the fact that Perry was - <br />
<br />
P: What's the name of this blog?<br />
<br />
S: The blog was, I can't quite make it out. What does that say?<br />
<br />
(laughter and muttering)<br />
<br />
J: Perry DeAngelis is tight!<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is tight.<br />
<br />
E: Perry DeAgeis is light.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is right. Basically, just to quickly reiterate, Sickesz is a woman who is promoting some kind of manipulative alternative medicine and the skeptical organization listed her as one of the top 20 quacks in the Netherlands. And they were sued for slander and the lawsuit was successful and part of the judgement was that they have to take out advertising all over the country saying that she's not a quack. And Perry made the point that if he ran a skeptical organization, he absolutely wouldn't spend a dime to advertise that somebody like her was legitimate or was not a quack. So Anne is basically agreeing with Perry, which I think we all also agree with him on that.<br />
<br />
P: It'd be a shame to lose 125 years history. Have to come up with a new company but it's worth it.<br />
<br />
S: We also had another email from somebody who's giving us some legal follow-up, who's saying that there is still an appeal left, they can appeal to the supreme court basically. He actually offered as a lawyer to give them any help but only if they're going to appeal the decision, and vowed not to give them any money if in fact they're going to use it on these advertisements, these court ordered advertisements.<br />
<br />
P: I sure hope they appeal.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. We'll have to continue to follow this case and hopefully they will appeal, hopefully justice will be done in the end. So again we'll have to keep an eye on this case.<br />
<br />
J: In her blog she writes in Dutch that Mrs Sickesz is a quack and it goes, I can't even pronounce this, it's funny, the quack in Dutch is "kwakzalver."<br />
<br />
S: Kwakzalver. They actually coined the term - the term kwakzalver is taken from the Dutch, so that term is actually -<br />
<br />
E: It was the original term.<br />
<br />
S: - originally a Dutch term. Kwakzalver.<br />
<br />
E: Benjamin Franklin referred to it way back when in some of his writing.<br />
<br />
S: Talking about mesmer?<br />
<br />
P: No doubt.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Way to allude to one of our first podcasts, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: So Perry, how does it feel to be written about?<br />
<br />
P: Well, I've been written about most of my life. Various medical institutions.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Psychiatric facilities.<br />
<br />
R: Speeding tickets.<br />
<br />
P: Nothing new.<br />
<br />
J: It's old hat to you, Perry.<br />
<br />
P: It is.<br />
<br />
E: Are you tired of being right, Perry?<br />
<br />
S: It is a burden to be right all the time, isn't it Perry?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Some of us are born to it.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>(46.24)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: We do have one "name that logical fallacy" this week. This is an email that was sent to us and we're going to use it as our "name that logical fallacy." This one comes from Athanasios Zacharakopoulos -<br />
<br />
R: Well done!<br />
<br />
S: - from Athens, Greece, and he writes "Hello guys! Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job.... To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance..."<br />
<br />
E: Ooooh.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning," when in many cases things are much more complex... You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question... Best regards." You have to be cautious before you send a really critical email to us because we just might use it in our "name that logical fallacy" section.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
(more laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Not because it's critical, we're open to logically valid criticism of course. But there are a couple of points in this email that are fairly typical. First of all, the fact that we analyze scientific claims and we pick out those that are especially egregious or dubious in order to expose them, doesn't, I think, equate to arrogance. It's like accusing every single movie critic of being arrogant, every type of critic of every kind of being arrogant. It's scientific analysis - this is what scientists do, and we're just bringing scientific analysis to those people who are essentially lurking in the shadows of science and trying to evade the critical light of science.<br />
<br />
The other point that he makes is, basically accusing our arguments, accusing us of using simplistic arguments and then just labeling them logical reasoning, when in many cases the topics are much more complex. And this is really just an unfounded accusation and it's a bit of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) non-sequitur.] It's also, in my opinion, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ad hominem] attack, because.. Essentially what he's doing, and I pointed this out to him, and I responded to his email and I pointed this out to him, is that we're open to criticism. If we've made a mis-statement of fact or if we have committed a logical fallacy in our arguments, point it out to us and if it's valid we'll make a correction, which we have done in the past. So I challenged him to do that and he actually couldn't do that in response. So what he's doing in this email is trying to focus on us personally - calling us "arrogant", that we "lack humility", that we're "simplistic" in our approach.<br />
<br />
R: All of which is true, don't get us wrong.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: True or not, it's still an ad hominem logical fallacy, rather than actually bringing up points that relate to any specific argument that we made. It's a very common tactic for dismissing criticism, just to attack the criticizer basically.<br />
<br />
R: And there's just the basic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man straw man] of saying that we act as if we know everything -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - on every subject matter. When we again and again and again say "all the evidence isn't in on this yet," or "this isn't my area of expertise but," you know, I think we're constantly trying to qualify ourselves.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly.<br />
<br />
R: And speaking personally, this entire podcast I've got like 7 things wrong thus far.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: So, we're definitely always admitting when we get things wrong. When people write in and clarify things for us, I think we're pretty open about all that. So i think that's definitely a straw man.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And also, when we get out of our area of expertise we try to distill the consensus of scientific opinion, not interject our own opinion. So we are not, I don't think that we are inappropriately setting ourselves up as experts in areas that we do not have expertise. <br />
<br />
What I did point out is that actually there is a certain type of expertise that we do bring to the entire endeavor at the Skeptics' Guide, in that we are, I believe, very experienced, even expert, skeptics. And skepticism is, in my opinion, a legitimate intellectual, even academic, area of interest, that brings together various disciplines that are very important. One is '''knowledge of logical fallacies''' - of logic in general, of how to make a valid argument. Another is '''mechanisms of self deception''' - the psychology and neurology of memory and perception and delusion and even stage illusion and magic. The '''nature of scientific research''' - of peer review, and replication etc. These various fields that we have endeavored to study and to become knowledgeable about and to bring them all together to give us the tools - the skeptical tools - to analyze claims to truth, especially those that are unusual, bizarre, on the fringe, on the borderlands of science. Sometimes we talk about things that are barely science but are legitimate even though they might at first seem unusual. And of course we spend a lot of time talking about interesting but bizarre or absurd claims. Part of it is to understand why people believe really absurd bizarre things. How is it that people can come to conclusions that are so demonstrably false? What is the malfunction in the human brain that allows that to happen? So I do claim collectively for the Skeptics' Guide that this is an area of legitimate expertise of ours, that's something we always try to teach in these podcasts and to bring to bear in our analysis.<br />
<br />
J: One of the lines that you read, Steve, you said "You are acting as if you know everything, every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility." Well, you know what? We read up on these topics before we discuss them. We try to get as educated as we can in the time allowed and if that's us acting as if we know everything, well we do know our subject matter.<br />
<br />
S: There is a little bit of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_trebeck Alex Trebeck] syndrome in that we have the answers in front of us, which is why we can look smart sometimes. We just read up on it to prepare for the podcast! <br />
<br />
E: Yes, especially the neurological stuff!<br />
<br />
P: This letter is juvenile, I mean it's really, it's pathetic. Come on.<br />
<br />
S: But it's typical, but Perry it's very typical.<br />
<br />
P: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: I include it because I've heard all of these arguments a thousand times before in emails from other people. Let's go on to "Science or Fiction."<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(53.13)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious. Then I challenge my panel of skeptics and my listeners at home to tell me which one is the fake. There is a theme this week.<br />
<br />
J: Yey theme!<br />
<br />
S: It's a big theme, the theme is medicine. These are all medically related.<br />
<br />
E: Oh god.<br />
<br />
R: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
E: That's not a theme.<br />
<br />
S: It's a theme.<br />
<br />
R: It's not a theme!<br />
<br />
S: Medicine is a theme!<br />
<br />
R: A theme is cross-dressing dictators from the '20s.<br />
<br />
S: That's true, that's a narrower theme, it's hard to find three items in such a narrow theme. Hey, if I can find any theme at all I am happy. Okay, the theme this week is science!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Or fiction!<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Item number 1 - a new study finds that teens can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette. Item number 2 - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity. And item number 3 - researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma. Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: Well, these are interesting. Teens can become addicted after smoking one cigarette, they can become addicted to nicotine?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: What level of addiction are we talking about.<br />
<br />
P: What are you f- what? Just answer the question! Jesus! You people always do this.<br />
<br />
J: That's me stalling so I can think about it a little more, you jack-ass. <br />
<br />
B: So addicted that they have to smoke a carton a day.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I don't think that after one cigarette, nah, I don't think that. Going on, stress can cause obesity, I definitely agree with that, and Perry I'm sure you agree with that as well. And an extract of elderberries can treat asthma - I have no clue. I'm going to go with the cigarettes as being the fake.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: I'm leaning towards what Jay's saying, that I don't think there's a study saying you can become addicted, or a teen can become addicted after smoking just a single cigarette.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Ah. I'm going to say, I can believe the single cigarette thing.<br />
<br />
E: The single cigarette theory?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: The single cigarette theory. Ah, so I think I'm going to go with stress causing obesity.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
R: That seems like it makes sense but I think you're zigging when we think you're zagging.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: Um. The single cigarette one sounds, doesn't sound very likely. I could see that maybe there's some people that one cigarette could kind of give them such a, do something that gives them some level of addiction, very very minor I would think after one, but that doesn't seem impossible. <br />
<br />
J: But Bob. Full physical addiction?<br />
<br />
R: He didn't say "physical."<br />
<br />
B: Right, there's different, yeah, is it a chemical addiction or just a physical addicition, he didn't specify, so i'm going to go with that, plausible, feasible. Stress can cause obesity, that sounds, that seems like a no-brainer to me, that sounds very likely. Extract of elderberries treating asthma. I'm going to say "no" on that one.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
B: That's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Perry.<br />
<br />
P: I have to agree with Bob on number 3. Aren't elderberries poisonous? What do they use in arsenic? They put it in elderberry wine.<br />
<br />
J: Lots of things are poisonous that they use in medicine you idiot.<br />
<br />
P: That's right, they put it in elderberry wine. Anyway, number 3 is false.<br />
<br />
S: The extract of elderberries?<br />
<br />
P: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
S: So you guys are all over the place this week.<br />
<br />
J? (silly voice): Of course I was drunk at the time. Sorry. <br />
<br />
E: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAy4zULKFDU Your mother smelled of elderberries.]<br />
<br />
S: I'll just take them in order.<br />
<br />
R: Your father smelled of elderberries.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, don't talk about my father.<br />
<br />
P: Really. Gosh sakes.<br />
<br />
J: Did you say you're going to do them in order, Steve?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I'll just do them in order.<br />
<br />
J: Oh boy. <br />
<br />
S: The title of the first news item I used is "Inhaling from just one cigarette can lead to nicotine addiction."<ref>[http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=570706] Symptoms of Tobacco Dependence After Brief Intermittent Use] (title Steve gives is probably for blog article, not research paper)</ref> So that one is in fact science. What this shows, this is interesting because the neurological physiological mechanism of addiction to nicotine is different than the mechanism (on a reductionist neurological biochemical level) than the mechanism of addiction to most other things that we study such as barbiturates, narcotics, cocaine, heroin etc. And in many ways nicotine can be even more addictive. What they found is that the amount of nicotine in even a single cigarette is enough to saturate all of the nicotine receptors and cause symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. What they also found is that for young and new smokers, that smoking a single cigarette can actually treat the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal for weeks. They may only have to smoke one cigarette every two or three weeks in order to treat those symptoms of addiction - the irritability, trouble concentrating, cravings, restlessness. And as you smoke, one of the things that happens over time is the duration of time that smoking will treat the withdrawal symptoms from nicotine addiction decreases. So the longer you smoke, the more frequently you have to smoke in order to keep the withdrawal symptoms at bay. Of course until you're smoking two packs a day, or whatever advanced smokers get to. So that was a little surprising. Certainly I was surprised when I saw that headline so I thought that one would be challenging.<br />
<br />
The second one - researchers have found that stress can cause obesity - who thought this one was fake?<br />
<br />
R: I think that's me.<br />
<br />
S: This one is also science. This one also is a little tricky. The connection between stress and obesity is in the stress hormones which are steroids and it's known that they do shift metabolism in the direction of fat storage. But this is the first time a study has specifically linked stress to obesity in this kind of research model. They actually looked at mice and they had several groups in this study, they had mice that were under stress and mice that were not under stress, and mice that were getting a diet that had a lot of fat and sugar in it and mice that were not getting a lot of fat and sugar. And what they found that only the group that both was subjected to stress and also had the high-fat-sugar diet became obese. And they got abdominal obesity, the dangerous kind of obesity, and also had higher risk for insulin resistance and for fatty liver and a lot of the bad consequences of that kind of obesity. Interestingly, the high fat and sugar group without the stress didn't become obese. They in fact didn't gain any weight at all. The high stress alone group actually lost a little weight - they didn't become obese - and of course the group with neither didn't gain any weight, so you needed the combination of more fat and sugar with the stress in order to cause the obesity. <br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: The purpose of the research is to hopefully find out biochemically what is it about chronic stress that does lead or contribute to obesity, and to hopefully pharmacologically short-circuit that connection. We've talked a lot about dieting and weight gain and weight loss on the podcast, and how, although there are obviously physiological factors at play, that the dominant factor is calories in/calories out. And I still think that's true, but it is true that if you give people steroids, they'll gain a lot of weight and they'll redistribute their fat in a very abnormal pattern. So there is a real significant physiological forcing of fat storage when you chronically expose people to lots of steroids, and I guess this shows that stress by itself, chronic stress, can do that in addition to taking exogenous steroids. That was a very interesting finding.<br />
<br />
But all this means that "researchers have found that an extract of elderberries can successfully treat asthma" is in fact fiction - that one is fake.<br />
<br />
B: You took a real story and twisted it.<br />
<br />
S: I did. I saw there was a press release having to do with elderberries and I couldn't resist using a news item that had the word "elderberry" in it. I just knew it would prompt -<br />
<br />
R: Because you're a nerd.<br />
<br />
S: - because I'm a nerd and it would prompt a quote from, what's that movie?<br />
<br />
R: Monty Python <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/ Monty Python and the Holy Grail] quotes.<br />
<br />
P: You got [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036613/ Arsenic and Old Lace] out of me.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry's just a funny name, I had to use it. The study, it was actually about a study that's just beginning, so not a study that had results already, so I couldn't use it as a real item. Otherwise I would have. So I just used it as my fake item. They're planning a study looking at elderberry extract to see if it will be beneficial for skin, basically as a skincare product.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Although there's other studies going on and there's lots of interest in a specific chemical called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthocyanin anthocyanin] - it's actually a category of compounds that are found not just in elderberries but lots of different kinds of berries. And it's an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidant antioxidant] and antioxidants still garner a lot of interest as possible therapeutic agents, although they really had their heyday back in the '90s. They didn't pan out as well as people were hoping. Some people were touting them as a panacea, reducing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress oxidative stress] which is the cause of all aging and degenerative diseases. It turns out that we probably naturally evolved a pretty good balance between oxidant stress and anti-oxidant mechanisms. If you force it too much in one direction, if you take a lot of antioxidants, you may be causing more harm than good. The oxidative compounds may be necessary as part of our natural defense system, for example.<br />
<br />
B: Oh wait, how could it be bad to sop up these free radicals careening around, damaging DNA, how could that be bad?<br />
<br />
S: Because they may be serving a beneficial purpose in the body, and if they were all bad and we make natural antioxidants, why wouldn't we just make more antioxidants naturally and sop them all up?<br />
<br />
B: Because it doesn't pay to do that later in life.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's all plausible but the thing is, plausibility only gets you so far. Eventually you have to show that it actually works. It's hard to figure out from basic science principles what is supposed to happen in the body because it's such a complex system. At some point you just have to see what actually does happen and again it just turns out that empirically the bottom line long-term clinical benefits of antioxidants really haven't materialized. In fact there's a lot of studies that show that long-term high-dose antioxidant use may be associated with higher risks of things like heart disease. So we shouldn't assume that just because it seems to make sense that antioxidants are a good idea that they in fact are a good idea. But again, this is still an area that needs further study, legitimately needs further study. All the implications have not been worked out. There may be certain disease states where antioxidants are still useful but they certainly have not been established as beneficial in routine supplementation and in fact there's evidence to show that we should be cautious about using them, especially in high doses.<br />
<br />
R: You just blew my mind.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Seriously - blueberries out. What's in? Cake? Is cake good for us now? Something else needs to take the place.<br />
<br />
E: What kind of cake?<br />
<br />
R: Um?<br />
<br />
S: Elderberry.<br />
<br />
E - Bundt cake.<br />
<br />
R - Elderberry cake.<br />
<br />
S: [http://tinyurl.com/8glxbc9 Elderberry pie.]<br />
<br />
R: Okay, let's say that's good for you.<br />
<br />
E: Hold the whipped cream<br />
<br />
J: Good job.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, good job Bob and Perry, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, that's right.<br />
<br />
S: Good job guys.<br />
<br />
E: Eh.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(1.06.02)</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4435SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T03:25:08Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow [[July 4]]<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
The next email comes from Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
R: Wait, I know a Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: You do? Maybe it's the same person. <br />
<blockquote>This [http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html link] tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxyhttp://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm true] that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very interesting: What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky. I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the "energy levels" of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Perry is now probably liking this guy. It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest [http://www.ipcc.ch/ IPCC] report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics to maneuver. I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argue with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. Late congratulations on the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000<sup>th</sup> episode, 17.3 years from now.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, I'm not going to get into the global warming part of this, I haven't really heard that myself, I don't think anyone seriously is proposing that.<br />
<br />
B: No, it's pathetic.<br />
<br />
J: We don't need to talk about that anymore anyway. Come on, guys.<br />
<br />
R: I just want to mention that just today there was a report released saying that there was no link between cosmic rays and global warming.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, in fact Fraser Cain, who does the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_Cast Astronomy Cast] wrote an article for Wired Science and we can have the [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/ link] on the news page.<br />
<br />
S: The core claim that the sun in our solar system came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not native to the Milky Way has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait Phil Plait,] the [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Bad Astronomer,] has done a very thorough job of analyzing and debunking this claim on his blog which we'll [http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup link] to. So we don't have to have him on the show because I can just tell you what he wrote in his blog. Basically there's a lot of problems with this hypothesis. The first is that the sun is in fact in the plane of the galaxy. The stars from the Dwarf Galaxy, which is oblique to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, are not orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, they're orbiting at an angle. So right there pretty much rules out that the sun is from the Dwarf Galaxy. The second thing is that our sun has a ratio of heavy metals, like iron, that match the stars in the Milky Way and do not match the stars in the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. So just in composition it looks like a Milky Way star. Also the notion that the, so the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is in fact being cannibalized by the Milky Way - it's a smaller galaxy, two galaxies collide, if one's a lot bigger than the other, the big galaxy just eats the little galaxy, so that's what's happening. These stars are just being incorporated into the Milky Way. And where the sun is right now is kind of close to where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy's intersecting the Milky Way, but it's not right in the stream of stars. So it's actually far enough away that in fact that's an argument against us coming from the Sagittarius Galaxy. Also you have to note the fact that since we're revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, millions of years ago we would have been half-way around the galaxy from where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is. So our position is not objectively near the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, it's just kind of near now. But historically we would have been at every other point in the galactic disc away from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, so that's actually not a point in the favor of that position. <br />
<br />
E: Are there any points in favor?<br />
<br />
S: No! There's no line of argument that legitimately argues that the sun came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Then why argue it?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it was just an observation that "hey, we're kind of near where this galaxy is, maybe we came from that galaxy." But on closer inspection, the arguments don't pan out as I described.<br />
<br />
B: Also Steve, the other point that he was saying is that if you look at the Milky Way from the earth, if you have very little light pollution you'll see a huge, it's really fairly distinct and quite beautiful and that's basically just you looking towards the center of the Milky Way, with the stars so much more dense, you can see so many more stars and dust and all sorts of stuff. The plane of the Milky Way doesn't match the plane that the earth orbits our solar system or the way the earth orbits the sun, so this guy is trying to say that this has been a puzzle for astronomers for years, but really it's not a puzzle.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: The orientation of the plane of a solar system can be pretty much in any direction depending on numerous factors. It doesn't have to be in the plane of the galaxy itself, so that was one of the main premises that he started his article with, and it's clearly wrong.<br />
<br />
S: It's just a false premise. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>(42.52)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have one more email. This one is a follow-up to our piece from [[SGU_Episode_101 last week]] about the Belgium Skeptical Society being sued and on the brink of non-existence. This one comes from Anne Frid de Vries from the Netherlands and she writes: "Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court." And then she gives [http://anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html links to her blog] about it. She has the links to the podcast and she graciously links to the Skeptics' Guide and talks about the fact that Perry was - <br />
<br />
P: What's the name of this blog?<br />
<br />
S: The blog was, I can't quite make it out. What does that say?<br />
<br />
(laughter and muttering)<br />
<br />
J: Perry DeAngelis is tight!<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is tight.<br />
<br />
E: Perry DeAgeis is light.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is right. Basically, just to quickly reiterate, Sickesz is a woman who is promoting some kind of manipulative alternative medicine and the skeptical organization listed her as one of the top 20 quacks in the Netherlands. And they were sued for slander and the lawsuit was successful and part of the judgement was that they have to take out advertising all over the country saying that she's not a quack. And Perry made the point that if he ran a skeptical organization, he absolutely wouldn't spend a dime to advertise that somebody like her was legitimate or was not a quack. So Anne is basically agreeing with Perry, which I think we all also agree with him on that.<br />
<br />
P: It'd be a shame to lose 125 years history. Have to come up with a new company but it's worth it.<br />
<br />
S: We also had another email from somebody who's giving us some legal follow-up, who's saying that there is still an appeal left, they can appeal to the supreme court basically. He actually offered as a lawyer to give them any help but only if they're going to appeal the decision, and vowed not to give them any money if in fact they're going to use it on these advertisements, these court ordered advertisements.<br />
<br />
P: I sure hope they appeal.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. We'll have to continue to follow this case and hopefully they will appeal, hopefully justice will be done in the end. So again we'll have to keep an eye on this case.<br />
<br />
J: In her blog she writes in Dutch that Mrs Sickesz is a quack and it goes, I can't even pronounce this, it's funny, the quack in Dutch is "kwakzalver."<br />
<br />
S: Kwakzalver. They actually coined the term - the term kwakzalver is taken from the Dutch, so that term is actually -<br />
<br />
E: It was the original term.<br />
<br />
S: - originally a Dutch term. Kwakzalver.<br />
<br />
E: Benjamin Franklin referred to it way back when in some of his writing.<br />
<br />
S: Talking about mesmer?<br />
<br />
P: No doubt.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Way to allude to one of our first podcasts, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: So Perry, how does it feel to be written about?<br />
<br />
P: Well, I've been written about most of my life. Various medical institutions.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Psychiatric facilities.<br />
<br />
R: Speeding tickets.<br />
<br />
P: Nothing new.<br />
<br />
J: It's old hat to you, Perry.<br />
<br />
P: It is.<br />
<br />
E: Are you tired of being right, Perry?<br />
<br />
S: It is a burden to be right all the time, isn't it Perry?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Some of us are born to it.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>(46.24)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: We do have one "name that logical fallacy" this week. This is an email that was sent to us and we're going to use it as our "name that logical fallacy." This one comes from Athanasios Zacharakopoulos -<br />
<br />
R: Well done!<br />
<br />
S: - from Athens, Greece, and he writes "Hello guys! Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job.... To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance..."<br />
<br />
E: Ooooh.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning," when in many cases things are much more complex... You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question... Best regards." You have to be cautious before you send a really critical email to us because we just might use it in our "name that logical fallacy" section.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
(more laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Not because it's critical, we're open to logically valid criticism of course. But there are a couple of points in this email that are fairly typical. First of all, the fact that we analyze scientific claims and we pick out those that are especially egregious or dubious in order to expose them, doesn't, I think, equate to arrogance. It's like accusing every single movie critic of being arrogant, every type of critic of every kind of being arrogant. It's scientific analysis - this is what scientists do, and we're just bringing scientific analysis to those people who are essentially lurking in the shadows of science and trying to evade the critical light of science.<br />
<br />
The other point that he makes is, basically accusing our arguments, accusing us of using simplistic arguments and then just labeling them logical reasoning, when in many cases the topics are much more complex. And this is really just an unfounded accusation and it's a bit of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) non-sequitur.] It's also, in my opinion, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ad hominem] attack, because.. Essentially what he's doing, and I pointed this out to him, and I responded to his email and I pointed this out to him, is that we're open to criticism. If we've made a mis-statement of fact or if we have committed a logical fallacy in our arguments, point it out to us and if it's valid we'll make a correction, which we have done in the past. So I challenged him to do that and he actually couldn't do that in response. So what he's doing in this email is trying to focus on us personally - calling us "arrogant", that we "lack humility", that we're "simplistic" in our approach.<br />
<br />
R: All of which is true, don't get us wrong.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: True or not, it's still an ad hominem logical fallacy, rather than actually bringing up points that relate to any specific argument that we made. It's a very common tactic for dismissing criticism, just to attack the criticizer basically.<br />
<br />
R: And there's just the basic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man straw man] of saying that we act as if we know everything -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - on every subject matter. When we again and again and again say "all the evidence isn't in on this yet," or "this isn't my area of expertise but," you know, I think we're constantly trying to qualify ourselves.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly.<br />
<br />
R: And speaking personally, this entire podcast I've got like 7 things wrong thus far.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: So, we're definitely always admitting when we get things wrong. When people write in and clarify things for us, I think we're pretty open about all that. So i think that's definitely a straw man.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And also, when we get out of our area of expertise we try to distill the consensus of scientific opinion, not interject our own opinion. So we are not, I don't think that we are inappropriately setting ourselves up as experts in areas that we do not have expertise. <br />
<br />
What I did point out is that actually there is a certain type of expertise that we do bring to the entire endeavor at the Skeptics' Guide, in that we are, I believe, very experienced, even expert, skeptics. And skepticism is, in my opinion, a legitimate intellectual, even academic, area of interest, that brings together various disciplines that are very important. One is '''knowledge of logical fallacies''' - of logic in general, of how to make a valid argument. Another is '''mechanisms of self deception''' - the psychology and neurology of memory and perception and delusion and even stage illusion and magic. The '''nature of scientific research''' - of peer review, and replication etc. These various fields that we have endeavored to study and to become knowledgeable about and to bring them all together to give us the tools - the skeptical tools - to analyze claims to truth, especially those that are unusual, bizarre, on the fringe, on the borderlands of science. Sometimes we talk about things that are barely science but are legitimate even though they might at first seem unusual. And of course we spend a lot of time talking about interesting but bizarre or absurd claims. Part of it is to understand why people believe really absurd bizarre things. How is it that people can come to conclusions that are so demonstrably false? What is the malfunction in the human brain that allows that to happen? So I do claim collectively for the Skeptics' Guide that this is an area of legitimate expertise of ours, that's something we always try to teach in these podcasts and to bring to bear in our analysis.<br />
<br />
J: One of the lines that you read, Steve, you said "You are acting as if you know everything, every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility." Well, you know what? We read up on these topics before we discuss them. We try to get as educated as we can in the time allowed and if that's us acting as if we know everything, well we do know our subject matter.<br />
<br />
S: There is a little bit of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_trebeck Alex Trebeck] syndrome in that we have the answers in front of us, which is why we can look smart sometimes. We just read up on it to prepare for the podcast! <br />
<br />
E: Yes, especially the neurological stuff!<br />
<br />
P: This letter is juvenile, I mean it's really, it's pathetic. Come on.<br />
<br />
S: But it's typical, but Perry it's very typical.<br />
<br />
P: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: I include it because I've heard all of these arguments a thousand times before in emails from other people. Let's go on to "Science or Fiction."<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(53.14)</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(1.06.02)</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4434SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T02:38:23Z<p>Hesterk: adding logical fallacy</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow [[July 4]]<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
The next email comes from Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
R: Wait, I know a Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: You do? Maybe it's the same person. <br />
<blockquote>This [http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html link] tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxyhttp://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm true] that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very interesting: What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky. I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the "energy levels" of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Perry is now probably liking this guy. It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest [http://www.ipcc.ch/ IPCC] report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics to maneuver. I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argue with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. Late congratulations on the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000<sup>th</sup> episode, 17.3 years from now.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, I'm not going to get into the global warming part of this, I haven't really heard that myself, I don't think anyone seriously is proposing that.<br />
<br />
B: No, it's pathetic.<br />
<br />
J: We don't need to talk about that anymore anyway. Come on, guys.<br />
<br />
R: I just want to mention that just today there was a report released saying that there was no link between cosmic rays and global warming.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, in fact Fraser Cain, who does the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_Cast Astronomy Cast] wrote an article for Wired Science and we can have the [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/ link] on the news page.<br />
<br />
S: The core claim that the sun in our solar system came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not native to the Milky Way has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait Phil Plait,] the [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Bad Astronomer,] has done a very thorough job of analyzing and debunking this claim on his blog which we'll [http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup link] to. So we don't have to have him on the show because I can just tell you what he wrote in his blog. Basically there's a lot of problems with this hypothesis. The first is that the sun is in fact in the plane of the galaxy. The stars from the Dwarf Galaxy, which is oblique to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, are not orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, they're orbiting at an angle. So right there pretty much rules out that the sun is from the Dwarf Galaxy. The second thing is that our sun has a ratio of heavy metals, like iron, that match the stars in the Milky Way and do not match the stars in the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. So just in composition it looks like a Milky Way star. Also the notion that the, so the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is in fact being cannibalized by the Milky Way - it's a smaller galaxy, two galaxies collide, if one's a lot bigger than the other, the big galaxy just eats the little galaxy, so that's what's happening. These stars are just being incorporated into the Milky Way. And where the sun is right now is kind of close to where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy's intersecting the Milky Way, but it's not right in the stream of stars. So it's actually far enough away that in fact that's an argument against us coming from the Sagittarius Galaxy. Also you have to note the fact that since we're revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, millions of years ago we would have been half-way around the galaxy from where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is. So our position is not objectively near the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, it's just kind of near now. But historically we would have been at every other point in the galactic disc away from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, so that's actually not a point in the favor of that position. <br />
<br />
E: Are there any points in favor?<br />
<br />
S: No! There's no line of argument that legitimately argues that the sun came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Then why argue it?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it was just an observation that "hey, we're kind of near where this galaxy is, maybe we came from that galaxy." But on closer inspection, the arguments don't pan out as I described.<br />
<br />
B: Also Steve, the other point that he was saying is that if you look at the Milky Way from the earth, if you have very little light pollution you'll see a huge, it's really fairly distinct and quite beautiful and that's basically just you looking towards the center of the Milky Way, with the stars so much more dense, you can see so many more stars and dust and all sorts of stuff. The plane of the Milky Way doesn't match the plane that the earth orbits our solar system or the way the earth orbits the sun, so this guy is trying to say that this has been a puzzle for astronomers for years, but really it's not a puzzle.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: The orientation of the plane of a solar system can be pretty much in any direction depending on numerous factors. It doesn't have to be in the plane of the galaxy itself, so that was one of the main premises that he started his article with, and it's clearly wrong.<br />
<br />
S: It's just a false premise. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>(42.52)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have one more email. This one is a follow-up to our piece from [[SGU_Episode_101 last week]] about the Belgium Skeptical Society being sued and on the brink of non-existence. This one comes from Anne Frid de Vries from the Netherlands and she writes: "Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court." And then she gives [http://anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html links to her blog] about it. She has the links to the podcast and she graciously links to the Skeptics' Guide and talks about the fact that Perry was - <br />
<br />
P: What's the name of this blog?<br />
<br />
S: The blog was, I can't quite make it out. What does that say?<br />
<br />
(laughter and muttering)<br />
<br />
J: Perry DeAngelis is tight!<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is tight.<br />
<br />
E: Perry DeAgeis is light.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is right. Basically, just to quickly reiterate, Sickesz is a woman who is promoting some kind of manipulative alternative medicine and the skeptical organization listed her as one of the top 20 quacks in the Netherlands. And they were sued for slander and the lawsuit was successful and part of the judgement was that they have to take out advertising all over the country saying that she's not a quack. And Perry made the point that if he ran a skeptical organization, he absolutely wouldn't spend a dime to advertise that somebody like her was legitimate or was not a quack. So Anne is basically agreeing with Perry, which I think we all also agree with him on that.<br />
<br />
P: It'd be a shame to lose 125 years history. Have to come up with a new company but it's worth it.<br />
<br />
S: We also had another email from somebody who's giving us some legal follow-up, who's saying that there is still an appeal left, they can appeal to the supreme court basically. He actually offered as a lawyer to give them any help but only if they're going to appeal the decision, and vowed not to give them any money if in fact they're going to use it on these advertisements, these court ordered advertisements.<br />
<br />
P: I sure hope they appeal.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. We'll have to continue to follow this case and hopefully they will appeal, hopefully justice will be done in the end. So again we'll have to keep an eye on this case.<br />
<br />
J: In her blog she writes in Dutch that Mrs Sickesz is a quack and it goes, I can't even pronounce this, it's funny, the quack in Dutch is "kwakzalver."<br />
<br />
S: Kwakzalver. They actually coined the term - the term kwakzalver is taken from the Dutch, so that term is actually -<br />
<br />
E: It was the original term.<br />
<br />
S: - originally a Dutch term. Kwakzalver.<br />
<br />
E: Benjamin Franklin referred to it way back when in some of his writing.<br />
<br />
S: Talking about mesmer?<br />
<br />
P: No doubt.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Way to allude to one of our first podcasts, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: So Perry, how does it feel to be written about?<br />
<br />
P: Well, I've been written about most of my life. Various medical institutions.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Psychiatric facilities.<br />
<br />
R: Speeding tickets.<br />
<br />
P: Nothing new.<br />
<br />
J: It's old hat to you, Perry.<br />
<br />
P: It is.<br />
<br />
E: Are you tired of being right, Perry?<br />
<br />
S: It is a burden to be right all the time, isn't it Perry?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Some of us are born to it.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>(46.24)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: We do have one "name that logical fallacy" this week. This is an email that was sent to us and we're going to use it as our "name that logical fallacy." This one comes from Athanasios Zacharakopoulos -<br />
<br />
R: Well done!<br />
<br />
S: - from Athens, Greece, and he writes "Hello guys! Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job.... To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance..."<br />
<br />
E: Ooooh.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning," when in many cases things are much more complex... You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question... Best regards." You have to be cautious before you send a really critical email to us because we just might use it in our "name that logical fallacy" section.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
(more laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Not because it's critical, we're open to logically valid criticism of course. But there are a couple of points in this email that are fairly typical. First of all, the fact that we analyze scientific claims and we pick out those that are especially egregious or dubious in order to expose them, doesn't, I think, equate to arrogance. It's like accusing every single movie critic of being arrogant, every type of critic of every kind of being arrogant. It's scientific analysis - this is what scientists do, and we're just bringing scientific analysis to those people who are essentially lurking in the shadows of science and trying to evade the critical light of science.<br />
<br />
The other point that he makes is, basically accusing our arguments, accusing us of using simplistic arguments and then just labeling them logical reasoning, when in many cases the topics are much more complex. And this is really just an unfounded accusation and it's a bit of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) non-sequitur.] It's also, in my opinion, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ad hominem] attack, because.. Essentially what he's doing, and I pointed this out to him, and I responded to his email and I pointed this out to him, is that we're open to criticism. If we've made a mis-statement of fact or if we have committed a logical fallacy in our arguments, point it out to us and if it's valid we'll make a correction, which we have done in the past. So I challenged him to do that and he actually couldn't do that in response. So what he's doing in this email is trying to focus on us personally - calling us "arrogant", that we "lack humility", that we're "simplistic" in our approach.<br />
<br />
R: All of which is true, don't get us wrong.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: True or not, it's still an ad hominem logical fallacy, rather than actually bringing up points that relate to any specific argument that we made. It's a very common tactic for dismissing criticism, just to attack the criticizer basically.<br />
<br />
R: And there's just the basic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man straw man] of saying that we act as if we know everything -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - on every subject matter. When we again and again and again say "all the evidence isn't in on this yet," or "this isn't my area of expertise but," you know, I think we're constantly trying to qualify ourselves.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly.<br />
<br />
R: And speaking personally, this entire podcast I've got like 7 things wrong thus far.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: So, we're definitely always admitting when we get things wrong. When people write in and clarify things for us, I think we're pretty open about all that. So i think that's definitely a straw man.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And also, when we get out of our area of expertise we try to distill the consensus of scientific opinion, not interject our own opinion. So we are not, I don't think that we are inappropriately setting ourselves up as experts in areas that we do not have expertise. <br />
<br />
What I did point out is that actually there is a certain type of expertise that we do bring to the entire endeavor at the Skeptics' Guide, in that we are, I believe, very experienced, even expert, skeptics. And skepticism is, in my opinion, a legitimate intellectual, even academic, area of interest, that brings together various disciplines that are very important. One is '''knowledge of logical fallacies''' - of logic in general, of how to make a valid argument. Another is '''mechanisms of self deception''' - the psychology and neurology of memory and perception and delusion and even stage illusion and magic. The '''nature of scientific research''' - of peer review, and replication etc. These various fields that we have endeavored to study and to become knowledgeable about and to bring them all together to give us the tools - the skeptical tools - to analyze claims to truth, especially those that are unusual, bizarre, on the fringe, on the borderlands of science. Sometimes we talk about things that are barely science but are legitimate even though they might at first seem unusual. And of course we spend a lot of time talking about interesting but bizarre or absurd claims. Part of it is to understand why people believe really absurd bizarre things. How is it that people can come to conclusions that are so demonstrably false? What is the malfunction in the human brain that allows that to happen? So I do claim collectively for the Skeptics' Guide that this is an area of legitimate expertise of ours, that's something we always try to teach in these podcasts and to bring to bear in our analysis.<br />
<br />
J: One of the lines that you read, Steve, you said "You are acting as if you know everything, every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility." Well, you know what? We read up on these topics before we discuss them. We try to get as educated as we can in the time allowed and if that's us acting as if we know everything, well we do know our subject matter.<br />
<br />
S: There is a little bit of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_trebeck Alex Trebeck] syndrome in that we have the answers in front of us, which is why we can look smart sometimes. We just read up on it to prepare for the podcast! <br />
<br />
E: Yes, especially the neurological stuff!<br />
<br />
P: This letter is juvenile, I mean it's really, it's pathetic. Come on.<br />
<br />
S: But it's typical, but Perry it's very typical.<br />
<br />
P: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: I include it because I've heard all of these arguments a thousand times before in emails from other people. Let's go on to "Science or Fiction."<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(53.14)</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4433SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T01:59:57Z<p>Hesterk: last news item</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow [[July 4]]<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
The next email comes from Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
R: Wait, I know a Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: You do? Maybe it's the same person. <br />
<blockquote>This [http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html link] tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxyhttp://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm true] that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very interesting: What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky. I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the "energy levels" of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Perry is now probably liking this guy. It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest [http://www.ipcc.ch/ IPCC] report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics to maneuver. I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argue with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. Late congratulations on the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000<sup>th</sup> episode, 17.3 years from now.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, I'm not going to get into the global warming part of this, I haven't really heard that myself, I don't think anyone seriously is proposing that.<br />
<br />
B: No, it's pathetic.<br />
<br />
J: We don't need to talk about that anymore anyway. Come on, guys.<br />
<br />
R: I just want to mention that just today there was a report released saying that there was no link between cosmic rays and global warming.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, in fact Fraser Cain, who does the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_Cast Astronomy Cast] wrote an article for Wired Science and we can have the [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/ link] on the news page.<br />
<br />
S: The core claim that the sun in our solar system came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not native to the Milky Way has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait Phil Plait,] the [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Bad Astronomer,] has done a very thorough job of analyzing and debunking this claim on his blog which we'll [http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup link] to. So we don't have to have him on the show because I can just tell you what he wrote in his blog. Basically there's a lot of problems with this hypothesis. The first is that the sun is in fact in the plane of the galaxy. The stars from the Dwarf Galaxy, which is oblique to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, are not orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, they're orbiting at an angle. So right there pretty much rules out that the sun is from the Dwarf Galaxy. The second thing is that our sun has a ratio of heavy metals, like iron, that match the stars in the Milky Way and do not match the stars in the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. So just in composition it looks like a Milky Way star. Also the notion that the, so the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is in fact being cannibalized by the Milky Way - it's a smaller galaxy, two galaxies collide, if one's a lot bigger than the other, the big galaxy just eats the little galaxy, so that's what's happening. These stars are just being incorporated into the Milky Way. And where the sun is right now is kind of close to where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy's intersecting the Milky Way, but it's not right in the stream of stars. So it's actually far enough away that in fact that's an argument against us coming from the Sagittarius Galaxy. Also you have to note the fact that since we're revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, millions of years ago we would have been half-way around the galaxy from where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is. So our position is not objectively near the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, it's just kind of near now. But historically we would have been at every other point in the galactic disc away from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, so that's actually not a point in the favor of that position. <br />
<br />
E: Are there any points in favor?<br />
<br />
S: No! There's no line of argument that legitimately argues that the sun came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Then why argue it?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it was just an observation that "hey, we're kind of near where this galaxy is, maybe we came from that galaxy." But on closer inspection, the arguments don't pan out as I described.<br />
<br />
B: Also Steve, the other point that he was saying is that if you look at the Milky Way from the earth, if you have very little light pollution you'll see a huge, it's really fairly distinct and quite beautiful and that's basically just you looking towards the center of the Milky Way, with the stars so much more dense, you can see so many more stars and dust and all sorts of stuff. The plane of the Milky Way doesn't match the plane that the earth orbits our solar system or the way the earth orbits the sun, so this guy is trying to say that this has been a puzzle for astronomers for years, but really it's not a puzzle.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: The orientation of the plane of a solar system can be pretty much in any direction depending on numerous factors. It doesn't have to be in the plane of the galaxy itself, so that was one of the main premises that he started his article with, and it's clearly wrong.<br />
<br />
S: It's just a false premise. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>(42.52)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have one more email. This one is a follow-up to our piece from [[SGU_Episode_101 last week]] about the Belgium Skeptical Society being sued and on the brink of non-existence. This one comes from Anne Frid de Vries from the Netherlands and she writes: "Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court." And then she gives [http://anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html links to her blog] about it. She has the links to the podcast and she graciously links to the Skeptics' Guide and talks about the fact that Perry was - <br />
<br />
P: What's the name of this blog?<br />
<br />
S: The blog was, I can't quite make it out. What does that say?<br />
<br />
(laughter and muttering)<br />
<br />
J: Perry DeAngelis is tight!<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is tight.<br />
<br />
E: Perry DeAgeis is light.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis is right. Basically, just to quickly reiterate, Sickesz is a woman who is promoting some kind of manipulative alternative medicine and the skeptical organization listed her as one of the top 20 quacks in the Netherlands. And they were sued for slander and the lawsuit was successful and part of the judgement was that they have to take out advertising all over the country saying that she's not a quack. And Perry made the point that if he ran a skeptical organization, he absolutely wouldn't spend a dime to advertise that somebody like her was legitimate or was not a quack. So Anne is basically agreeing with Perry, which I think we all also agree with him on that.<br />
<br />
P: It'd be a shame to lose 125 years history. Have to come up with a new company but it's worth it.<br />
<br />
S: We also had another email from somebody who's giving us some legal follow-up, who's saying that there is still an appeal left, they can appeal to the supreme court basically. He actually offered as a lawyer to give them any help but only if they're going to appeal the decision, and vowed not to give them any money if in fact they're going to use it on these advertisements, these court ordered advertisements.<br />
<br />
P: I sure hope they appeal.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. We'll have to continue to follow this case and hopefully they will appeal, hopefully justice will be done in the end. So again we'll have to keep an eye on this case.<br />
<br />
J: In her blog she writes in Dutch that Mrs Sickesz is a quack and it goes, I can't even pronounce this, it's funny, the quack in Dutch is "kwakzalver."<br />
<br />
S: Kwakzalver. They actually coined the term - the term kwakzalver is taken from the Dutch, so that term is actually -<br />
<br />
E: It was the original term.<br />
<br />
S: - originally a Dutch term. Kwakzalver.<br />
<br />
E: Benjamin Franklin referred to it way back when in some of his writing.<br />
<br />
S: Talking about mesmer?<br />
<br />
P: No doubt.<br />
<br />
S: Probably.<br />
<br />
E: Way to allude to one of our first podcasts, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: So Perry, how does it feel to be written about?<br />
<br />
P: Well, I've been written about most of my life. Various medical institutions.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Psychiatric facilities.<br />
<br />
R: ?Parking tickets?<br />
<br />
P: Nothing new.<br />
<br />
J: It's old hat to you, Perry.<br />
<br />
P: It is.<br />
<br />
E: Are you tired of being right, Perry?<br />
<br />
S: It is a burden to be right all the time, isn't it Perry?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: Some of us are born to it.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Hello guys! <br />
<br />
Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because<br />
of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job....<br />
<br />
To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance...<br />
<br />
You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning", when in many cases things are much more complex...<br />
<br />
You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...<br />
<br />
The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question...<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Athanasios Zacharakopoulos<br />
<br />
Athens, Greece<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4432SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T01:38:37Z<p>Hesterk: adding sagittarius</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow [[July 4]]<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
The next email comes from Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
R: Wait, I know a Petrucio from Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: You do? Maybe it's the same person. <br />
<blockquote>This [http://viewzone.com/milkyway.html link] tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxyhttp://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm true] that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very interesting: What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky. I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the "energy levels" of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Perry is now probably liking this guy. It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest [http://www.ipcc.ch/ IPCC] report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics to maneuver. I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argue with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. Late congratulations on the 100<sup>th</sup> episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000<sup>th</sup> episode, 17.3 years from now.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, I'm not going to get into the global warming part of this, I haven't really heard that myself, I don't think anyone seriously is proposing that.<br />
<br />
B: No, it's pathetic.<br />
<br />
J: We don't need to talk about that anymore anyway. Come on, guys.<br />
<br />
R: I just want to mention that just today there was a report released saying that there was no link between cosmic rays and global warming.<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, in fact Fraser Cain, who does the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_Cast Astronomy Cast] wrote an article for Wired Science and we can have the [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between/ link] on the news page.<br />
<br />
S: The core claim that the sun in our solar system came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and is not native to the Milky Way has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait Phil Plait,] the [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Bad Astronomer,] has done a very thorough job of analyzing and debunking this claim on his blog which we'll [http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup link] to. So we don't have to have him on the show because I can just tell you what he wrote in his blog. Basically there's a lot of problems with this hypothesis. The first is that the sun is in fact in the plane of the galaxy. The stars from the Dwarf Galaxy, which is oblique to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, are not orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, they're orbiting at an angle. So right there pretty much rules out that the sun is from the Dwarf Galaxy. The second thing is that our sun has a ratio of heavy metals, like iron, that match the stars in the Milky Way and do not match the stars in the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy. So just in composition it looks like a Milky Way star. Also the notion that the, so the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is in fact being cannibalized by the Milky Way - it's a smaller galaxy, two galaxies collide, if one's a lot bigger than the other, the big galaxy just eats the little galaxy, so that's what's happening. These stars are just being incorporated into the Milky Way. And where the sun is right now is kind of close to where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy's intersecting the Milky Way, but it's not right in the stream of stars. So it's actually far enough away that in fact that's an argument against us coming from the Sagittarius Galaxy. Also you have to note the fact that since we're revolving around the Milky Way galaxy, millions of years ago we would have been half-way around the galaxy from where the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is. So our position is not objectively near the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, it's just kind of near now. But historically we would have been at every other point in the galactic disc away from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, so that's actually not a point in the favor of that position. <br />
<br />
E: Are there any points in favor?<br />
<br />
S: No! There's no line of argument that legitimately argues that the sun came from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.<br />
<br />
E: Right. Then why argue it?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it was just an observation that "hey, we're kind of near where this galaxy is, maybe we came from that galaxy." But on closer inspection, the arguments don't pan out as I described.<br />
<br />
B: Also Steve, the other point that he was saying is that if you look at the Milky Way from the earth, if you have very little light pollution you'll see a huge, it's really fairly distinct and quite beautiful and that's basically just you looking towards the center of the Milky Way, with the stars so much more dense, you can see so many more stars and dust and all sorts of stuff. The plane of the Milky Way doesn't match the plane that the earth orbits our solar system or the way the earth orbits the sun, so this guy is trying to say that this has been a puzzle for astronomers for years, but really it's not a puzzle.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: The orientation of the plane of a solar system can be pretty much in any direction depending on numerous factors. It doesn't have to be in the plane of the galaxy itself, so that was one of the main premises that he started his article with, and it's clearly wrong.<br />
<br />
S: It's just a false premise. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>(42.52)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: We have one more email. This one is a follow-up to our piece from last week about the Belgium Skeptical Society being sued and on the brink of non-existence. This<br />
<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Hello guys! <br />
<br />
Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because<br />
of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job....<br />
<br />
To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance...<br />
<br />
You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning", when in many cases things are much more complex...<br />
<br />
You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...<br />
<br />
The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question...<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Athanasios Zacharakopoulos<br />
<br />
Athens, Greece<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4426SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T00:08:19Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow July 4<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
This link: viewzone.com/milkyway.html tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is true that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very<br />
interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxy <br />
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm <br />
<br />
What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky.<br />
<br />
I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the 'energy levels' of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Parry is now probably liking this guy.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest IPCC report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics (I think Parry is one of them) to maneuver. <br />
<br />
I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argument with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. <br />
<br />
Late congratulations on the 100th episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000th, 17.3 years from now.<br />
<br />
Petrucio<br />
Brazil<br />
<br />
Bad Astronomy Blog entry on this topic: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup/<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br />
Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court.<br />
<br />
I have blogged about this at:<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
Anne Frid de Vries<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Hello guys! <br />
<br />
Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because<br />
of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job....<br />
<br />
To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance...<br />
<br />
You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning", when in many cases things are much more complex...<br />
<br />
You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...<br />
<br />
The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question...<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Athanasios Zacharakopoulos<br />
<br />
Athens, Greece<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4424SGU Episode 1022012-10-29T00:07:29Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow July 4<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Adam Finley in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And Adam writes "My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor. I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand: My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain. I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense." I'm fairly certain about that too. (laughter) "However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve, can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?"<br />
<br />
R: Without killing the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah without killing the baby. "My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stimulated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body."<br />
<br />
P: A little lower baby.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance. Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle."<br />
<br />
E: Oh God.<br />
<br />
S: "I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though."<br />
<br />
P: A two-month old!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: I hate this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: There's a lot of safety data on manipulation of two-months old. So obviously we've talked about chiropractic before. I think this is one of the worst aspects of unscientific chiropractors - the manipulation of infants and the treatment of colic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_colic Colic] is basically -<br />
<br />
E: What is colic?<br />
<br />
S: It's a very vague nonspecific syndrome which is basically a fussy crying baby when you can't figure out what's causing it.<br />
<br />
E: Right. <br />
<br />
S: Lumped in, it's just called colic. It's not really a specific medical entity. It's thought that it's like abdominal discomfort.<br />
<br />
E: It's just how the baby's behaving?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically a colicy baby is just a fussy baby that cries all the time. And the suspicion is that it's mainly gastrointestinal discomfort but that's not really proven. Babies obviously can't tell us what they're really feeling, they just experience discomfort and cry, so it can be a very frustrating situation for the parents and for the baby. Some parents may struggle for a very long time to get their baby to be happy and quiet and it can be a serious problem in some cases. But there's no reason to assume that it's a pinched nerve. In fact it's very unlikely. Babies' spinal columns and their bones in general are very flexible. The haven't had enough time to form any degenerative changes or any boney kinds of changes. It would have to be some very specific pathology to be causing an actual pinched nerve in the spine. There's no evidence that manipulating the spine can un-pinch a nerve. In fact, an actual pinched nerve is a contra-indication to back manipulation.<br />
<br />
R: Can you, what's a contra-indication?<br />
<br />
S: It means you shouldn't do it.<br />
<br />
R: Okay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You're likely to make it worse.<br />
<br />
R: I was trying to clarify.<br />
<br />
S: You'll cause more damage to the nerve by doing that. Before we give physical therapy or any kind of manipulation you always have to clear a patient to prove they ''don't'' have nerve compression at the spine before you do that. To emphasize, there's no evidence that chiropractic manipulation can un-pinch nerves. And there's also no evidence that what they treat is due to pinched nerves.<br />
<br />
J: Can I read something for you from this website called colichelp.com? "As your child is being born, the neck and back vertebrate can go out of alignment due to the stretching and compressing of the body as it emerges into the world. If your delivery included a prolonged pushing stage, forceps or vacuum extraction or other forms of assisted delivery, the chances of a misalignment are great." What do you think of that?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: That's a chiro website obviously.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they just make that up out of whole cloth. So because colic is a frustrating poorly understood entity, it becomes a lightning rod for quackery. Anybody with something to sell can sell can claim it treats colic, just like arthritis, asthma -<br />
<br />
J: Fatigue<br />
<br />
R: In this case even more so because your'e combining something that is not well-known and well-studied, or maybe well-studied but not well-known, with the fact that it's parents who are freaking out about the baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: That's what parents do, they're highly protective and they're going to do anything they can to treat the baby as well as they can.<br />
<br />
P: But why take it to a freaking chiropractor? This woman's dragging her 2-month-old to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
S: Desperation.<br />
<br />
R: Because, Perry, they're going online and they're reading things like what Jay just read and they're saying "oh, well, yeah, that kinda makes sense and that must be it."<br />
<br />
J: You know, Adam's sister, she just doesn't have the information. She doesn't know. Most people out there don't know.<br />
<br />
S: So there are a lot of desperate parents out there who are looking for alternatives and they find that kind of nonsense online and they'll try it out of desperation and eventually something's going to work because eventually it stops.<br />
<br />
R: And when they see a chiropractor, they're not thinking quack, they're thinking it's a doctor -<br />
<br />
J: They're thinking medical doctor.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: "This is somebody who is not going to do something dangerous to my child." So they're probably thinking that worst case scenario, they take it to the chiropractor and whatever is wrong with the baby is not fixed. That's worst case scenario. They don't really imagine the worst worst case scenario which is that the chiropractor could serious mess up this baby.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, well fortunately babies are pretty flexible and they're not as easily injured as adults are, so they probably weather it ok. The other thing is if the chiropractors are gentle then they're probably not doing anything. Not that if they do something it actually works, but at least, I'd rather have them do nothing than do something harmful.<br />
<br />
E: But gee, to trust your 2-month-old baby in the hands of a non-physician. <br />
<br />
J: Well, you basically, Evan, say it like it is - in the hands of most-likely a person who believes in magic.<br />
<br />
S: Who has a very bizarre belief system that is not based upon science or reason.<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>(37.15)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next email comes from Petrucio.<br />
<br />
This link: viewzone.com/milkyway.html tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is true that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very<br />
interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxy <br />
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm <br />
<br />
What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky.<br />
<br />
I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the 'energy levels' of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Parry is now probably liking this guy.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest IPCC report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics (I think Parry is one of them) to maneuver. <br />
<br />
I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argument with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. <br />
<br />
Late congratulations on the 100th episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000th, 17.3 years from now.<br />
<br />
Petrucio<br />
Brazil<br />
<br />
Bad Astronomy Blog entry on this topic: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup/<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br />
Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court.<br />
<br />
I have blogged about this at:<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
Anne Frid de Vries<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Hello guys! <br />
<br />
Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because<br />
of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job....<br />
<br />
To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance...<br />
<br />
You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning", when in many cases things are much more complex...<br />
<br />
You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...<br />
<br />
The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question...<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Athanasios Zacharakopoulos<br />
<br />
Athens, Greece<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4415SGU Episode 1022012-10-28T23:34:23Z<p>Hesterk: adding questions</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow July 4<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] down there.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(26.36)</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>(26.36)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Well let's move on to your emails. The first email comes from Christopher who insists that we do not shorten his name to Chris. And Christopher writes "Hello my skeptic warriors. I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois."<br />
<br />
J: I like that!<br />
<br />
E: I do too.<br />
<br />
S: He gets points for that. <br />
<br />
P: I'm like a comic book guy.<br />
<br />
E: I have a +1 mace of reason!<br />
<br />
R: Oh my God. I knew that was coming. (moaning)<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca! You never play D&D?<br />
<br />
R: No I've never played D&D.<br />
<br />
J: Give me a break, of course you have.<br />
<br />
P: She's a vegetarian hippy. She's not allowed to play D&D.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: "Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcasts. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show." Actually we never get enough, so. "It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners." Here's the question. Actually it's a very long question in two parts, but I'm going to just read part of it.<br />
<br />
(laughter, moans) <br />
<br />
E: Condense it.<br />
<br />
P: I've only one question in 47 parts.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me" - I'm sure it frustrates him too - "since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites." <br />
<br />
So that's his basic question: does a latest condom protect against the transmission of HIV. He had trouble finding reliable data on the internet. All he found were religious websites saying that it doesn't work. Well, the [http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm CDC] has information on this, with actual scientific information. <br />
<br />
E: That's the Center for Disease Control.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the CDC is the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Actually I recently was reading an article where I discovered why the CDC was created in the first place and why it was located in Atlanta Georgia. Does anybody know?<br />
<br />
All: Ah, um.<br />
<br />
S: Science trivia question.<br />
<br />
J: They like jambalaya?<br />
<br />
E: To protect people against social diseases?<br />
<br />
B: Was it the Spanish Flu, Steve?<br />
<br />
E: Coca cola?<br />
<br />
S: No, malaria. It was formed as a part of the war on malaria in the southern United States, which actually worked quite well because we eradicated malaria from the southern USA. It is the center for all infectious and transmissible diseases, including HIV. On their website they have some pretty good information that shows that latex condoms are actually quite effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Of course, nothing is 100% effective.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah. The idea that latex condoms don't prevent HIV is extremist religious propaganda and it's one of those things that just does so much more harm than good, especially in places like Africa where they're telling people that not only does it not help but they're saying that it's actually causing the spread of HIV and AIDS. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So people are not using condoms and it's just so stupidly misguided that it makes me want to -<br />
<br />
J: It's criminal<br />
<br />
R: - throttle someone.<br />
<br />
S: Deliberate misinformation and it kills. <br />
<br />
R: Condoms save lives.<br />
<br />
S: The body count attached with this nonsense. So It is true that nothing is 100% except total abstinence but using latex condoms is a highly effective method for preventing the transmission of HIV so that is utter misinformation.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, so give your friend this website and if he still doesn't want to have sex, then you're just going to have to find someone else. Give it up.<br />
<br />
J: I think that guy's using it as an excuse 'cos he can't get any ladies. I'm afraid of AIDS so I won't have sex.<br />
<br />
S: I don't think that's it.<br />
<br />
J: You just can't find a woman, Jack.<br />
<br />
S: Does that excuse work for you Jay?<br />
<br />
J: Anyone who knows me knows that that's not even funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: He had no comeback. Burn.<br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>(30.46)</small>===<br />
<br />
<br />
My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand:<br />
<br />
My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain.<br />
<br />
I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense.<br />
<br />
However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve (the type of nerve that can cause pain if pinched), can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?<br />
<br />
My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stiumlated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body.<br />
<br />
I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance.<br />
<br />
Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though.<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
Adam Finley<br />
Minneapolis, Minnesota<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
This link: viewzone.com/milkyway.html tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is true that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very<br />
interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxy <br />
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm <br />
<br />
What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky.<br />
<br />
I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the 'energy levels' of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Parry is now probably liking this guy.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest IPCC report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics (I think Parry is one of them) to maneuver. <br />
<br />
I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argument with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. <br />
<br />
Late congratulations on the 100th episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000th, 17.3 years from now.<br />
<br />
Petrucio<br />
Brazil<br />
<br />
Bad Astronomy Blog entry on this topic: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup/<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br />
Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court.<br />
<br />
I have blogged about this at:<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
Anne Frid de Vries<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Hello guys! <br />
<br />
Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because<br />
of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job....<br />
<br />
To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance...<br />
<br />
You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning", when in many cases things are much more complex...<br />
<br />
You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...<br />
<br />
The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question...<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Athanasios Zacharakopoulos<br />
<br />
Athens, Greece<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4414SGU Episode 1022012-10-28T23:03:27Z<p>Hesterk: adding rest of news</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow July 4<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item also involves a similar kind of interpretation of similar types of study. This one however looking in the legal realm. "US Juries Get Verdict Wrong in 1 in 6 Cases" is the title of the study.<ref>The study by Jack Heinz and Bruce Spencer was supposed to be published in the July 2007 issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies but is not listed in online contents. All blog stories point to a now gone [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1 Breitbart] story.</ref> This study was done out of Northwestern University and they looked at a number of criminal trials, not capital cases, from four different major cities between the years 2000 and 2001, and they found that when judges handed down a verdict that they were mistaken in 12% of the cases and that jury verdicts were wrong in 17% of the cases. So again, pretty similar numbers, a little bit higher in the jury, about 1 in 6 cases. Also very interestingly, they found that the mistake was more often in the direction of convicting an innocent person than setting the guilty free, which is contradictory to the philosophy of our American judicial system which is to basically favor the error the other way, to -<br />
<br />
R: Yeah -<br />
<br />
S: Rather setting guilty people free than imprisoning the innocent.<br />
<br />
R: In the article that we'll probably link to from the news page I thought it was really interesting that it actually says "the good news is that the guilty didn't have a great chance of getting off.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Are you actually reading what you're writing? It's not good news, this isn't good news at all.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, there are some systems where the error's supposed to be biased in one direction. In the judicial system it's supposed to be biased towards not convicting innocent people, so this is the opposite of what it's supposed to be. What I found really interesting about this whole approach is, first of all it showed that it's plausible to look at outcome-measures of the system, of jury and judge decisions. And I do think that systems like this do need to have the same kind of quality control feedback that science in general has, so that we can see how well is it actually working and then take steps to improve it and then see how those steps work and then that way the system can evolve and become better and better, just like science does.<br />
<br />
R: And just to clarify, Steve, so people know the way they figured out -<br />
<br />
B: Right, what's right and wrong.<br />
<br />
R: They did that by comparing the amount of times that judges and juries disagreed on a verdict. And I think that figure was something like 77%.<br />
<br />
S: The agreement rate was 77%. <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, they agreed, that's a huge amount of times that they're disagreeing, so figuring that one party must be wrong, that's how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, although I couldn't figure out from the information that we have - because this is a yet-to-be-published study so we don't have the full details - is when they disagreed, they knew that one of them had to be wrong, but how did they figure out which one was wrong?<br />
<br />
R: I'm assuming that they went with the last one -<br />
<br />
S: The more recent one they assumed was the correct one?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: Since we know there are errors because someone confesses later or there is DNA evidence.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, but did they use those criteria in this study, that's what I -<br />
<br />
B: No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
R: No, I don't think that they would have that as a tool to use every time.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I think the only criterium was the fact that there was discrepancy between what the judge said and what the jury said.<br />
<br />
S: That's what it sounds like.<br />
<br />
P: It's a tough thing to study. They did this with 290 cases and it's impressive that they even tried. 'Cos it is a tough thing to study and then really again at the end of just this piece they said "ok, assume this is all correct and it's happening, what's the fix?"<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
P: And they said that's a lot tougher.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And they think it's mostly because if you have gone this far in a trial, people assume that you're probably guilty.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, you're right Perry, I mean just think about it. I would think I'd have to do something so heinous to get that far.<br />
<br />
S: The other factor is that it's probably true, and certainly I've heard this as the "conventional wisdom," that most people who get arrested and find themselves in front of a jury or a judge probably have committed other crimes, and their criminal behavior's probably not isolated to that incident that got them into the courtroom in the first place. And some juries or judges may convict people because they figure they're probably guilty of something.<br />
<br />
E: Pre-conceived notion.<br />
<br />
S: Even though the evidence may not support their guilt on this particular crime, but, I'm not defending this, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is appropriate, but I'm saying this is probably one of the biases that is shifting the system in this direction. But how do you fix that? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: Robo-cop.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Robo-cop? Judge Dredd? I don't know.<br />
<br />
R: I'm pretty sure he was never wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Judge, jury and executioner.<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>(22.31)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: One more news item. This one comes from the UK. This is funny.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: The Church of England bishops have been warning society that "immorality and greed of modern society is what has brought floods as the judgement of God down upon us."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm Daily Telegraph]</ref><br />
<br />
J: I love this article.<br />
<br />
R: It's 100% true. There's no other explanation.<br />
<br />
S: So they said "this is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." That's interesting. So God's mad at us for causing environmental damage so he sends floods?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "I'll show you environmental damage!"<br />
<br />
P: And then he compares society to ancient Rome. What are you talking about?<br />
<br />
S: I found that funny because the Roman Empire actually survived much longer -<br />
<br />
P: Right!<br />
<br />
S: - than the average empire, so that means that God must have really liked Rome.<br />
<br />
J: Why?<br />
<br />
S: To let it survive as long as it did.<br />
<br />
J: I never understand the whole "God will take his revenge, God will show us" and he kills all of these innocent people and kids and old people. It's like, if God's going to do something like that, the innocent end up getting punished.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And they say, they make some comment about that, he said that the problem with environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate.<br />
<br />
E: Aha.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you should take that up with your god. Just a thought.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, how about some more precise bolts of lightning striking individuals or something.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, those were the good old days.<br />
<br />
E: Or some really big solar flares would be cool.<br />
<br />
J: I noticed that God didn't get even with the church for having sex with all those little boys though. So he's inconsistent as well.<br />
<br />
E: No.<br />
<br />
S: Ah, the tolerance of homosexuality is high on their list of why God is pissed off at us.<br />
<br />
P: That is in here. But Jay, that of course was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic Roman Catholics,] okay, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_england Anglicans,] so let's not mix our people up.<br />
<br />
J: What are they - <br />
<br />
E: Get your Roman popery out of this.<br />
<br />
P: This is a quote from the Right Reverend Jim Jones, interesting name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
P: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God." He says "We are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way, then we there are going to be consequences." It's good to know. That was from the Reverend Jim Jones. (laughs)<br />
<br />
J: St Peter's coming!<br />
<br />
E: Before or after everyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_aid#In_popular_culture drank the Kool-Aid?]<br />
<br />
J: I've got a couple good quotes here. The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association's chairman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Herrick Jim Herrick] came out with a couple good zingers. He said "the bishop's comments reveal a primitive superstitious mind that belongs in the Bronze Age." And he said "No wonder people are abandoning the Church of England in such huge numbers when it is led by silly people like him."<br />
<br />
R: See that's how God is punishing the church for all that pedophilia, he's converting everybody to unbelievers. Take that!<br />
<br />
P: That's right!<br />
<br />
R: Makes about as much sense as anything else they claim he does.<br />
<br />
S: Obviously the logic behind all of this is terrible. It's like "whatever happens, it was God's will, and God did it." If there's a flood, if there's no flood or whatever. Of course they can draw any correlation they want and rationalize it any way that they please, which is of course why it's utterly meaningless. But it is medieval superstition. Fire and brimstone kind of, beware of the wrath of God.<br />
<br />
J: It's riddled with that fear thing. Fear of God.<br />
<br />
E: God-fearing.<br />
<br />
P: And the end of the piece they shove Katrina in here too, you know.<br />
<br />
S: Of course.<br />
<br />
R: Wasn't that what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell Jerry Falwell] was all about.<br />
<br />
E: Ubiquitous.<br />
<br />
P: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_graham Billy Graham] actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham Franklin Graham,] Billy Graham's son: "there's been satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."<br />
<br />
S: It's a regular [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah Sodom and Gomorrah] then.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Hello my skeptic warriors,<br />
<br />
I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois. Well close enough at least. Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcast's. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show. It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners. <br />
<br />
I do not have a microphone so an email will have to do. <br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
<br />
There are two parts to this question.<br />
<br />
I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites. <br />
<br />
Also, even if you have unprotected sex with someone that is HIV positive, is it true that it is not a for sure thing that you will get HIV. I am sure the risks are extremely high, but as I hear Penn and Teller say on their abstinence episode, it exposes you to a 1 and 500 risk. Is that true or pretty close? My good friend common sense tells me that they are close.<br />
<br />
One more thing you do not need to read off but if you must...this friend of mine works in a hospital as a computer technician, but he ignorantly will not talk with real doctors about this matter. He has a few views I disagree with. He believes in ghosts from personal experiences when he as 7...and he thinks the whole field of psychology is, for lack of a better word, crap. I feel there is hope with him, but I need some better proof that this myth is bunk. Then I will work on his waking dreams he has told me about, er I mean his ghostly experiences.<br />
<br />
I really hope you can answer my question (on or off the show). As I know, you have young listeners that listen to this show. I do not want the school's ignorance only, er I mean abstinence only education to scare people out of having sex. Which I fear is happening in some or most our schools these days. Sex is a wonderful and beautiful experience. Sadly control freaks want to scare us out of doing such, "sinful" things. <br />
<br />
Am I right to think, that using condoms properly greatly reduces your changes of getting an STD, but most importantly, that the evil HIV that cannot pass through the holes of latex condoms?<br />
<br />
Thanks guys, peace,<br />
<br />
Christopher...NOT Chris!<br />
<br />
My links I found that were good enough for me:<br />
http://www.everything-condoms.com/condom_qanda/condoms_protect_against_std.htm<br />
http://www.communityactionkit.org/pdfs/Getting_Ready_To_Advocate/Debunking_C ondoms.html<br />
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm <br />
http://www.unknownnews.net/031010vatican.html<br />
<br />
From Steve's reply to Christopher: Here is a review of the evidence by the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm <br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand:<br />
<br />
My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain.<br />
<br />
I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense.<br />
<br />
However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve (the type of nerve that can cause pain if pinched), can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?<br />
<br />
My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stiumlated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body.<br />
<br />
I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance.<br />
<br />
Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though.<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
Adam Finley<br />
Minneapolis, Minnesota<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
This link: viewzone.com/milkyway.html tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is true that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very<br />
interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxy <br />
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm <br />
<br />
What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky.<br />
<br />
I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the 'energy levels' of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Parry is now probably liking this guy.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest IPCC report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics (I think Parry is one of them) to maneuver. <br />
<br />
I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argument with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. <br />
<br />
Late congratulations on the 100th episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000th, 17.3 years from now.<br />
<br />
Petrucio<br />
Brazil<br />
<br />
Bad Astronomy Blog entry on this topic: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup/<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br />
Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court.<br />
<br />
I have blogged about this at:<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
Anne Frid de Vries<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Hello guys! <br />
<br />
Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because<br />
of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job....<br />
<br />
To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance...<br />
<br />
You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning", when in many cases things are much more complex...<br />
<br />
You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...<br />
<br />
The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question...<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Athanasios Zacharakopoulos<br />
<br />
Athens, Greece<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4413SGU Episode 1022012-10-28T21:10:00Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow July 4<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Hello my skeptic warriors,<br />
<br />
I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois. Well close enough at least. Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcast's. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show. It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners. <br />
<br />
I do not have a microphone so an email will have to do. <br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
<br />
There are two parts to this question.<br />
<br />
I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites. <br />
<br />
Also, even if you have unprotected sex with someone that is HIV positive, is it true that it is not a for sure thing that you will get HIV. I am sure the risks are extremely high, but as I hear Penn and Teller say on their abstinence episode, it exposes you to a 1 and 500 risk. Is that true or pretty close? My good friend common sense tells me that they are close.<br />
<br />
One more thing you do not need to read off but if you must...this friend of mine works in a hospital as a computer technician, but he ignorantly will not talk with real doctors about this matter. He has a few views I disagree with. He believes in ghosts from personal experiences when he as 7...and he thinks the whole field of psychology is, for lack of a better word, crap. I feel there is hope with him, but I need some better proof that this myth is bunk. Then I will work on his waking dreams he has told me about, er I mean his ghostly experiences.<br />
<br />
I really hope you can answer my question (on or off the show). As I know, you have young listeners that listen to this show. I do not want the school's ignorance only, er I mean abstinence only education to scare people out of having sex. Which I fear is happening in some or most our schools these days. Sex is a wonderful and beautiful experience. Sadly control freaks want to scare us out of doing such, "sinful" things. <br />
<br />
Am I right to think, that using condoms properly greatly reduces your changes of getting an STD, but most importantly, that the evil HIV that cannot pass through the holes of latex condoms?<br />
<br />
Thanks guys, peace,<br />
<br />
Christopher...NOT Chris!<br />
<br />
My links I found that were good enough for me:<br />
http://www.everything-condoms.com/condom_qanda/condoms_protect_against_std.htm<br />
http://www.communityactionkit.org/pdfs/Getting_Ready_To_Advocate/Debunking_C ondoms.html<br />
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm <br />
http://www.unknownnews.net/031010vatican.html<br />
<br />
From Steve's reply to Christopher: Here is a review of the evidence by the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm <br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand:<br />
<br />
My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain.<br />
<br />
I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense.<br />
<br />
However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve (the type of nerve that can cause pain if pinched), can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?<br />
<br />
My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stiumlated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body.<br />
<br />
I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance.<br />
<br />
Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though.<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
Adam Finley<br />
Minneapolis, Minnesota<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
This link: viewzone.com/milkyway.html tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is true that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very<br />
interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxy <br />
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm <br />
<br />
What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky.<br />
<br />
I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the 'energy levels' of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Parry is now probably liking this guy.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest IPCC report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics (I think Parry is one of them) to maneuver. <br />
<br />
I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argument with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. <br />
<br />
Late congratulations on the 100th episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000th, 17.3 years from now.<br />
<br />
Petrucio<br />
Brazil<br />
<br />
Bad Astronomy Blog entry on this topic: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup/<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br />
Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court.<br />
<br />
I have blogged about this at:<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
Anne Frid de Vries<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Hello guys! <br />
<br />
Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because<br />
of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job....<br />
<br />
To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance...<br />
<br />
You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning", when in many cases things are much more complex...<br />
<br />
You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...<br />
<br />
The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question...<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Athanasios Zacharakopoulos<br />
<br />
Athens, Greece<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4412SGU Episode 1022012-10-28T21:06:57Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow July 4<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html\ blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Alrighty. The other herbal news has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinacea echinacea.] There is a recent [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(07)70160-3/abstract meta-analysis,] ooh, it's almost a bad word on this podcast -<br />
<br />
R: You know how we feel about those.<br />
<br />
S: - published, looking at 14 studies, looking at the efficacy of echinacea as an herbal extract or herbal supplement in the treatment of the common cold. And the researchers concluded from the meta-analysis that the research supports the use of echinacea for the treatment of the common cold, that it reduces both the risk of getting the cold and the duration of the cold if you do get it. Of course this has been now widely touted in the media <ref>[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm BBC]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY Bloomberg]</ref> and of course by people who sell echinacea and promote herbs in general as the vindication or evidence that echinacea actually works. But the lay media has basically missed the point that this is not new evidence - this is just a re-analysis of old evidence, and it's not a particularly good analysis or re-analysis of this data because all of the weaknesses of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis meta-analysis] are in play: these are different studies with different preparations, different outcomes. They did try to use reasonable selection criteria, (only the abstract has been published at this point, I could't find the entire article at the time we're recording this, this was sort of a pre-online publication, press release with the abstract, so the full paper's not available yet,) but from what I can find, they made the reasonable attempts to do a decent meta-analysis but the problem is in the data itself - that these 14 studies have serious problems. A meta-analysis is just the wrong way to look at this complex set of data. This is the kind of thing that's generally missed outside of epidemiologists or researchers or medical experts, that when you have a question such as this, such as "do preparations of echinacea treat the common cold?" and the research evolves over many years with different kinds of studies getting done and then those studies get criticized, better studies are designed and then hopefully eventually you have some large, well-designed consensus trials where the results are robust and fairly definitive. Those kinds of trials, those placebo-controlled, what we call "Class 1 Trials" have been done with echinacea and they were all ''negative'' - all of the recent studies that have the best design were in fact negative. A couple years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published an excellent [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa044441 study] looking at three different preparations of echinacea with an experimental form of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_virus rhinovirus] (that's a common virus causing the cold) and showed absolutely no effect in any outcome measure of the echinacea.<br />
<br />
B: To that point, Dr. [http://pharmacy.uconn.edu/craig-coleman/ Craig Coleman] of the University of Connecticut, regarding that point he said that that study only looked at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they always say that.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Reading some of the sites, what they say is "you can use extracts from different parts of the plant, different ways of preparing it." Any negative study you can always criticize by saying "well, they looked at the root and not the flower", whatever, "they looked at this kind of species" (there's actually 3 species) - "they looked at this species and not the other two species." So you're never going to be able to look at every possible preparation of echinacea, so any negative study you can always say it's only looking at part of the picture.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what he, but what he's saying regarding this New England Journal of Medicine result was that this doctor was saying that there're more than 200 kinds of viruses that cause colds and the team that did this particular study only looked at a rhinovirus. That's what he says at this point.<br />
<br />
S: Right, again. Again, you can't study absolutely every permutation of echinacea with every permutation of the common cold. So the best studies that were done in a very reasonable representation of the common cold, a common virus that causes it with various preparations of echinacea showed no effect. I don't think it's really a valid criticism. That actually comes around to bite them in the behind too because whenever they use that argument to say that the negative studies are not definitive, it also means that well, if you have a cold and you get some random echinacea product off the shelf, the probability that you're getting the right matchup of the right preparation with the right virus is also pretty minimal too. And yet most of the evidence is anecdotal but by their same argument, that anecdotal evidence has to be unreliable. I think that a better way to analyze this data is with what is called a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review systematic review,] because that takes into consideration things like the consistency of different studies, the way the research evolves over time, the quality of the studies and how that relates to the chance of it being positive or negative, and there has been a systematic review of the same data that they're now publishing the meta-analysis on plus more studies, again that's so-called systematic by so-called Cochrane Review which is linked to evidence-based standards. And they basically found that the evidence ''does not'' support the use of echinacea for the common cold.<br />
<br />
R: Surprise!<br />
<br />
S: The data is inconsistent and not sufficient to say that it works. <br />
<br />
R: Once again we demonstrate that the word "meta-analysis" is just there to send big sirens off in your head every time you read it, that's like your little skeptic alarm.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, I have a question for you.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: A lot of times when you hear the drugs like this, where there's a very good indication that they don't work, like echinacea's a perfect example, if a real pharmaceutical company did real testing, as if they were going to create a brand-new drug out of it, wouldn't, you know, if you think of it that way, wouldn't it be blazingly obvious that it doesn't work? Instead of it being like "well, you know, we're not really sure and there's all this meta-analysis and they re-did this and that." If it was done the right way the first time the way that drug companies do it to get ready for FDA approval, it would be 100% unequivocally it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
S: Well nothing's 100% unequivocal, but what you're saying is if they went through the FDA process where they had to have trials that were monitored, that had to have a rigorous design, that were multi-center, that were statistically large trials, then yes, you're going to get a much better result out of those and much more likely the results are going to reflect the underlying reality.<br />
<br />
J: You see my point though?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, and this is where the waters are muddied because there are a lot of crappy studies.<br />
<br />
J: But all of these types of drugs are, it's always like the waters are muddy situation. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Why don't they just do one definitive study, spend the money and that's it, and be done with it.<br />
<br />
E: Because you've got to find someone willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into something that probably isn't going to work.<br />
<br />
J: The onus should be on the people who are selling it, who are making the hundreds of millions of dollars feeding the world this crap.<br />
<br />
E: That's a fair point.<br />
<br />
P: Wait a minute, you're saying we should have better supplemental laws?<br />
<br />
E: That's a great idea, Perry, that's a great point.<br />
<br />
R: That's a new one.<br />
<br />
P: Stick it in Congress and let it rot.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody going to write that down.<br />
<br />
E: Tell the FDA that.<br />
<br />
S: The research is generally not going to get done if the industry's not required to do it. The NIH does fund some of this research, and the research that is being done that's of any quality is largely government-funded. So that's how we get what information we do have. It's enough that if you are an unbiased scientist you can look at the data and say "yeah, this is not supported by the evidence." It's not enough to completely silence the proponents. I don't know that anything would be.<br />
<br />
E: That's right.<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>(17.33)</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Hello my skeptic warriors,<br />
<br />
I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois. Well close enough at least. Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcast's. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show. It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners. <br />
<br />
I do not have a microphone so an email will have to do. <br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
<br />
There are two parts to this question.<br />
<br />
I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites. <br />
<br />
Also, even if you have unprotected sex with someone that is HIV positive, is it true that it is not a for sure thing that you will get HIV. I am sure the risks are extremely high, but as I hear Penn and Teller say on their abstinence episode, it exposes you to a 1 and 500 risk. Is that true or pretty close? My good friend common sense tells me that they are close.<br />
<br />
One more thing you do not need to read off but if you must...this friend of mine works in a hospital as a computer technician, but he ignorantly will not talk with real doctors about this matter. He has a few views I disagree with. He believes in ghosts from personal experiences when he as 7...and he thinks the whole field of psychology is, for lack of a better word, crap. I feel there is hope with him, but I need some better proof that this myth is bunk. Then I will work on his waking dreams he has told me about, er I mean his ghostly experiences.<br />
<br />
I really hope you can answer my question (on or off the show). As I know, you have young listeners that listen to this show. I do not want the school's ignorance only, er I mean abstinence only education to scare people out of having sex. Which I fear is happening in some or most our schools these days. Sex is a wonderful and beautiful experience. Sadly control freaks want to scare us out of doing such, "sinful" things. <br />
<br />
Am I right to think, that using condoms properly greatly reduces your changes of getting an STD, but most importantly, that the evil HIV that cannot pass through the holes of latex condoms?<br />
<br />
Thanks guys, peace,<br />
<br />
Christopher...NOT Chris!<br />
<br />
My links I found that were good enough for me:<br />
http://www.everything-condoms.com/condom_qanda/condoms_protect_against_std.htm<br />
http://www.communityactionkit.org/pdfs/Getting_Ready_To_Advocate/Debunking_C ondoms.html<br />
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm <br />
http://www.unknownnews.net/031010vatican.html<br />
<br />
From Steve's reply to Christopher: Here is a review of the evidence by the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm <br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand:<br />
<br />
My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain.<br />
<br />
I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense.<br />
<br />
However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve (the type of nerve that can cause pain if pinched), can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?<br />
<br />
My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stiumlated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body.<br />
<br />
I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance.<br />
<br />
Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though.<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
Adam Finley<br />
Minneapolis, Minnesota<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
This link: viewzone.com/milkyway.html tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is true that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very<br />
interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxy <br />
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm <br />
<br />
What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky.<br />
<br />
I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the 'energy levels' of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Parry is now probably liking this guy.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest IPCC report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics (I think Parry is one of them) to maneuver. <br />
<br />
I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argument with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. <br />
<br />
Late congratulations on the 100th episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000th, 17.3 years from now.<br />
<br />
Petrucio<br />
Brazil<br />
<br />
Bad Astronomy Blog entry on this topic: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup/<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br />
Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court.<br />
<br />
I have blogged about this at:<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
Anne Frid de Vries<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Hello guys! <br />
<br />
Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because<br />
of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job....<br />
<br />
To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance...<br />
<br />
You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning", when in many cases things are much more complex...<br />
<br />
You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...<br />
<br />
The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question...<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Athanasios Zacharakopoulos<br />
<br />
Athens, Greece<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4411SGU Episode 1022012-10-28T20:53:24Z<p>Hesterk: adding news</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and today is Tuesday July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2007, and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella -<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hello everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Perry DeAngelis -<br />
<br />
P: (mumbling) Good evening<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella -<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0.33)</small> ==<br />
<br />
E: Welcome to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_days dog days] of summer everyone. <br />
<br />
R: That's the best you've got?<br />
<br />
E: Well, today's the official first dog day of summer.<br />
<br />
R: The, what, that's not even a thing, you made that up.<br />
<br />
E: No it's not, I'm looking at it right now on the internet, it must be true.<br />
<br />
J: Rebecca, you've never heard of that?<br />
<br />
R: I've heard of the dog days of summer, I -<br />
<br />
S: You don't think it's real?<br />
<br />
R: I don't think there's an official dog day.<br />
<br />
E: According to this website.<br />
<br />
S: And tomorrow is a very special day as everybody knows. Tomorrow July 4<sup>th</sup> is Bob's birthday.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Ohhhhh.<br />
<br />
J/R/E: Happy birthday, Bob<br />
<br />
B: Thank you. Also Independence Day.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, how old are you?<br />
<br />
B: Ah, according to that carny, 32, the blind carny.<br />
<br />
J: Do you smell like cabbage, Bob?<br />
<br />
S: You don't have to tell us how old you are in reality Bob if you don't want to.<br />
<br />
E: You're younger than the country.<br />
<br />
S: And of course happy Independence Day out there to all of our fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that too.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>(1.24)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Unfortunately we have to start this show with some very sad news. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein Barry Beyerstein] who we [[SGU_Episode_94 interviewed]] actually just a couple of months ago, a very nice guy, passed away last week very unexpectedly. From what I hear he had a massive heart attack. Apparently, the story that I have so far is that he passed out the week before, was admitted to the hospital, was evaluated, was essentially cleared. But because of the episode a cardiac work-up was planned, but before it could be completed he then had a massive heart attack and died.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what would have happened if they gave him the exam before the heart attack?<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends, they could have had either a by-pass or angioplasty and it could have prevented it. If the work-up was done quicker of if he just didn't have a heart attack so quickly after his initial symptoms.<br />
<br />
P: Do you know if an autopsy is performed?<br />
<br />
S: I have not heard either way but I doubt it. Unless the family requests it, it's not something that would be done routinely.<br />
<br />
P: It's another kick in the teeth for the skeptical movement, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it stinks to lose good people so young, he was only 60, so it was definitely a premature and unexpected death. Of course our sympathies go out to his family and his daughter. His daughter actually [majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html\ blogged] about her father. We'll have the link to that, it was very nice. Barry was a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and they're putting out a retrospective<br />
and tribute to him as well.<br />
<br />
P: Well you sound in your blog Steve, when you peel it all away, the sort of core of the skeptical movement really isn't all that big.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
P: And we get to know these people. You in particular with Barry. It's a real loss, when we lose some of these people.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's a close circle, the inner circle of the skeptical movement, it isn't that many people really. You do get to know everybody and you do feel -<br />
<br />
E: 4 or 5 of us. Some days it feels like that.<br />
<br />
S: It hurts, it really is a big loss when you lose somebody like Barry. And I also said, he was, again without exaggeration, the single nicest guy I've met in the skeptical movement. He was just a really nice guy. I think if you listen to the interview that we did with him, it really comes across, he's just very very upbeat, cheery guy.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, he definitely was one of those people that everything was a good mood, everything was positive. <br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
J: And he just made me feel good just talking to him on and off the air.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
P: He was surprisingly lively.<br />
<br />
R: That's one of the people we most need in the skeptic movement because it shows people that we're not just all cynics, there are people out there who are enjoyable to be around<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we certainly don't do that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I mean no, yeah, we do the opposite of that. He's definitely going to be missed though.<br />
<br />
S: So this is our Skeptics' Guide tribute to Barry Beyerstein, he definitely will be missed.<br />
<br />
P: So long Barry.<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>(4.22)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is actually two herbal remedy-related news items. The first one has to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cohosh black cohosh] which is an herb that is used for women to treat the symptoms of menopause. The [http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html article] discusses the fact that there have actually been quite a number of cases world-wide of sudden and total liver failure related to use of this herb, of the herb black cohosh. <ref> Sent in by listeners Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) from Adelaide, South Australia</ref> <br />
<br />
P: Liver's one of those important organs, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's kind of an important organ. So this discusses four new cases in Australia of complete liver failure requiring liver transplant. That's complete - basically they would have died without a liver transplant. We point this out because yet again it makes the point that ''herbs are drugs'', there is nothing magical or different about them, they're not somehow not drugs just because they're dried from plants. They're drugs - they can have the same risks as drugs, they can have organ toxicity just like drugs do, and they really should be researched, marketed and regulated like drugs. I think -<br />
<br />
R: The thing is, I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, we're not positive that the black cohosh caused the liver damage, right, because from what I've read it seems like it just hasn't been studied enough at this point and we don't even know the extent of what it will do to a person's liver, and there are a lot of other possible side effects it might have, but because it's not studied in depth in the way that your regular medicine would be, we just don't know.<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's sort of true, we don't have the kind of clinical trials that we would do prior to a drug being on the market. But even when drugs get out on the market, there is still the "after market" research that is done, and this kind of information that we have on black cohosh is exactly the same as the kind of information we would have after the market for drugs. <br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: If the same number people taking a prescription drug had liver failure and had to get liver transplants, the drug would be pulled from the market or at the very least the data would be reviewed, it wold probably get a black, what we call a "black box warning" in the United States where the FDA puts a black box warning on the drug. They might include the requirement for monitoring of liver function tests while on the medication. But none of those safety precautions are now in place with black cohosh because it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I think that the worst that's happened is that Australia's put some kind of warning on the label saying that the product might contain black cohosh which might cause harm to the liver.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, do they know what the doses were? Because almost anything can damage your liver if you take too much of it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's a good point, and in general we don't really have a good idea of what the dose is in the herbal preparations because they're not controlled well enough to know what the actual dose is in an individual pill or preparation or water or whatever. So the answer to that is "no," though generally the amounts of active ingredients tend to be on the low side because they're not purified. It tends to be lower than prescription drugs. But the bottom line is you don't know, and it could be that this is cropping up in those products that may have a higher than average concentration of certain constituents in the black cohosh, certain chemicals. Again, lots of questions we don't have the answer to because research is not required prior to marketing these things.<br />
<br />
P: Because our laws are insane when it comes to supplements, that's why.<br />
<br />
S: They're not in line with the science.<br />
<br />
P: No. The Supplemental Safety Bill's been languishing in Congress since '03, you can't get anything passed. It really has created an insane environment.<br />
<br />
J: Unfortunately it will probably take a lot of deaths before people really start seriously considering regulating these supplements.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we joked about the fact that it will take probably a celebrity death to really bring the issue to the forefront. Just regular deaths may no be enough unless it's actually a large number. Actually didn't it, there were about a hundred or so deaths linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedra ephedra] and that didn't really change the market at all -<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - but it was enough evidence for the FDA to pull it from the market, so the FDA can't block herbs from getting to the market but if the FDA meets a burden of proof that it's harmful, then they can use that to pull something from the market and since 1994, ephedra is the only thing the FDA's been able to pull from the market because of evidence that it wasn't safe. And that's being challenged, that's being challenged by some of the companies who make ephedra. So, we'll see if the FDA, I mean 6 deaths or a dozen deaths probably are not enough evidence for the FDA to pull black cohosh from the market in the United States. Again, they have a pretty high burden of proof to prove something is unsafe before they can take it off the market. Again, it is completely backwards to what would really make sense based upon a scientific approach.<br />
<br />
P: Maybe Paris Hilton can do something useful with her life. Just a thought, just a thought.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>(9.40)</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Hello my skeptic warriors,<br />
<br />
I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois. Well close enough at least. Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcast's. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show. It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners. <br />
<br />
I do not have a microphone so an email will have to do. <br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
<br />
There are two parts to this question.<br />
<br />
I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites. <br />
<br />
Also, even if you have unprotected sex with someone that is HIV positive, is it true that it is not a for sure thing that you will get HIV. I am sure the risks are extremely high, but as I hear Penn and Teller say on their abstinence episode, it exposes you to a 1 and 500 risk. Is that true or pretty close? My good friend common sense tells me that they are close.<br />
<br />
One more thing you do not need to read off but if you must...this friend of mine works in a hospital as a computer technician, but he ignorantly will not talk with real doctors about this matter. He has a few views I disagree with. He believes in ghosts from personal experiences when he as 7...and he thinks the whole field of psychology is, for lack of a better word, crap. I feel there is hope with him, but I need some better proof that this myth is bunk. Then I will work on his waking dreams he has told me about, er I mean his ghostly experiences.<br />
<br />
I really hope you can answer my question (on or off the show). As I know, you have young listeners that listen to this show. I do not want the school's ignorance only, er I mean abstinence only education to scare people out of having sex. Which I fear is happening in some or most our schools these days. Sex is a wonderful and beautiful experience. Sadly control freaks want to scare us out of doing such, "sinful" things. <br />
<br />
Am I right to think, that using condoms properly greatly reduces your changes of getting an STD, but most importantly, that the evil HIV that cannot pass through the holes of latex condoms?<br />
<br />
Thanks guys, peace,<br />
<br />
Christopher...NOT Chris!<br />
<br />
My links I found that were good enough for me:<br />
http://www.everything-condoms.com/condom_qanda/condoms_protect_against_std.htm<br />
http://www.communityactionkit.org/pdfs/Getting_Ready_To_Advocate/Debunking_C ondoms.html<br />
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm <br />
http://www.unknownnews.net/031010vatican.html<br />
<br />
From Steve's reply to Christopher: Here is a review of the evidence by the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm <br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand:<br />
<br />
My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain.<br />
<br />
I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense.<br />
<br />
However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve (the type of nerve that can cause pain if pinched), can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?<br />
<br />
My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stiumlated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body.<br />
<br />
I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance.<br />
<br />
Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though.<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
Adam Finley<br />
Minneapolis, Minnesota<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
This link: viewzone.com/milkyway.html tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is true that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very<br />
interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxy <br />
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm <br />
<br />
What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky.<br />
<br />
I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the 'energy levels' of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Parry is now probably liking this guy.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest IPCC report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics (I think Parry is one of them) to maneuver. <br />
<br />
I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argument with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. <br />
<br />
Late congratulations on the 100th episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000th, 17.3 years from now.<br />
<br />
Petrucio<br />
Brazil<br />
<br />
Bad Astronomy Blog entry on this topic: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup/<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br />
Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court.<br />
<br />
I have blogged about this at:<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
Anne Frid de Vries<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Hello guys! <br />
<br />
Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because<br />
of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job....<br />
<br />
To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance...<br />
<br />
You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning", when in many cases things are much more complex...<br />
<br />
You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...<br />
<br />
The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question...<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Athanasios Zacharakopoulos<br />
<br />
Athens, Greece<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4410SGU Episode 1022012-10-28T19:31:26Z<p>Hesterk: forum link</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = JR: James Randi <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|guest3 = <!-- leave blank if no third guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,3646.0.html<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Hello my skeptic warriors,<br />
<br />
I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois. Well close enough at least. Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcast's. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show. It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners. <br />
<br />
I do not have a microphone so an email will have to do. <br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
<br />
There are two parts to this question.<br />
<br />
I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites. <br />
<br />
Also, even if you have unprotected sex with someone that is HIV positive, is it true that it is not a for sure thing that you will get HIV. I am sure the risks are extremely high, but as I hear Penn and Teller say on their abstinence episode, it exposes you to a 1 and 500 risk. Is that true or pretty close? My good friend common sense tells me that they are close.<br />
<br />
One more thing you do not need to read off but if you must...this friend of mine works in a hospital as a computer technician, but he ignorantly will not talk with real doctors about this matter. He has a few views I disagree with. He believes in ghosts from personal experiences when he as 7...and he thinks the whole field of psychology is, for lack of a better word, crap. I feel there is hope with him, but I need some better proof that this myth is bunk. Then I will work on his waking dreams he has told me about, er I mean his ghostly experiences.<br />
<br />
I really hope you can answer my question (on or off the show). As I know, you have young listeners that listen to this show. I do not want the school's ignorance only, er I mean abstinence only education to scare people out of having sex. Which I fear is happening in some or most our schools these days. Sex is a wonderful and beautiful experience. Sadly control freaks want to scare us out of doing such, "sinful" things. <br />
<br />
Am I right to think, that using condoms properly greatly reduces your changes of getting an STD, but most importantly, that the evil HIV that cannot pass through the holes of latex condoms?<br />
<br />
Thanks guys, peace,<br />
<br />
Christopher...NOT Chris!<br />
<br />
My links I found that were good enough for me:<br />
http://www.everything-condoms.com/condom_qanda/condoms_protect_against_std.htm<br />
http://www.communityactionkit.org/pdfs/Getting_Ready_To_Advocate/Debunking_C ondoms.html<br />
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm <br />
http://www.unknownnews.net/031010vatican.html<br />
<br />
From Steve's reply to Christopher: Here is a review of the evidence by the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm <br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand:<br />
<br />
My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain.<br />
<br />
I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense.<br />
<br />
However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve (the type of nerve that can cause pain if pinched), can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?<br />
<br />
My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stiumlated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body.<br />
<br />
I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance.<br />
<br />
Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though.<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
Adam Finley<br />
Minneapolis, Minnesota<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
This link: viewzone.com/milkyway.html tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is true that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very<br />
interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxy <br />
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm <br />
<br />
What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky.<br />
<br />
I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the 'energy levels' of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Parry is now probably liking this guy.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest IPCC report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics (I think Parry is one of them) to maneuver. <br />
<br />
I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argument with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. <br />
<br />
Late congratulations on the 100th episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000th, 17.3 years from now.<br />
<br />
Petrucio<br />
Brazil<br />
<br />
Bad Astronomy Blog entry on this topic: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup/<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br />
Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court.<br />
<br />
I have blogged about this at:<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
Anne Frid de Vries<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Hello guys! <br />
<br />
Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because<br />
of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job....<br />
<br />
To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance...<br />
<br />
You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning", when in many cases things are much more complex...<br />
<br />
You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...<br />
<br />
The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question...<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Athanasios Zacharakopoulos<br />
<br />
Athens, Greece<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4409SGU Episode 1022012-10-28T19:23:42Z<p>Hesterk: copying from website (no transcription yet)</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = JR: James Randi <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|guest3 = <!-- leave blank if no third guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=00000.0<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Herbal Link to Liver Failure <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Echinacea Meta-analysis <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
=== Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== HIV and Condoms <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Hello my skeptic warriors,<br />
<br />
I am Christopher from Chicago Illinois. Well close enough at least. Anyways, I have been listening since this May and finally caught up with all your podcast's. I am sure you get enough thanks, but, thank you for your show. It really does bring hope into my life, as I am sure it brings hope to all your other listeners. <br />
<br />
I do not have a microphone so an email will have to do. <br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
<br />
There are two parts to this question.<br />
<br />
I hear from my only friend that latex condoms has little tiny holes that the HIV virus can travel through. Therefore, he chooses not to ever have sex, ever! This frustrates me since I took the time to look up this information on the internet and pretty much found nothing. The only thing I found that said condoms do not protect was religious websites. <br />
<br />
Also, even if you have unprotected sex with someone that is HIV positive, is it true that it is not a for sure thing that you will get HIV. I am sure the risks are extremely high, but as I hear Penn and Teller say on their abstinence episode, it exposes you to a 1 and 500 risk. Is that true or pretty close? My good friend common sense tells me that they are close.<br />
<br />
One more thing you do not need to read off but if you must...this friend of mine works in a hospital as a computer technician, but he ignorantly will not talk with real doctors about this matter. He has a few views I disagree with. He believes in ghosts from personal experiences when he as 7...and he thinks the whole field of psychology is, for lack of a better word, crap. I feel there is hope with him, but I need some better proof that this myth is bunk. Then I will work on his waking dreams he has told me about, er I mean his ghostly experiences.<br />
<br />
I really hope you can answer my question (on or off the show). As I know, you have young listeners that listen to this show. I do not want the school's ignorance only, er I mean abstinence only education to scare people out of having sex. Which I fear is happening in some or most our schools these days. Sex is a wonderful and beautiful experience. Sadly control freaks want to scare us out of doing such, "sinful" things. <br />
<br />
Am I right to think, that using condoms properly greatly reduces your changes of getting an STD, but most importantly, that the evil HIV that cannot pass through the holes of latex condoms?<br />
<br />
Thanks guys, peace,<br />
<br />
Christopher...NOT Chris!<br />
<br />
My links I found that were good enough for me:<br />
http://www.everything-condoms.com/condom_qanda/condoms_protect_against_std.htm<br />
http://www.communityactionkit.org/pdfs/Getting_Ready_To_Advocate/Debunking_C ondoms.html<br />
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm <br />
http://www.unknownnews.net/031010vatican.html<br />
<br />
From Steve's reply to Christopher: Here is a review of the evidence by the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm <br />
<br />
=== Chiropractic and Colic <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
My sister, after dealing with a crying and screaming baby for several long days and nights, decided to take the baby girl to a chiropractor.<br />
<br />
I'm not a medical expert, but I've read enough to be skeptical, so I questioned her about it. We had a long discussion, but here's the main point I don't entirely understand:<br />
<br />
My sister says all the nerves coming off the spine control different parts of the body, so if a nerve is pinched and causing pain somewhere, a chiro can "unpinch" that nerve and relieve the pain.<br />
<br />
I know some chiros claim that they can affect, say, things like asthma by manipulating the part of the spine connected to the lungs, which I'm fairly certain is nonsense.<br />
<br />
However, if the baby does have a pinched nerve (the type of nerve that can cause pain if pinched), can the chiro actually unpinch that nerve and kill the pain (which may or may not be causing the baby to cry)?<br />
<br />
My sister claims this is true because her husband suffered a brain injury a few years ago, and during his recovery they stiumlated various parts of his spine to see if he could feel in other parts of his body.<br />
<br />
I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and I'd like to know what, if anything, a chiro can offer in this instance.<br />
<br />
Also, I was concerned about a chiro handling a two-month old, but my sister claims he's very gentle. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea, though.<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great podcast,<br />
Adam Finley<br />
Minneapolis, Minnesota<br />
<br />
=== Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and us <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
This link: viewzone.com/milkyway.html tells us that the Solar System actually came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy, currently orbiting and being eaten by the Milky Way. I've researched on the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and found out that it is true that the galaxy is currently interacting with the MilkyWay, and it is true that it is actually raining down stars in the area where Solar System is now, which I found surprising and very<br />
interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_Dwarf_Elliptical_Galaxy <br />
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm <br />
<br />
What I don't buy is the conclusion taken that the Solar System was actually a son of this galaxy and not the Milky Way, apparently explaining why our System is not aligned with the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is seen sideways to us in the sky.<br />
<br />
I then reached a paragraph at the end that concludes that this interaction between the two galaxies is raising the 'energy levels' of the Milky Way, causing the Sun to burn hotter. Ahh, the Plot thickens. Parry is now probably liking this guy.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that this is the result of one more attempt to explain away Global Warming as not caused by human action, now that the latest IPCC report has left less room for the Global Warming Skeptics (I think Parry is one of them) to maneuver. <br />
<br />
I definitely do not have enough astronomical knowledge to argument with most of the stuff these guys are saying, but it looks like crap to me. I would love to hear your take on this, maybe an astronomer guest could also shed more light in the subject and tell us more about the very interesting story about the SagDEG and our other close neighbors. <br />
<br />
Late congratulations on the 100th episode, I'm holding my breath for the 1000th, 17.3 years from now.<br />
<br />
Petrucio<br />
Brazil<br />
<br />
Bad Astronomy Blog entry on this topic: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/06/28/alien-sun-followup/<br />
<br />
=== Sickesz Followup <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br />
Thank you for a good podcast and in the latest edition drawing my attention to a case that happened in my old country the Netherlands (I have been living in Israel for nearly 10 years). The case of Sickesz vs. the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is indeed a terrible miscreant of Dutch justice. I very much hope the VtdK will appeal to the supreme court.<br />
<br />
I have blogged about this at:<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
anneisaman.blogspot.com/2007/07/perry-deangelis-is-right-sgu-podcast.html<br />
<br />
Cheers,<br />
Anne Frid de Vries<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
Hello guys! <br />
<br />
Thank you for a very entertaining podcast. I tune in every week only because<br />
of its entertainment value. And you are doing a great job....<br />
<br />
To assume the role of arbiters as to whether it is science or pseudo-science, on almost everything under the sun... it is simply arrogance...<br />
<br />
You are using very simplistic arguments, which you call "logical reasoning", when in many cases things are much more complex...<br />
<br />
You are acting as if you know everything... every subject matter. Come on guys a little humility...<br />
<br />
The fact that you do not grasp certain concepts does not make them wrong and candidates to ridicule... Couldn't this be a measure of your own intrinsic limitations? Just a question...<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Athanasios Zacharakopoulos<br />
<br />
Athens, Greece<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
This Week's Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In 1967, a famous building was attacked. The attackers attempted to use supernatural abilities to drive out its evil spirits, and to disfigure and displace the building with its occupants inside. The attack failed.<br />
<br />
Name the building.<br />
<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Identify the 6th number in this sequence:<br />
<br />
.426<br><br />
.424<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.420<br><br />
.409<br><br />
????<br />
<br />
Answer: .408 (highest batting average of baseball hitters since 1900)<br />
Winner: Kanuck <br />
<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_102&diff=4408SGU Episode 1022012-10-28T19:15:30Z<p>Hesterk: Created page with "{{transcribing |transcriber = Hesterk }} {{Editing required |transcription = y <!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcri..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing<br />
|transcriber = Hesterk<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = y<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 102<br />
|episodeDate = 3<sup>rd</sup> July 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:beyerstein1.jpg <!-- use "File:" and file name for image on show notes page--><br />
|previous = 1 <!-- not required, automates to previous episode --><br />
|next = 300 <!-- not required, automates to next episode --><br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|perry = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = JR: James Randi <!-- leave blank if no guest --><br />
|guest2 = <!-- leave blank if no second guest --><br />
|guest3 = <!-- leave blank if no third guest --><br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-07-03.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=102<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=00000.0<br />
|qowText = The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith. <!-- add quote of the week text--><br />
|qowAuthor = Mike Huben <!-- add author and link --><br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Item 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
Barry L. Beyerstein 1947-2007 majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/06/barry-l-beyerst.html\<br />
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=127<br />
Herbal Link to Liver Failure http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21956547-2682,00.html<br />
courtesy of lisener: Wink and Julie Grise (Gree-say) - Adelaide, South Australia<br />
Echinacea Meta-analysis news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm<br />
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=uk&sid=aCPAWoEwzrhY<br />
Study: 1 in 6 Juries Get the Verdict Wrong http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1<br />
Floods Are Judgment on Society, Say Bishops http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xm<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>()</small> ==<br />
=== Question 1 <small>()</small>===<br />
=== Question 2 <small>()</small>===<br />
<br />
== Interview with "..." <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==<br />
<blockquote> The primary tool of science is skepticism, whose light shrivels unquestioning faith.</blockquote><br />
Mike Huben, an American educator of some note.<br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>()</small> ==<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=4407Template:SGU episode list2012-10-28T19:08:33Z<p>Hesterk: adding 102</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.<br />
<br />
Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon. <br />
<br />
Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon.</noinclude><br />
{|style="margin:1em 3em"<br />
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<span id="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2011"><big>'''2011'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011{{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2008"><big>'''2008'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 {{Open}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}</div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_110&diff=4390SGU Episode 1102012-10-28T04:04:13Z<p>Hesterk: all done, I hope</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 110<br />
|episodeDate = 28<sup>th</sup> August 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:perry%202.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = ML: Mike LaCelle <br />
|guest1 = F: Fernanda <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-08-28.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=110<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,4820.0.html<br />
|qowText = Thinking critically is a chore. It does not come naturally or easily. And if the fruits of such efforts are not carefully displayed to young minds, then they will not harvest them. Every school child must be implanted with the wonder of the atom, not the thrall of magic. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday August 28<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella - <br />
<br />
B: Hello.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hi everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella - <br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey folks.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening?<br />
<br />
B: Crappy. Recovering.<br />
<br />
S: Recovering. Yeah, so.<br />
<br />
R: I think we've had better nights.<br />
<br />
== Perry DeAngelis Remembered <small>(0.41)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: This is our first show after the passing of our good friend Perry. As most listeners probably know by now, from our website and also last week's episode and also the word's been getting around in multiple other venues, Perry DeAngelis, one of the rogues, one of the members of our podcast, passed away on August 19<sup>th</sup>, which of course was a very big blow to all of us, both personally and professionally as part of, he was a big part of the podcast. Definitely lent a unique voice and was a good complement to everyone else on the show. We were very pleased however, you know in a bittersweet sort of way, to receive the tremendous feedback from all of Perry's fans and a lot of our listeners.<br />
<br />
B: That was amazing.<br />
<br />
S: That was. We've had literally hundreds of comments and emails and posts on our forums - everyone giving their reflections and their thoughts about Perry. Many extremely heartfelt. First I want to say thank you to everyone who sent in their condolences to us. We definitely passed them on to his family and they greatly appreciated that. It also helped them to understand and appreciate what Perry meant to his fans and to quite a lot of people.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Steve, I'm not sure exactly how much his family understood or appreciated exactly what he was doing. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I mean, you saw him more than the rest of us did. How aware was his family of this weekly podcast that Perry was doing. Was it really even on the radar for them?<br />
<br />
S: Not very much for his parents. His sister, who is also a friend of ours, obviously knew what it was and listened to it. But a lot of the older generation basically just knew of it really only tangentially and didn't really understand what a big part it played in Perry's life.<br />
<br />
B: And other people's lives.<br />
<br />
S: Now, we've had a lot of questions of course about exactly what happened, and Perry always told me that I could basically tell everybody anything that they wanted to know about his medical condition, about what happened, and I have permission from his wife of course to not only access his medical information but to discuss it. I think it does help the part of the process of understanding and accepting what happened to Perry and actually helps in the grieving process to understand just factually what happened. The quick summary is that Perry, actually Perry was a pretty healthy guy up until about 8 or 9 years ago, even though Perry was big his whole life and did have some complications from that, he did have [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_2_diabetes Type 2 diabetes,] but<br />
9 years ago he was a completely healthy, totally active guy without really any physical limitations. But then he started to get some really serious medical problems that we didn't know where they were coming from. He had two very serious illnesses that put him in the hospital for a long time, that were even potentially life threatening. One time he had, the first really serious illness he had was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericarditis pericarditis,] which is inflammation around the heart. And that led to fluid building up in the sack that surrounds the heart, the pericardium, basically squeezing in on the heart and keeping it from functioning.<br />
<br />
B: It was actually named after him, was it?<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) Right, Perry-carditis, yeah, he thought that was amusing. That was treated, these acute things were treated, but eventually it was discovered that Perry had a very serious chronic disease called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleroderma scleroderma.] Scleroderma is still a bit mysterious. It's a connective tissue disease. It's sort of an autoimmune disease, but not really. There may be some inflammatory component but it doesn't respond to immunosuppressive therapy like other autoimmune diseases might. It's basically untreatable. It's a proliferation of the connective tissue, the fibroblasts - those are the cells that lay in wait and then they might heal a cut, for example, by forming scar tissue. So essentially what happens is that scar tissue diffusely forms out of control in all the tissue. It was evident in Perry's skin as, over the last 8 years his fingers were somewhat curled up and he couldn't generally have a lot of use of his fingers because of the scleroderma of his skin. But it also happened on the inside - it was infecting his kidneys, his heart, his lungs, his esophagus. Thinking back, Perry really was progressively ill over the last 8 years. We always sort of knew that the scleroderma was there, that it was a progressive disease, it was incurable, but as he started to develop more and more shortness of breath and inability to really engage in a lot of physical activity, we were looking for other treatable things that might be contributing to it that we could do something about. In the final analysis, the underlying problem was the scleroderma, and it had caused too much damage to his heart and lungs. And then last week it just finally caught up with him. In a way, again, it's one of those things that I think down deep we kind of knew was inevitable, we saw it coming, but nothing really prepares you for this kind of thing happening. And we never gave up the hope that there would, that Perry would be stable for a little while longer, that there would be something that we could treat that would improve his function, that we would have him around -<br />
<br />
E: Or spontaneous remission or some kind of -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you know - <br />
<br />
J: We were all actually surprised to find out it was actually the scleroderma. I mean when you told me, Steve, I was shocked. I always assumed that it was weight related.<br />
<br />
B: I was surprised too. I was actually, it cheered me up a little bit, because for days prior to hearing about that, that detail, I was pretty down in that I felt like it was, his death was a preventable thing that I should have been on his case more about losing weight and wishing that he had taken his weight more seriously for the past 5 years or so and that if he had just done that, he would have had much more time. But when I found that he really had no choice, it was really not much he could have done, I mean his quality of life could have been better the past handful of years if he had lost weight, but there really wasn't, there was nothing he could have done to prevent that from happening. It was kind of reflected in the way he lived. Jay, didn't you say that when he kind of realized what was going on, that he really just tried to enjoy life more and do more of the things that he really enjoyed and stayed away from the things that were, the parts of life that are annoying, that he just had more fun when he saw that, was that accurate?<br />
<br />
J: Well, Steve would know better than I, but I remember having conversations with Perry where he would basically say he's living his life the way he wants to. It was kind of the subtext was 'cos he knew that he didn't have a lot of time and he was doing everything in his power to just make himself happy.<br />
<br />
R: And one of the big things that made him happy was doing this podcast, which I think is important to note is that that he kept at this for as long as he could. <br />
<br />
S: He did. This was very important to him. He really cared about it a great deal. This was, I think, it gave his life a tremendous amount of meaning. Perry never let me forget that it was his idea to form the [http://www.theness.com/ New England Skeptical Society,] that -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: It was, I remember.<br />
<br />
S: It was. It was his inspiration. And through that fact he sort of took credit for everything that followed. Including the Skeptic's Guide - <br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I let him have that. Yes, if not for you who knows what would have happened this last whatever, it's been 11 now years of skeptical activism may never have occurred at all. It may never have occurred to me to do this. It would be interesting to know, to think of what I would be doing.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why don't you go into even a little more detail about how it actually came out. He was, we were going through the [http://www.csicop.org/si Skeptical Inquirer] and in the back of the magazine they list local skeptical organizations and of course Perry was looking at this and he went right to Connecticut and he said "Wait, there's no skeptical organizations in Connecticut." And that's how I remember it came up. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "we should form a skeptical organization."<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: "We should."<br />
<br />
J: And this was 1995?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Was it '95? Woah.<br />
<br />
E: '95.<br />
<br />
S: And that was it. We soon became, we went from the Connecticut Skeptical Society to the New England Skeptical Society, because there was no skeptical organization in New England. Yeah, and Perry was really tireless and relentless. He really worked on this since then, since the beginning he never lacked giving his own time to this. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, why don't you give a quick explanation about the first few years and what you guys were doing, what the organization was about.<br />
<br />
S: For several years we really, when we started we had no clue, as you might imagine. None of us had ever run a non-profit organization before, we didn't know what the landscape was in the skeptical community, so we did the things we thought we should do. We held local meetings, and the first few meetings we didn't even know what we were doing, what we should do at the meetings, we just thought we should have them! And then we slowly settled into the kind of activities that a local skeptical group does - we had lectures, we did investigations, we - <br />
<br />
B: We wrote articles, did the newsletter.<br />
<br />
S: We wrote articles. The newsletter was sort of the focus back then, this was pre-podcasting.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: The website was really an afterthought, kinda just attachment, it wasn't really the focus of what we were doing. The newsletter and the local -<br />
<br />
B: Nah. And I did the website by the way. Woo-hoo!<br />
<br />
S: That's right. <br />
<br />
B: Lame HTML.<br />
<br />
R: And I saw a really great picture of Perry where he's dressed like a wizard of some sort and he's standing in front of Jack - <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Laying down on a table. Can you describe what happened there?<br />
<br />
S: That was, we had a Psychic Unfair, where we ran like a psychic fair but we basically exposed a lot of different things that happen, and Perry did a psychic surgery. He did it pretty good. As good as any of the fakes do it. Of course Perry had to get the guru costume and made a very tremendous theatrical - <br />
<br />
E: It was about showmanship.<br />
<br />
S: Perry was all about the theatrics.<br />
<br />
B: We have to get that picture out there, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: We have a good picture of that, we'll definitely put some pictures up in the notes for this episode. So that's what we did for a lot of years and it was, in a way, really like earning our skeptical bones as it were, we kind of did the grunt work of just writing a lot of articles, doing as many investigations as we could, giving a lot of lectures. Last week's podcast, some people asked me what was that from. And they also asked me what's Perry's background and training. Well, first, that was a seminar that New England Skeptical Society was invited to give as part of a continuing education for science teachers, for public school science teachers in Connecticut. I believe that was through Southern Connecticut State University.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It was a day long, 8 hours of us giving lectures, and that piece that we had last week was one of Perry's parts of the lecture. And we may make other parts of that available. That's what that was from. Perry's background actually, Perry did not have an academic background but he just had a life-long interest and love affair with both science and also just the truth, just the no-nonsense what is the bottom line, what is the truth, and he relished sifting through the BS and the nonsense to try to get at what was really going on. <br />
<br />
B: Steve, a quick memory just popped into my head: we were at my parents' house and my parents had this little chalk board display on the island in the kitchen. I remember Perry wrote in chalk on this little board, he wrote "question everything." And then of course I wanted to add underneath "Except this."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Right. Yes, I mean he was a basically self-taught skeptic and then he began to read the skeptical literature. Of course we've had countless countless conversations dissecting everything that we can get our hands on. Pretty much like the rest of us, we're just self-taught skeptics, it's just from doing it, living it for 12 years. As anyone who listens to the podcast on a regular basis could tell, Perry got very good at it, dissecting things and seeing where the BS was, and definitely became very adept at skeptical analysis. But that said, no formal training. I don't know that there is any formal training in skepticism, you know. There are pieces of it that we put together.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: But there's no academic program of scientific skepticism, it's just knowing science, knowing logic, knowing self deception, knowing about human psychology.<br />
<br />
R: A well functioning BS detector, which Perry had.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. A functional BS detector, right. We've had a great many emails and messages from our listeners. I wanted to read a couple of them. This one came in recently. It's a bit long but it's very touching and I think is, represents a lot of what the emails said. Some of the common themes that kept cropping up in the messages about Perry's passing were one that a lot of people were shocked at how emotionally they took Perry's loss, and they didn't realize how attached they had grown to him just from listening to him on the show. Of course what is i think very touching and very revealing of a couple of things - one is just generically the podcasting format is very intimate. A lot of people have commented about how they have felt that Perry and the rest of us really are like their friends that they invite into their car, their home or whatever once a week to listen to. <br />
<br />
B: Yes, somebody had a nice quote, they said that it's like they're listening in on a friend's conversation and they're the quiet one. They're the one that's not talking.<br />
<br />
S: A lot of people made that observation. The other thing is that Perry in particular, his personality came across so well on the podcast, that a lot of the observations people made about Perry, to those of us who knew him in person and for a long time were very very true. The listeners generally "got" Perry very well. So it kind of showed us that yeah, you know, Perry was able to convey what he really thought and felt about things and how he operated just from being himself on the show, that this wasn't, the show was not scripted, it is very spontaneous and it is very genuine and Perry, what you heard of Perry on this show was him. That's how Perry is.<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So I want to read this one email. This one is from Gabrielle Dietrich and she wrote:<blockquote><br />
"To my dearest rogues, know that you do not grieve alone for this fan grieves with you. I heard the news yesterday, a day which I will never forget. I looked at the title of the podcast 109 and all I could say was "no." I didn't want the title to be true, I didn't want to believe the news. I didn't want to be told it was true but I pushed play anyway. When I heard Steve confirm my worst fears, the tears burst forth from the pit of my being and poured out of me, I couldn't breathe. And I couldn't believe what I had heard. Perry's passing had to be a lie. This all had to be a lie. I lay down on my couch and cried with my fiance holding me till I couldn't cry any more. I got up and put on my best black shirt and mourned Perry's loss. I still feel like I need to do something in his honor. Perry was one of my heroes. All the rogues are my heroes and Rebecca is my shero. Your podcast opened my eyes to the lies I'd lived my life believing. <br />
</blockquote><blockquote><br />
I had just finished a course in massage therapy and was convinced that alternative medicine held all the answers. I was sold on essential oils and the super healing powers they possessed. I knew that aliens existed and that most conspiracies had some truth to them. I knew that Sylvia Brown was an amazing woman who could talk to the dead and that Crossing Over with John Edwards was amazingly real and impossible to fake. I knew without a doubt that coral calcium was a wonder drug that would cure all known diseases. I knew all those things and I knew that I wanted to become a homeopathic naturopathic physician. This all thankfully changed when I tuned into your podcast. I started listening to it because I was hoping to find something that would make me laugh with its complete avoidance of reality. In my world pre-SGU, skeptics were just talking heads who made some bogus claim and doubted everything. In my post-SGU life, I am a skeptic. I have you all to thank for who I am today. Thank you every one of you, and thank you as well Perry.<br />
</blockquote><blockquote><br />
One of the greatest moments of my life is when one of the rogues read my quote on the podcast, and in the end of my review I proclaimed "I take my news from the well-informed group well over my local news channels." I made that post on iTunes trying to thank you all for saving me from a path down the wrong road. I'd always planned on writing again letting you all know you saved me from my misplaced plans for a career in bogus healthcare but I didn't plan on telling you at a time such as this. I was awaiting Perry's triumphant return to SGU podcast with barely contained patience. I just knew he would be back and all would be right in the world. I lost a friend yesterday, or rather I discovered my loss yesterday. Perry may have been just a host, a rogue, a voice coming out of the speaker to some listeners but to me he was a close friend who I shared an hour with once a week talking science and news. At 24-years-old I didn't think I would be losing any of my friends for a long time to come. Fate is a cruel mistress and she played us all a very sad hand. I cannot think of Perry being gone without tears wanting to spill and I hope that this reaches all of the rogues in good health if not in good spirits. Thank you for all that you do and all that you have done, your work has saved me, it has changed me for the better. And lastly it allowed me to get to know one of the greatest men of our time, Perry DeAngelis. May the SGU continue to prove monkey superiority, may the rogues continue to be my weekly companions, and may your bacon always be healthy, all 40 pounds of it." </blockquote><br />
<br />
J: It's up to 40 pounds now?<br />
<br />
R: Thank you, Gabe.<br />
<br />
S/B: Yeah, thank you.<br />
<br />
S: It was very touching, and of course it is exactly emails like that that helped us get through what was a very difficult week.<br />
<br />
J: We're not even through it. It's not even close -<br />
<br />
S: We're not even close to being through it, but surviving the first week was certainly the roughest, and it enabled us to sit down once again, all in front of our computers and do what is for all of us a very difficult show and of course to press on into the future. We greatly appreciate everyone who took the time to write us their feelings.<br />
<br />
E: That's an incredible email -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: - that we received. There are others like it. Very similar.<br />
<br />
S: That was the most dramatic. That, and I chose to read that one because that is exactly what Perry always said he wanted to do - to take somebody who was going down the wrong path and turn them towards skepticism, "toward the light." That email is a vindication of everything Perry set out to do 12 years ago in forming the New England Skeptical Society and later doing the Skeptic's Guide podcast.<br />
<br />
J: Do you think that we actually do have an effect, you know, it's one thing to do the show and say "we're preaching to the choir." The hard part is to be able to reach out and touch people and actually make a difference in their lives and I almost can't believe it, that we can do that. It really is, in the end, it is just a bunch of friends chatting to each other.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, we used to call it dinner table conversation - we go out to dinner, and this is it. We would have podcast shows over the dinner table. It wasn't a podcast at the time.<br />
<br />
R: If only you guys had all carried around recorders with you.<br />
<br />
B: Maybe we cursed a little more, but, that's okay.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
R: No, it's just that Steve didn't edit it out during dinner.<br />
<br />
S/E/J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: I had no edit button back then!<br />
<br />
R: But yeah, speaking as a godless heathen, it's really great to see what an impact that Perry had on people, because in my world-view he's gone, but there's this part of him that's going to live for a very long time in the impact he had on others. People can continue to hear him for years to come. There's something really cool about that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's one of those sentiments that is so over-used that it's become a cliche and it's almost been spoiled and watered down, but it's actually literally true - that Perry does "live on" in all of us, certainly he is still inside my head. I mean, there are even, it's been very difficult in the last week or so not to be thinking to myself constantly what Perry would say or how he would respond to a certain situation.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like what would he think of this whole week, you know?<br />
<br />
S: I would love to talk to him about what he would think about everything that has happened, but he still definitely had an impact on all of us. A lot of us thought that Perry was always larger than life - his personality, his charisma. Again that came through on the show and that's sort of the impact that he had on all of us. It is very nice to hear that he had the same impact on so many other people through the podcast. Certainly there is a hundred or so episodes of Perry that we can always go back and listen to, that will exist into the foreseeable future, preserved, and that's a great thing. I'm so glad that we did this in the last couple of years for that reason, but also, perhaps less concretely, but Perry's impact on all the people who have listened to him and the influence he has had on their way of thinking is something else that will live on. And I agree, Rebecca, if your world-view is materialistic, that what more could you have, right?<br />
<br />
S: Well, we're actually going to bring on with us this evening Mike LaCelle who runs the SGU fans.net to give a little bit of the fan's perspective on Perry, so let's bring him in now. We are now joined by Mike LaCelle from SGU fans.net. Mike, thanks for joining us.<br />
<br />
ML: Thank you.<br />
<br />
All: Hey Mike, hi Mike.<br />
<br />
S: So, Mike is I guess by definition our no. 1 fan, since he runs our fan site. Mike has been very supportive over the last week, again helping us get through this, helping us every step of the way. Mike, you set up on the fan site the Perry DeAngelis Memorial Fund, which again, we greatly appreciate that. And you also took it upon your own initiative to register perrydeangelis.org which will, we're still sort of thinking about exactly we're going to use that but this could be a permanent site to enshrine, if you will, on the web all things Perry DeAngelis, and we can link to that from the fan site and from our own site. [Now a German holiday spam site.] So just very quickly, a lot of people have asked us, "I want to do something, I want to make a donation or do something in honor of Perry, what can I do?" so Mike set up, on the fan site, a link to donate to the Perry DeAngelis Memorial Fund. This money is going to the New England Skeptical Society, which is a non-profit organization, so this is all tax deductible. The money will be used in some fashion to commemorate Perry and his dedication to skepticism. There's no question in my mind this is exactly what Perry would want us to do. And we're in the brainstorming and taking suggestion phase in terms of the details of how we're going to use it, but it's going to be something like either an annual lecture or an annual meeting for the SGU that will be the Perry DeAngelis Memorial whatever, podcast or lecture or meeting. The alternative suggestions have been to set up a scholarship for young skeptics and some groups do this where they may have an essay contest and the winner of the essay contest then gets a certain amount of money as a scholarship towards their higher education. <br />
<br />
R: Or also there's been a suggestion that we just have a big fight with a monkey and an ostrich.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Like a cage match?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, the monkey gets a knife.<br />
<br />
S: The Perry DeAngelis Memorial Cage Match between a monkey and a bird.<br />
<br />
E: We can't take bets on it tough.<br />
<br />
S: That's true, we can't.<br />
<br />
R: No, that would be -<br />
<br />
E: Illegal<br />
<br />
J: I like the scholarship, I think that would have a lot of meaning.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Well, Mike is in touch with the fans, what do you think, Mike?<br />
<br />
ML: I think it's pretty all over the board with those suggestions. Some people have told me that the scholarship idea is a good idea, the lecture series is a good idea. I've talked to a few people that knew Perry from the chat room and they say pretty much anything that would carry on Perry's memory in that sense would be great.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So yeah, the on-going cage match I think.<br />
<br />
ML: Yeah, the cage match.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, that's Rebecca's vote, the cage match.<br />
<br />
J: Hey Mike, when you first started listening to the show, did Perry stick out?<br />
<br />
ML: Yeah. When I first first started listening to this show, the way I saw Perry was the grumpy guy. The guy who sort of had one too many encounters with those types of people, pseudoscience and all that. He's just there to say "this is all BS." But after listening to a few shows, he grows more and more on you and you can see where he's coming from, but yeah, the first impression would have to be that, that he was the grumpy guy!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Perry was always the lovable curmudgeon.<br />
<br />
All: (laughter), yeah.<br />
<br />
R: It just takes a while for the lovable part to make itself apparent.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Someone said that Perry was the id of our show, that he -<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - would say exactly what everyone was thinking and wanted to say but he had the balls to actually say it.<br />
<br />
E: Good observation.<br />
<br />
S: Is that also the kind of impression that you got Mike?<br />
<br />
ML: That's exactly it. Yeah. He would say what I was thinking. It was like, "this is BS. Let's just move on."<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. "Let's just cut to the chase and call it what it is." Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, Perry had one of those personalities where he could say it, he really could call it like he sees it, but his charisma was able to soften it somehow, even though I don't think Perry came off friendly either. But he just, it was delivered with so much charisma that you just kind of sat back and nodded when he would do his thing.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And I always respected the fact that Perry always felt, that he not just wanted to but he felt obligated to communicate that way because that was important to him. Even to the very end I'll disagree with him right now, the whole global warming thing, and he really didn't, he really stuck to his guns, even against scientific evidence!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, obviously there are things about which even good skeptics can disagree. Perry could be stubborn at times as well.<br />
<br />
R: Tell me about it.<br />
<br />
S: There's no question. But you're right, and even some of his close friends and others have observed that Perry had this strange charisma, it was hard to put your finger on. Even when he was being irascible, even when you disagreed with him, even when he was being -<br />
<br />
E: He was charming.<br />
<br />
S: - stubborn, it was always charm. Right? You couldn't get mad or stay mad at him. <br />
<br />
R: You could get mad at him, let's be honest! You could get mad at him! (laughs) Staying mad, though, yeah, that's another thing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it wouldn't last.<br />
<br />
S: But not, he said things to me and to the people close to him that if someone else said it, the emotional response would have been ten times as bad. I mean, like, I tolerate things from Perry - <br />
<br />
B: Oh, Steve!<br />
<br />
S: - I would not tolerate from anyone else.<br />
<br />
B: Right. Steve, think of the emails we've gotten from him where he, his emails of course would be, he would not forward emails, he would not have the attachment the previous email, so every email he sent was completely out of context, it would be a comment. Sometimes you wouldn't get your email for an hour, maybe a day later and you have ''no clue'' what he's referring to, and you're trying to think "what's he referring to?" so you sort everything by date and you try to see what he's referring to here, but of course a lot of times it was absolutely clear exactly what he was referring to and some things he would come across, some of the things he would say in his emails were like "oh my God! I can't.." At first you're like "I can't believe he said that!" and you think if anyone else did that, the reaction would be completely different, but it was Perry. It was Perry and he had carte blanche, he could do that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Like nobody else could do that.<br />
<br />
S: Mike, you got to know Perry in the chat room quite a bit.<br />
<br />
ML: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think Perry more than any of us frequented our chat room and made a connection with the fans that were in there. <br />
<br />
ML: He did, yeah, he made a lot of friends in there. Yeah, he was in there at all hours of the day and night. He would chat with everyone, it was awesome.<br />
<br />
E: Perry was not a good sleeper, especially those last 8, 9 years.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: He had trouble sleeping the night through so he would get a couple hours of sleep but then he would be up from 2 to 6.<br />
<br />
S: Go in the chartroom and talk with people in Australia.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Right. How is your afternoon going in Australia?<br />
<br />
S: We were sent an audio, a clip from another listener who frequents the chat room. This one's from Candace who actually got to know Perry quite well. So let's listen to her clip right now:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Hello, this is Candy from Eureka, California. Perry offered an alternative point of view to the mainstream of the SGU panel. His popularity was not due only to his charisma but to his courage as a skeptic. His skepticism was genuine and he was not just some ditto-ing yes-man. Perry was not intellectually lazy and was willing to truly put all of his preconceived notions aside to analyze things critically. It was this authenticity that I admired most in Perry. Many of you already know this Perry. But some of us were lucky enough to have known him outside of the podcast. Some of my fondest memories are of late night chats where you could catch Perry singing very badly to country music or listen to him curse his television when watching baseball. He never slowed his pace to change or alter himself for anyone's ego, whether he was teasing you about your Mac or needing a haircut or a Transylvanian-sounding accent. He was always straight with people and never pandered to anyone when honesty was what was needed. Perry was loved and will truly be missed. Ciao, babe."</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Well, thank you Candace, that was very nice. You mentioned the Yankees - whenever it was baseball season and we were recording a podcast, it would be frequently interrupted by Perry shouting in the background at his TV set.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You know, true.<br />
<br />
E: It's true, all of a sudden we'd be talking about something, and all of a sudden it would be "Damn! A-Road! How can you strike out! Son-of-a-gun! Blah blah!"<br />
<br />
J: You'd never know that Perry enjoyed baseball by listening to him watch a game.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But he did.<br />
<br />
E: He really did, and I actually had the pleasure of going to a couple of baseball games with Perry. I remember specifically at a time in which I was personally really down in the dumps and some really bad things were happening in my life right particularly there, and the next morning Perry shows up at my door and says "come on, get in the car with me, we're heading to Yankee Stadium, we're going to see a baseball game."<br />
<br />
B: Awesome.<br />
<br />
E: And we did, we just palled around the whole day, saw the game, it was just really a great time and I'll never ever forget it, but that's the kind of friend he really was. When you were his friend, a good friend of his, he treated you with a lot of respect and he really went out of his way to make you feel good and to try to cheer you up when you were feeling down. Perry was excellent at that.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that's cool that he did that for you Evan.<br />
<br />
R: You know, I just opened up my email and just did a search for all the Perry emails because we were talking about how he would send these random things with no context at all attached, so, can I just read a few random ones?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: For instance, one I click on says, all this is "well sure, but I told you so." Which is pretty much all he ever said. Here's one where he sent us yet another article on global warming and he writes "kicking and screaming I will drag you all into the light on this issue." Here's a particularly good one, I don't know what it was in response to, but I'm sure he didn't mean it. He says "why are our listeners so palpably stupid?" <br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Now wait a minute.<br />
<br />
R: And then another one says, I won't say the actual word 'cos it's a curse word, but it just says "F-ing hippy loser."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I assume so, he sent it to all of us but I think we can assume that it was directed at me.<br />
<br />
S: Yep, that was Perry.<br />
<br />
B: You knew what you got with Perry.<br />
<br />
S: So Mike, again, thanks for coming on and representing all of Perry's fans, and for continuing to help with the fan site. It's really been a great addition to our show.<br />
<br />
ML: Aw, thank you for letting me come on and talk about Perry. It's really helped.<br />
<br />
R/E: Thanks Mike.<br />
<br />
J: I want everyone to know, Mike actually did come down to Perry's wake and spent a few days here and Mike, we want to thank you very much for coming, it meant a lot to us, and it was, it's hard to put into words but we know you went out of your way and we know that you actually really did get to know Perry and really cared and it was very cool that you did that. Perry would have, Perry actually would have put his arm around you and said "thanks pal" or something like that.<br />
<br />
S: "You drove all the way down from Canada, you dumb Canuck!"<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: "You came down for this?"<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that really did mean a lot.<br />
<br />
E: It was great to see you Mike, and thank you so much.<br />
<br />
ML: It's good to see you guys too.<br />
<br />
S: Take care. Another Perry fan and listener of the Skeptic's Guide asked to join us to share her thoughts about Perry. This is Fernanda. Fernanda, welcome to the Skeptic's Guide.<br />
<br />
F: Thank you very much.<br />
<br />
J/E/B/R: Hey Fernanda. Hi.<br />
<br />
S: You're one of our Brazilian listeners, is that right?<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, I'm from South America, born and raised in Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: And you spent a lot of time with Perry on the chat room?<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, both Perry and I have trouble sleeping so we, and New York is like one hour, you guys are one hour ahead of us.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
F: So we were pretty much on at the same time and we'd just talk politics and skepticism and joked around.<br />
<br />
J: We wanted to bring you on just so you could share some of your thoughts and memories about Perry and some of the conversations you've had with him. I know that he really did enjoy chatting with you and he mentioned you to us several times.<br />
<br />
F: We'd talk politics a lot, I was like his South American insider. I studied international relations and sometimes it's hard to filter what is being said by the media and what's really going on here, so I tried to give him my perspective and also filter what the media here says about it. The many different countries, for example, Chavez and Brazilian politics is very leftist and, Perry was a Republican so we differed about that. I'm very liberal. I think he called me his liberal friend.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: He did.<br />
<br />
J: Wow, he actually said that?<br />
<br />
E: His South American liberal friend. He told me a lot. He often spoke about speaking to you in the chat room. He wanted to learn, basically - this was an experience for him to speak to someone in another part of the world to get their take on things. Perry was a good listener. <br />
<br />
R: That's the funny thing, is that Perry's like, he's the curmudgeon and everything and yet he was the one who was always in the chat room talking to people. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of a funny dichotomy that I don't think anybody really expected.<br />
<br />
S: Perry had a lot of dichotomies like that, like you wouldn't expect him to be extremely tolerant but in fact Perry was a very very tolerant person in terms of other people's personal choices. He didn't care what people did or what people believed - he didn't have any really judgmentalism about people's personal choices. If you were an ''idiot'' he was very judgmental about that, he did not suffer fools well, but in terms of how you lived your life, ''he could not care at all''. One thing that I think reflects that that I don't think many of our listeners know is that Perry's wife is a Jehovah's Witness. Wrap your mind around that.<br />
<br />
B/E/J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: That took some wrapping.<br />
<br />
S: That was kind of a shock to all of us when he let that bomb drop. <br />
<br />
F: That's one of the things that I could really relate to Perry because, and I think it's a problem with skepticism as well, just because you have a strong opinion does not mean you don't tolerate the other people's opinions. Your opinion is based on evidence, it's based on a lot of learning, a lot of reading, a lot of consulting other people, but that does not mean that you will not accept another person have a complete different point of view. And Perry was like that, and I'm like that in my life and I think sometimes your friends or people you talk to can have this impression of you that just because your opinions are strong you won't tolerate anything else and it's nothing like that. Perry was an amazing listener.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
F: And he was one of the very few people, I'm 21 years old, yeah, so it's very hard for people to take me seriously. Plus I'm a woman and in South America and a little in the United States, it's very hard for you to take a young woman seriously. I just felt very respected in that sense by Perry.<br />
<br />
S: Do you find that Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: No, not at all.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Oh, wait, about Perry, or not being respected in general?<br />
<br />
S: Not being taken seriously as a young woman.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, no, it's always hard and it's kind of like low-hanging fruit -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody wants to insult me, they're going to insult me because of my gender, because of my age, call me a "slut," whatever, so yeah.<br />
<br />
S: All true but irrelevant.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: All true, 100% true, which Perry would gladly point out.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
R: But with love. That's the thing though.<br />
<br />
B: And a wink.<br />
<br />
J: You were his favorite hippy.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I hope so. <br />
<br />
F: It's an affectionate way of calling it, like he used to call me Mexican. Of course he knew I wasn't a Mexican. <br />
<br />
E/J/B/S: Oh my God, oh Perry. (laughter) Oh come on.<br />
<br />
F: It's just affectionate, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Perry definitely showed his affection by tweaking you, by making fun of you.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
S: If he bothered to make fun of you, to Perry that was showing a certain amount of respect. We had mutual friends, we knew people that Perry did not like or didn't respect, and he didn't make fun of them, they were just below the radar, he just completely ignored people.<br />
<br />
E: Didn't give them the time of day.<br />
<br />
S: Did not give them the time of day if he did not think that they were worthy of his respect, so you should actually take Perry's chiding as a compliment.<br />
<br />
J: Perry didn't do it like "I'm pretending to ignore this person," there would be people who are in our larger circle of friends and Perry would literally be like, not even know their name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Oh what's this guy with the green shirt? That guy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: That's your dad, Perry.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh yeah, that guy, yeah.<br />
<br />
F: And it's funny because of the internet, I live so far from you guys in a complete different country and complete different culture but by the learning of the common language, now the international language English, and the advent of the internet, I am now mourning the loss of a friend really. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
F: Because a person I spend a lot of time with, talking about personal beliefs and sharing knowledge and sharing information and it's funny how technology has brought people so much closer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Absolutely. Even in like the last couple years, Perry didn't get around much, but we still had a virtual meeting with Perry almost every day. We were with Perry even when we couldn't be with him physically, whether it was on the podcast or, we would sometimes have social gatherings and gaming or whatever over Skype, over the internet, and the internet and the virtual connections that we could make are just as intimate, just as meaningful in many ways as meeting face-to-face.<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, and I think it's a shame that we never, Perry and I never really sat down to talk about this because I don't really think he understood how much he touched people's lives. We have to thank you, you're really bringing skepticism into our lives and connecting skeptics all over the world and we really appreciate that, the effort and the energy you guys put into making the podcast every week.<br />
<br />
S: It's ours pleasure. And you bring up that skeptics all over the world and we have gotten emails responses about Perry literally from all over the world. It does show I think how close really the skeptical community is and how vibrant it's becoming and also, sometimes it's like a cliche now, but skeptics sometimes get a bad rap as maybe being a bit cold, but it's totally not true and we all know it. The warm, genuine, sincere, really heartfelt response we've gotten from so many people, it's hard for us to express how much that has meant to all of us.<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, so thank you for the opportunity, yeah, to express our sentiments.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you Fernanda for spending some time with us tonight, and sharing your thoughts, we appreciate it.<br />
<br />
R: Thanks Fernanda.<br />
<br />
F: You're welcome.<br />
<br />
J: We'll see you in the chat room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll see you in the chat room.<br />
<br />
F: Bye. Take care. Good night.<br />
<br />
All: Bye.<br />
<br />
S: A few of our fans have asked, concerned, if we plan to continue the Skeptics' Guide after Perry. The answer is: of course. I mean Perry obviously would not have wanted his passing to end something that he cared about so much, and of course we all still are very dedicated to this, so the SGU will definitely press on. It will never be the same without Perry; we will always feel his loss for as long as we do this show. In his honor, more than anything else, it will definitely press on. And in fact, we are going to do more of a, the rest of the show is going to return to our more regular format. We're going to go into some news items. We'll do science or fiction, and end with a skeptical puzzle and a quote.<br />
<br />
So first some news items.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Jerry Andrus Passed Away on 8/26 <small>(45.20)</small>===<br />
<br />
First some news items. Unfortunately there's another bit of sad for the skeptical movement - another skeptic, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Andrus Jerry Andrus,] passed away on August 26<sup>th</sup>. Rebecca, you wrote about his passing on your [http://skepchick.org/2007/08/not-a-good-month-for-skepticism/ blog] this week.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Jerry was a huge skeptic, pretty much all his life, I think a good friend of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Randi Randi's.] A lot of our listeners might have met Jerry at one of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amazing_Meeting The Amazing Meetings.] I think he was at every single one, usually set up with a table of just the most amazing optical illusions you've seen. He would build these great big pieces where you could actually stand in them and get your picture taken and just really cool stuff. It's another huge loss. It's not been a good week for skepticism.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we met Jerry this January at the TAM. His demonstrations were tremendous, his optical illusions, it was one of the favorite booths for people to stop by. I want to read one quote off his website which I think represents his slice of skepticism, what he did. He wrote: "I can fool you because you're human. You have a wonderful human mind that works no different from my human mind. Usually when we're fooled, the mind hasn't made a mistake. It's come to wrong conclusion for the right reason." <ref>[http://jerryandrus.org/ Jerryandrus.org]</ref><br />
<br />
B: I clipped out that exact quote, Steve, I'm looking at it right now. That's great.<br />
<br />
S: It's great, that represents illusions and a lot of what magic is, is fooling people to coming to the wrong conclusion but by exploiting the way the mind and the brain works.<br />
<br />
R: The good thing is that Jerry lived a really long life where he made such a huge impact in the magic world and the critical thinking world that he's another person whose, his impact is going to continue for a very long time I think. He's going to have a, there's a documentary that has been in production for quite a while on Jerry's life. I haven't heard recently what's been going on with it but I know that they were filming at TAM this year. Hopefully they've got enough footage that they can go forward with that and we'll be seeing that premiere, I don't know, hopefully soon.<br />
<br />
=== HIV Denial paper published in PLoS Medicine <small>(47.50)</small>===<br />
<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is a bit of good news that we had in the last week. Tara Smith, who does the [http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/ Aetiology blog] on infectious disease, a physician who's also a skeptic, we had her on our [[SGU_Episode_28 show]] about a year and a half ago to talk about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_denial HIV denial.] She and I wrote a paper and submitted it together in the Public Library of Science Medicine, and it was just published last week, so the name of the paper is [http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256&ct=1 HIV Denial in the Internet Age,] and it's been quite well received. It's certainly made the rounds. The journal PLoS Medicine did a press release, so it got a lot of play and the HIV denying community has been responding as well. So we definitely got their attention. Their response is generally as lame and intellectually dishonest as their beliefs. I was not surprised to see that some even made some rather sexist swipes at Tara. It was really, some real personal attacks at her, which is, you know, that's the level that we're dealing with intellectually.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yeah, it's not like they have real arguments to make 'cos they've been proven wrong again and again. Maybe you could describe briefly what the paper involves.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-denial-on-the-internet/ blogged] about it, I'll have the link to that, but very briefly, we didn't go after the specific scientific evidences for HIV causing AIDS or the specific arguments that the deniers use to say that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, because that's been done very well by others in other venues. What the paper was about was the intellectual strategies used by HIV deniers to perpetrate and propagate their beliefs. So what logical fallacies did they commit, the kind of conspiracy theories that they weave etc. It was actually written initially to put it into the context of other kinds of denial, like denying evolution, but we had to sort of pare the paper down and focus really on the HIV denial part. So, and Tara and I are already talking about expanding this into other projects dealing with the issue of denial and denialism. But take a read of the paper, I think in the end it was a nice paper, and again I'm happy to see that it was well received and that it definitely perked up the attention of the deniers.<br />
<br />
R: Cool. Congratulations.<br />
<br />
=== Jesus in the Fence <small>(50.16)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Quickly, another news item. Rebecca, you sent this one. There was a Jesus sighting in a fence.<ref>Original story gone, can only find secondary sources.</ref><br />
<br />
R: Yeah, very exciting. Jesus spotted in a fence. Actually out in California, a woman was doing some meditating in her sister's backyard and she saw a vision of Jesus in a knot in the wood of a fence. It's okay though, she was a skeptic about it, she did seek out evidence to back this up, and so she called her sister over to ask her what she saw and her sister also agreed that it was in fact the son of God. So.<br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
R: I guess those of you who -<br />
<br />
E: Iron clad.<br />
<br />
R: - if you need to make a pilgrimage somewhere to worship Jesus, you should book tickets now.<br />
<br />
S: There will be people there, I guarantee it.<br />
<br />
R: I'm sure.<br />
<br />
E: And if you're feeling any doubt, bring a relative along so they can assure you of your beliefs.<br />
<br />
R: Right, right. Excuse me Uncle Jim, is that the son of God? Why yes it is. Just like that.<br />
<br />
S: Looking at the picture, I don't even see what they're talking about.<br />
<br />
R: It's really difficult to see.<br />
<br />
J: I see it but he has no nose.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, actually that's funny, that's what, I was having a contest on the blog for people to photoshop the picture and one person used the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster Flying Spaghetti Monster] got my nose joke, which was pretty funny. Someone else said it look just like Pac Man. I mean, it's really even one of the more absurd -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - sightings I've seen.<br />
<br />
S: You've really got to use your imagination. That's a weak [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peridolia pareidolia.]<br />
<br />
R: Very weak.<br />
<br />
E: Weak is right. I can't make this out to be anything.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not even pareidolia.<br />
<br />
E: Really. It looks like a smear of some kind of dirt, maybe. <br />
<br />
J: He's facing to the right, he's got a beard, that horizontal line in the center is his eyebrow.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, like a unibrow.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: I was thinking that's like a cyclops, sort of like from the X-Men. Sort of visor thing.<br />
<br />
B?: "By your command."<br />
<br />
E: Jesus, not Abraham, not Moses. Nope. Jesus. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: It's a pathetic example of a pathetic genre of idiocy. That's what it is.<br />
<br />
E: It's worth a laugh though, I mean really. On a week where we can really use a laugh.<br />
<br />
S: It's a little bit light-hearted.<br />
<br />
=== Ben Stein is an Idiot <small>(52.33)</small>=== <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Next news item is about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein Ben Stein.] This is one of those really disappointing things. Ben Stein who -<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
S: - to me always was kind of a nerdy academic who somehow managed to exploit his dirty academic persona and actually get on a movie, he was in [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091042/ Ferris Bueller's Day Off] and he had that kind of funny game show -<br />
<br />
E: Oh Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118515/ Win Ben Stein's Money] on Comedy Central. It turns out the guy is a nut-job. He's going to host a documentary movie that's coming out in February of '08 called Ben Stein Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ IMDB]</ref><ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com Official Expelled site]</ref><ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/22/you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me/ Pharyngula: You have got to be kidding me]</ref> and what it is is basically an apology for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design intelligent design.] He says on his blog, Ben Stein's Introductory Blog, "America is not America without freedom. In every turning point in our history, freedom has been the key goal we are seeking: the Mayflower coming here, the Revolution, the Civil War, Word War II, the Cold War. Tens of millions came here from foreign oppression and made a life here. Why? For freedom. Human beings are supposed to live in a state of freedom. Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given. A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry. Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without the freedom of inquiry."<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/08/23/the-fall-of-ben-stein/ Science Blogs] (original blog now spam site)</ref> Of course what he's saying is that evolution and "Darwinists" are against freedom, that we are being oppressive, that we are oppressing the free inquiry of intelligent design. This is the whining oppression argument - <br />
<br />
E: It's old.<br />
<br />
S: - that the Discovery Institute and the intelligent designers have been making for a long time. There's really nothing new here. He writes "this includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science." ''Always'', he writes, for emphasis.<br />
<br />
E: You know, he might be good at economics, politics and so forth, and that is his primary background -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: - those fields, but, when it comes to this - science.<br />
<br />
S: Stick to economics, Ben, we'll do the science.<br />
<br />
(sighs)<br />
<br />
J: It's so sophomoric, like "yeah, you're conducting science, pal."<br />
<br />
R: At least he's being truthful in advertising when he says "no intelligence allowed."<br />
<br />
S: Right, that's right, I thought that was ironic too.<br />
<br />
(laughter) <br />
<br />
B: I went through the website and to go along with the whole school schtick, he's got some links here - class officers, the faculty, the expelled. For "class officers" he's got [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins Richard Dawkins,] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_scott Eugenie Scott,] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author) Sam Harris] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_hitchens Christopher Hitchens.] And he's got an out of context quote for each of them. I guess they couldn't find much for Eugenie Scott because all they have for her is as "class treasurer," they've a quote from her: "intelligent design is ultimately a science stopper." Wow, how intolerable that is. And the faculty, the faculty link is interesting because the president, principal, office of diversity and admissions is the same person - Mr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin Charles Darwin.]<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: The "expelled" I found most interesting, it had, with Xs through their pictures, they had of course Ben Stein, and then [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bono Bono,] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo Galileo Galilei] and Albert -<br />
<br />
R: Bono?<br />
<br />
B: - yeah, I'm not sure what was going on with that, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein Albert Einstein.] And then the funny thing is that they've got quotes from all of these and for Albert Einstein they have "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details." <br />
<br />
R: (groans)<br />
<br />
B: Which I thought was interesting that they pulled that quote from him which is kind of apocryphal, at least according to some websites, that's an apocryphal quote, but he didn't even believe.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Well, Einstein did not believe in a personal god. He might have been a deist.<br />
<br />
B: Right, which is a direct quote.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, he might have been a deist. Another thing is it's irrelevant that Newton and Einstein, whatever, even if they believed that there was a god and certainly before a couple hundred years ago, all scientists were creationists and believed in god because that was all there was, that was the only game in town. But it's irrelevant. The fact is their methods were true to science.<br />
<br />
E: That's true.<br />
<br />
S: Even if they thought they were discovering the mind of god, it doesn't matter, they were still operating within the paradigm of science. The problem with intelligent design is not that it imagines that there's an intelligent designer, it's that it's not science, they have not proposed a testable hypothesis. It's crap. That's the problem with it. It's not being oppressed, it's not being discriminated against, it's being correctly and fairly characterized as utter worthless nonsense. All of their arguments are terrible. That's why it does not belong in the science classroom. It's not science, period.<br />
<br />
B: I am looking forward, though, to downloading the pirated version of the movie from the web. Check it out.<br />
<br />
S: Ugh, it's terrible.<br />
<br />
J: I was always under the impression that he was a very intelligent guy.<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends on how you define.<br />
<br />
E: I would say that he is a bit intelligent -<br />
<br />
S: He may be intelligent in some ways, but even if you generally an intelligent person, you may have some academic area of expertise, it doesn't make you an automatic expert in everything, and obviously he does not have an adequate understanding of the scientific method to understand why intelligent design is not science. Or he does but he has a religious belief which is giving him this blind spot in this area. People have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize their knowledge.<br />
<br />
R: As we've seen again and again, it's the really intelligent people who believe in the wacky crap that we have to fear the most, they're the ones who are doing the most damage unfortunately. <br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, it happens just over and over and over again. It's really not good.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(58.25)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. We have a theme for this week - the theme is the sexes. It's about differences between men and women.<br />
<br />
R: Sexy.<br />
<br />
S: Ready?<br />
<br />
Various: Mmm hmm. Yeah. Yes.<br />
<br />
S: Here we go. Item number one, a survey reveals that women, on average, are significantly more satisfied with their jobs than men. Item number two, a new study shows that men will chose romance over career success more often than women. And item number three, survey shows that married men do indeed do less housework than live-in boyfriends. Jay, you go first.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Survey reveals that women, on average, are more satisfied with their jobs than men. Uh, quick scan of all the men and women that I know and how do I gauge them liking their jobs, I probably agree with that. I know I would stay with someone that I love over work but I don't know, okay, that's interesting. And a survey shows that married men do less housework than live-in boyfriends - that is a fact and every man knows it. That's probably not true though. I think I'm going to go with the first one as the fake. The first one meaning the survey about the women liking their jobs more than men.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Ohhhhhhh. Goodness. That last one survey shows that married men do less housework than live-in boyfriends. Something's not striking me correctly about that. I don't think that one is right. So I'll say that one is fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Um, yeah, I have lived with multiple boyfriends in the past - not all at once - and never gotten married and the reason is because live-in boyfriends do more housework than married men. So I'm thinking, oh wait, wait.<br />
<br />
S: That means you think that's true.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yes, that would be true. <br />
<br />
E: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Hmmmm.<br />
<br />
S: I know it's confusing.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Anything with a negative in it always throws me off.<br />
<br />
S: I'm going to start having ones that have like triple negatives.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Oh, well darn, because I thought the other two were true too. Okay. So I am definitely more satisfied with my job than most men I know and I think men are big wussy cry-babies who would pick love over career.<br />
<br />
J: What? What the hell's that supposed to mean?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: She just called you a wussy cry-baby Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, wussy cry-babies like Jay.<br />
<br />
E: Are you going to stand for that?<br />
<br />
J: I'm not a cry-baby. I might be a wuss but I'm not a cry-baby.<br />
<br />
R: Aw Jay baby, why don't you go watch [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243155/ Bridget Jones' Diary] again.<br />
<br />
J: You're going to put me down because I enjoyed watching that movie?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Wow, I was kidding.<br />
<br />
E: Some things should not be revealed on a podcast.<br />
<br />
R: Okay, you know what then? I'm going to go against my own initial thought. I'm going to say that married men do more housework than live-in boyfriends.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, so you're with Evan that that one is the fake.<br />
<br />
E: There we go.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Bob?<br />
<br />
B: I'm not buying that women on average are significantly more satisfied with their jobs than men. I think that is fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, so we got Bob and Jay think that women are more satisfied with their jobs than men is fiction, and Evan and Rebecca think that live-in boyfriends do more housework than ..<br />
<br />
R: No, wait, I want to change my..<br />
<br />
B:What?<br />
<br />
R: I change my mind again. Can I change? You haven't said yet.<br />
<br />
S: No, you took your finger off the piece.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: I love chess.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca and Evan say that the survey says that married men do less housework than live in boyfriends is fiction. Everyone agrees therefore that a new study shows that men will chose romance over career success more often than women. You all think that one is true.<br />
<br />
E: I hope that's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: And that one is science. That one is true.<br />
<br />
E: Yey!<br />
<br />
S: You all got that one correct. This was -<br />
<br />
R: Well, that's the one I was going to change it to so I guess it's just as well.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, good. So this is a new study that's coming out in a future issue, the upcoming issue of Gender Issues <ref>Mosher C, Danoff-Burg S (2007). College Students’ Life Priorities: The Influence of Gender and Gender-linked Personality Traits. Gender Issues, Vol. 24, No. 2. (DOI 10.1007/s12147-007-9002-z)</ref> and it concludes, after doing a survey, that men may be more willing than women to sacrifice achievement goals for a romantic relationship. However this was a study of, and this may have something to do with the results, this was a study of undergraduate students, 80 men and 157 women aged 16-25. So the conclusions really can only apply to that age group. But in that population, the men did, overall both men and women prioritized romance, romantic relationships very high. They also ranked achievement very high, but men more than women prioritized romantic relationships above career success. The article was interpreted as surprising, as if that went against commonly held beliefs or impressions. What's interesting is my wife is a college counselor and she says that men come, the boy students, the male students come in to see her totally devastated when their girlfriend breaks up with them. The girls weather that much better than the men.<br />
<br />
J: Of course.<br />
<br />
S: It actually accords to her subjective experience.<br />
<br />
J: Because women are heart-breakers, I mean we know that. Look at Rebecca.<br />
<br />
S/E: Yeah, right, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Jay and Bob - you both think that a survey reveals that women on average are significantly more satisfied with their jobs than men, you think that one is fiction. <br />
<br />
B: Correctly, I might add.<br />
<br />
S: And that one is in fact fiction.<br />
<br />
R: Ah.<br />
<br />
S: So you both got that one correct.<br />
<br />
J: Yey Bob!<br />
<br />
S: This was from an article Job Satisifaction in America: Trends in Socio-Demographic Correlates. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070827.jobs.pdf Job Satisfaction in America pdf]</ref> The study showed a number of things in terms of different ages, socio-economic status, races, and however the lots of interesting differences I'll mention a couple in a second, but there was no significant difference between men and women. Women were slightly, had a slight lead on men in terms of indicating that they were very satisfied - 52% for women, 49% for men. But they also had a higher rate of being very dissatisfied, 5% to 4%, so they basically concluded that's a wash, so it's basically no significant difference between the two. One thing that's not surprising is that the more skilled jobs, more academic jobs, more jobs that require post-graduate level degrees, that were creative, that involve teaching - those jobs had the highest satisfaction. The lowest satisfaction were among those jobs that were basically mindless manual labor. Not a big surprise. This means that a survey shows that married men do less housework than live-in boyfriends is in fact science, that is -<br />
<br />
R: I should have gone with my first feeling.<br />
<br />
S: - true. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, we should have, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you should have.<br />
<br />
R: Never second guess.<br />
<br />
E: Except when you have to.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: That goes without saying.<br />
<br />
S: This was a study done by sociologist Shannon Davis at the George Mason University, studied more than 17000 people in 28 countries. <ref>[http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/28/9/1246.abstract Effects of Union Type on Divison of Household Labor]</ref> So that's a pretty extensive survey. Found that married men report doing less housework than men who are live-in boyfriends. And the conclusion, just to cut to the conclusion that they drew from this data is that they say "our research suggests that couples across many countries are influenced by similar factors when deciding how to divide the housework. It's the way the society has defined what being married means, the institution itself that effects behavior." And they basically said that "marriage as an institution seems to have a traditionalizing effect on couples, even couples who see men and women as equal."<br />
<br />
J: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8 Mawwiage.]<br />
<br />
S: That's very interesting.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(1.07.03)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Well Evan, we actually now, we have a puzzle from three weeks ago that we don't know the answer to.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, episode 107, we may have to pick it up from there. So here is the puzzle from that week. <br />
<blockquote>I sure hate this delusional person<br><br />
Though hate may be a word too strong <br><br />
As I learn more, my opinion does worsen <br><br />
Perhaps I won't re-write this song<br><br />
Micro set scams were just some of his wares<br> <br />
He claims he is spiritual at heart <br><br />
A dozen or so of these blessings are shared <br><br />
Jesus could only hope to Master their art<br><br />
From his website I read, as they humbly plead <br><br />
That they can lay hands and cure you of ills <br><br />
Just join them and pray, for you will see one day <br><br />
You've found their holy mountains and hills<br><br />
For it was their king, that taught them these things<br> <br />
They are simply swine to this pearl thrower <br><br />
A doctor, a reverend, and a knight, so he sings <br><br />
But it was yoga that made him a knower. </blockquote><br />
E: Name the person.<br />
<br />
S: And the answer is?<br />
<br />
E: Dr. George King, our dear friend from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_King_(Aetherius_Society) Aetherius Society,] an organization founded by Dr. George King in London in 1955 as the result of what King claimed were contacts with advanced extra-terrestrial intelligences. It's guiding principle is service to humanity, though the manipulation of subtle energies through prayer, healing and other technology-based means. It's teachings combine the spiritual teachings of yoga with other received through yoga mediumship of Dr King in the channeling of advanced extra-terrestrial beings. It has been characterized by some observers as a type of UFO religion.<br />
<br />
S: Sounds like a hodgepodge of new age wackiness. <br />
<br />
E: It is wacky, boy, I mean, you go to that [http://www.aetherius.org/ website] for the Aetherius Society and it is, excuse the phrase, ''kook central'' basically.<br />
<br />
J: Wooo woooooo.<br />
<br />
E: They've got quite a few stories on there. And congratulations to Cethis, C-e-t-h-i-s, for being the first to post the correct answer.<br />
<br />
S: Wow, he got that, I'm impressed.<br />
<br />
E: He did, yes. He did.He figured out the couple anagrams in there and put two and two together.<br />
<br />
S: And came up with five.<br />
<br />
E: And made it happen.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, do you have a puzzle for this week?<br />
<br />
E: I do. (clears throat) I have another poem.<br />
<br />
S: Oh boy.<br />
<br />
E: In which, so -<br />
<br />
S: Is it a limerick, you owe us a limerick, don't forget that.<br />
<br />
E: So bare with me. I know I owe you a limerick - <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, we're looking for a limerick.<br />
<br />
E: I wrote this, I wrote this one actually maybe even prior to the last puzzle, I'm just getting around to using it now, so bare with me.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Limerick in the future. So here we go, this week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Being set on the idea <br><br />
Of getting to this place <br><br />
He concocted a theory that would be a <br><br />
Controversy in science's face<br />
<br />
He says our whole conception <br><br />
Of pre-history is wrong <br><br />
He insists his arguments are not a deception <br><br />
Rather a pursuit that is life-long<br />
<br />
Three points in a row with one offset <br><br />
Is apparently the key <br><br />
To unlocking a secret that is a threat <br><br />
To how we understand our history<br />
<br />
He believes the past is misunderstood <br><br />
That history has been systematically slaughtered <br><br />
But if we tried to go see his revisionist history<br><br />
All our heads would be under water.<br />
<br />
E: So. Whom am I rhyming about this week, and it's not Dr. George King, so you can eliminate that from your list. So good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
R: That only leaves six billion people.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, thank you Evan.<br />
<br />
R: Thanks.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1.10.50)</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
S: I'm going to do the skeptical quote this week, but Jay has volunteered to take it up starting next week. So Jay, you've got some big shoes to fill. Here's the quote for this week to close out our Perry Memorial Show.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Thinking critically is a chore. It does not come naturally or easily. And if the fruits of such efforts are not carefully displayed to young minds, then they will not harvest them. Every school child must be implanted with the wonder of the atom, not the thrall of magic. </blockquote><br />
<br />
That is a quote from Perry DeAngelis, 1963-2007, a skeptical philosopher and activist and a good friend of some considerable note.<br />
<br />
E: Here here.<br />
<br />
B: Excellent.<br />
<br />
R: Good one.<br />
<br />
S: Perry, we will all miss you. Well, goodnight everyone.<br />
<br />
All: Goodnight.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}} <br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_110&diff=4389SGU Episode 1102012-10-28T04:00:20Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 110<br />
|episodeDate = 28<sup>th</sup> August 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:perry%202.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = ML: Mike LaCelle <br />
|guest1 = F: Fernanda <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-08-28.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=110<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,4820.0.html<br />
|qowText = Thinking critically is a chore. It does not come naturally or easily. And if the fruits of such efforts are not carefully displayed to young minds, then they will not harvest them. Every school child must be implanted with the wonder of the atom, not the thrall of magic. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday August 28<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella - <br />
<br />
B: Hello.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hi everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella - <br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey folks.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening?<br />
<br />
B: Crappy. Recovering.<br />
<br />
S: Recovering. Yeah, so.<br />
<br />
R: I think we've had better nights.<br />
<br />
== Perry DeAngelis Remembered <small>(0.41)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: This is our first show after the passing of our good friend Perry. As most listeners probably know by now, from our website and also last week's episode and also the word's been getting around in multiple other venues, Perry DeAngelis, one of the rogues, one of the members of our podcast, passed away on August 19<sup>th</sup>, which of course was a very big blow to all of us, both personally and professionally as part of, he was a big part of the podcast. Definitely lent a unique voice and was a good complement to everyone else on the show. We were very pleased however, you know in a bittersweet sort of way, to receive the tremendous feedback from all of Perry's fans and a lot of our listeners.<br />
<br />
B: That was amazing.<br />
<br />
S: That was. We've had literally hundreds of comments and emails and posts on our forums - everyone giving their reflections and their thoughts about Perry. Many extremely heartfelt. First I want to say thank you to everyone who sent in their condolences to us. We definitely passed them on to his family and they greatly appreciated that. It also helped them to understand and appreciate what Perry meant to his fans and to quite a lot of people.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Steve, I'm not sure exactly how much his family understood or appreciated exactly what he was doing. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I mean, you saw him more than the rest of us did. How aware was his family of this weekly podcast that Perry was doing. Was it really even on the radar for them?<br />
<br />
S: Not very much for his parents. His sister, who is also a friend of ours, obviously knew what it was and listened to it. But a lot of the older generation basically just knew of it really only tangentially and didn't really understand what a big part it played in Perry's life.<br />
<br />
B: And other people's lives.<br />
<br />
S: Now, we've had a lot of questions of course about exactly what happened, and Perry always told me that I could basically tell everybody anything that they wanted to know about his medical condition, about what happened, and I have permission from his wife of course to not only access his medical information but to discuss it. I think it does help the part of the process of understanding and accepting what happened to Perry and actually helps in the grieving process to understand just factually what happened. The quick summary is that Perry, actually Perry was a pretty healthy guy up until about 8 or 9 years ago, even though Perry was big his whole life and did have some complications from that, he did have [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_2_diabetes Type 2 diabetes,] but<br />
9 years ago he was a completely healthy, totally active guy without really any physical limitations. But then he started to get some really serious medical problems that we didn't know where they were coming from. He had two very serious illnesses that put him in the hospital for a long time, that were even potentially life threatening. One time he had, the first really serious illness he had was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericarditis pericarditis,] which is inflammation around the heart. And that led to fluid building up in the sack that surrounds the heart, the pericardium, basically squeezing in on the heart and keeping it from functioning.<br />
<br />
B: It was actually named after him, was it?<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) Right, Perry-carditis, yeah, he thought that was amusing. That was treated, these acute things were treated, but eventually it was discovered that Perry had a very serious chronic disease called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleroderma scleroderma.] Scleroderma is still a bit mysterious. It's a connective tissue disease. It's sort of an autoimmune disease, but not really. There may be some inflammatory component but it doesn't respond to immunosuppressive therapy like other autoimmune diseases might. It's basically untreatable. It's a proliferation of the connective tissue, the fibroblasts - those are the cells that lay in wait and then they might heal a cut, for example, by forming scar tissue. So essentially what happens is that scar tissue diffusely forms out of control in all the tissue. It was evident in Perry's skin as, over the last 8 years his fingers were somewhat curled up and he couldn't generally have a lot of use of his fingers because of the scleroderma of his skin. But it also happened on the inside - it was infecting his kidneys, his heart, his lungs, his esophagus. Thinking back, Perry really was progressively ill over the last 8 years. We always sort of knew that the scleroderma was there, that it was a progressive disease, it was incurable, but as he started to develop more and more shortness of breath and inability to really engage in a lot of physical activity, we were looking for other treatable things that might be contributing to it that we could do something about. In the final analysis, the underlying problem was the scleroderma, and it had caused too much damage to his heart and lungs. And then last week it just finally caught up with him. In a way, again, it's one of those things that I think down deep we kind of knew was inevitable, we saw it coming, but nothing really prepares you for this kind of thing happening. And we never gave up the hope that there would, that Perry would be stable for a little while longer, that there would be something that we could treat that would improve his function, that we would have him around -<br />
<br />
E: Or spontaneous remission or some kind of -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you know - <br />
<br />
J: We were all actually surprised to find out it was actually the scleroderma. I mean when you told me, Steve, I was shocked. I always assumed that it was weight related.<br />
<br />
B: I was surprised too. I was actually, it cheered me up a little bit, because for days prior to hearing about that, that detail, I was pretty down in that I felt like it was, his death was a preventable thing that I should have been on his case more about losing weight and wishing that he had taken his weight more seriously for the past 5 years or so and that if he had just done that, he would have had much more time. But when I found that he really had no choice, it was really not much he could have done, I mean his quality of life could have been better the past handful of years if he had lost weight, but there really wasn't, there was nothing he could have done to prevent that from happening. It was kind of reflected in the way he lived. Jay, didn't you say that when he kind of realized what was going on, that he really just tried to enjoy life more and do more of the things that he really enjoyed and stayed away from the things that were, the parts of life that are annoying, that he just had more fun when he saw that, was that accurate?<br />
<br />
J: Well, Steve would know better than I, but I remember having conversations with Perry where he would basically say he's living his life the way he wants to. It was kind of the subtext was 'cos he knew that he didn't have a lot of time and he was doing everything in his power to just make himself happy.<br />
<br />
R: And one of the big things that made him happy was doing this podcast, which I think is important to note is that that he kept at this for as long as he could. <br />
<br />
S: He did. This was very important to him. He really cared about it a great deal. This was, I think, it gave his life a tremendous amount of meaning. Perry never let me forget that it was his idea to form the [http://www.theness.com/ New England Skeptical Society,] that -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: It was, I remember.<br />
<br />
S: It was. It was his inspiration. And through that fact he sort of took credit for everything that followed. Including the Skeptic's Guide - <br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I let him have that. Yes, if not for you who knows what would have happened this last whatever, it's been 11 now years of skeptical activism may never have occurred at all. It may never have occurred to me to do this. It would be interesting to know, to think of what I would be doing.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why don't you go into even a little more detail about how it actually came out. He was, we were going through the [http://www.csicop.org/si Skeptical Inquirer] and in the back of the magazine they list local skeptical organizations and of course Perry was looking at this and he went right to Connecticut and he said "Wait, there's no skeptical organizations in Connecticut." And that's how I remember it came up. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "we should form a skeptical organization."<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: "We should."<br />
<br />
J: And this was 1995?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Was it '95? Woah.<br />
<br />
E: '95.<br />
<br />
S: And that was it. We soon became, we went from the Connecticut Skeptical Society to the New England Skeptical Society, because there was no skeptical organization in New England. Yeah, and Perry was really tireless and relentless. He really worked on this since then, since the beginning he never lacked giving his own time to this. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, why don't you give a quick explanation about the first few years and what you guys were doing, what the organization was about.<br />
<br />
S: For several years we really, when we started we had no clue, as you might imagine. None of us had ever run a non-profit organization before, we didn't know what the landscape was in the skeptical community, so we did the things we thought we should do. We held local meetings, and the first few meetings we didn't even know what we were doing, what we should do at the meetings, we just thought we should have them! And then we slowly settled into the kind of activities that a local skeptical group does - we had lectures, we did investigations, we - <br />
<br />
B: We wrote articles, did the newsletter.<br />
<br />
S: We wrote articles. The newsletter was sort of the focus back then, this was pre-podcasting.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: The website was really an afterthought, kinda just attachment, it wasn't really the focus of what we were doing. The newsletter and the local -<br />
<br />
B: Nah. And I did the website by the way. Woo-hoo!<br />
<br />
S: That's right. <br />
<br />
B: Lame HTML.<br />
<br />
R: And I saw a really great picture of Perry where he's dressed like a wizard of some sort and he's standing in front of Jack - <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Laying down on a table. Can you describe what happened there?<br />
<br />
S: That was, we had a Psychic Unfair, where we ran like a psychic fair but we basically exposed a lot of different things that happen, and Perry did a psychic surgery. He did it pretty good. As good as any of the fakes do it. Of course Perry had to get the guru costume and made a very tremendous theatrical - <br />
<br />
E: It was about showmanship.<br />
<br />
S: Perry was all about the theatrics.<br />
<br />
B: We have to get that picture out there, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: We have a good picture of that, we'll definitely put some pictures up in the notes for this episode. So that's what we did for a lot of years and it was, in a way, really like earning our skeptical bones as it were, we kind of did the grunt work of just writing a lot of articles, doing as many investigations as we could, giving a lot of lectures. Last week's podcast, some people asked me what was that from. And they also asked me what's Perry's background and training. Well, first, that was a seminar that New England Skeptical Society was invited to give as part of a continuing education for science teachers, for public school science teachers in Connecticut. I believe that was through Southern Connecticut State University.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It was a day long, 8 hours of us giving lectures, and that piece that we had last week was one of Perry's parts of the lecture. And we may make other parts of that available. That's what that was from. Perry's background actually, Perry did not have an academic background but he just had a life-long interest and love affair with both science and also just the truth, just the no-nonsense what is the bottom line, what is the truth, and he relished sifting through the BS and the nonsense to try to get at what was really going on. <br />
<br />
B: Steve, a quick memory just popped into my head: we were at my parents' house and my parents had this little chalk board display on the island in the kitchen. I remember Perry wrote in chalk on this little board, he wrote "question everything." And then of course I wanted to add underneath "Except this."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Right. Yes, I mean he was a basically self-taught skeptic and then he began to read the skeptical literature. Of course we've had countless countless conversations dissecting everything that we can get our hands on. Pretty much like the rest of us, we're just self-taught skeptics, it's just from doing it, living it for 12 years. As anyone who listens to the podcast on a regular basis could tell, Perry got very good at it, dissecting things and seeing where the BS was, and definitely became very adept at skeptical analysis. But that said, no formal training. I don't know that there is any formal training in skepticism, you know. There are pieces of it that we put together.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: But there's no academic program of scientific skepticism, it's just knowing science, knowing logic, knowing self deception, knowing about human psychology.<br />
<br />
R: A well functioning BS detector, which Perry had.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. A functional BS detector, right. We've had a great many emails and messages from our listeners. I wanted to read a couple of them. This one came in recently. It's a bit long but it's very touching and I think is, represents a lot of what the emails said. Some of the common themes that kept cropping up in the messages about Perry's passing were one that a lot of people were shocked at how emotionally they took Perry's loss, and they didn't realize how attached they had grown to him just from listening to him on the show. Of course what is i think very touching and very revealing of a couple of things - one is just generically the podcasting format is very intimate. A lot of people have commented about how they have felt that Perry and the rest of us really are like their friends that they invite into their car, their home or whatever once a week to listen to. <br />
<br />
B: Yes, somebody had a nice quote, they said that it's like they're listening in on a friend's conversation and they're the quiet one. They're the one that's not talking.<br />
<br />
S: A lot of people made that observation. The other thing is that Perry in particular, his personality came across so well on the podcast, that a lot of the observations people made about Perry, to those of us who knew him in person and for a long time were very very true. The listeners generally "got" Perry very well. So it kind of showed us that yeah, you know, Perry was able to convey what he really thought and felt about things and how he operated just from being himself on the show, that this wasn't, the show was not scripted, it is very spontaneous and it is very genuine and Perry, what you heard of Perry on this show was him. That's how Perry is.<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So I want to read this one email. This one is from Gabrielle Dietrich and she wrote:<blockquote><br />
"To my dearest rogues, know that you do not grieve alone for this fan grieves with you. I heard the news yesterday, a day which I will never forget. I looked at the title of the podcast 109 and all I could say was "no." I didn't want the title to be true, I didn't want to believe the news. I didn't want to be told it was true but I pushed play anyway. When I heard Steve confirm my worst fears, the tears burst forth from the pit of my being and poured out of me, I couldn't breathe. And I couldn't believe what I had heard. Perry's passing had to be a lie. This all had to be a lie. I lay down on my couch and cried with my fiance holding me till I couldn't cry any more. I got up and put on my best black shirt and mourned Perry's loss. I still feel like I need to do something in his honor. Perry was one of my heroes. All the rogues are my heroes and Rebecca is my shero. Your podcast opened my eyes to the lies I'd lived my life believing. <br />
</blockquote><blockquote><br />
I had just finished a course in massage therapy and was convinced that alternative medicine held all the answers. I was sold on essential oils and the super healing powers they possessed. I knew that aliens existed and that most conspiracies had some truth to them. I knew that Sylvia Brown was an amazing woman who could talk to the dead and that Crossing Over with John Edwards was amazingly real and impossible to fake. I knew without a doubt that coral calcium was a wonder drug that would cure all known diseases. I knew all those things and I knew that I wanted to become a homeopathic naturopathic physician. This all thankfully changed when I tuned into your podcast. I started listening to it because I was hoping to find something that would make me laugh with its complete avoidance of reality. In my world pre-SGU, skeptics were just talking heads who made some bogus claim and doubted everything. In my post-SGU life, I am a skeptic. I have you all to thank for who I am today. Thank you every one of you, and thank you as well Perry.<br />
</blockquote><blockquote><br />
One of the greatest moments of my life is when one of the rogues read my quote on the podcast, and in the end of my review I proclaimed "I take my news from the well-informed group well over my local news channels." I made that post on iTunes trying to thank you all for saving me from a path down the wrong road. I'd always planned on writing again letting you all know you saved me from my misplaced plans for a career in bogus healthcare but I didn't plan on telling you at a time such as this. I was awaiting Perry's triumphant return to SGU podcast with barely contained patience. I just knew he would be back and all would be right in the world. I lost a friend yesterday, or rather I discovered my loss yesterday. Perry may have been just a host, a rogue, a voice coming out of the speaker to some listeners but to me he was a close friend who I shared an hour with once a week talking science and news. At 24-years-old I didn't think I would be losing any of my friends for a long time to come. Fate is a cruel mistress and she played us all a very sad hand. I cannot think of Perry being gone without tears wanting to spill and I hope that this reaches all of the rogues in good health if not in good spirits. Thank you for all that you do and all that you have done, your work has saved me, it has changed me for the better. And lastly it allowed me to get to know one of the greatest men of our time, Perry DeAngelis. May the SGU continue to prove monkey superiority, may the rogues continue to be my weekly companions, and may your bacon always be healthy, all 40 pounds of it." </blockquote><br />
<br />
J: It's up to 40 pounds now?<br />
<br />
R: Thank you, Gabe.<br />
<br />
S/B: Yeah, thank you.<br />
<br />
S: It was very touching, and of course it is exactly emails like that that helped us get through what was a very difficult week.<br />
<br />
J: We're not even through it. It's not even close -<br />
<br />
S: We're not even close to being through it, but surviving the first week was certainly the roughest, and it enabled us to sit down once again, all in front of our computers and do what is for all of us a very difficult show and of course to press on into the future. We greatly appreciate everyone who took the time to write us their feelings.<br />
<br />
E: That's an incredible email -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: - that we received. There are others like it. Very similar.<br />
<br />
S: That was the most dramatic. That, and I chose to read that one because that is exactly what Perry always said he wanted to do - to take somebody who was going down the wrong path and turn them towards skepticism, "toward the light." That email is a vindication of everything Perry set out to do 12 years ago in forming the New England Skeptical Society and later doing the Skeptic's Guide podcast.<br />
<br />
J: Do you think that we actually do have an effect, you know, it's one thing to do the show and say "we're preaching to the choir." The hard part is to be able to reach out and touch people and actually make a difference in their lives and I almost can't believe it, that we can do that. It really is, in the end, it is just a bunch of friends chatting to each other.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, we used to call it dinner table conversation - we go out to dinner, and this is it. We would have podcast shows over the dinner table. It wasn't a podcast at the time.<br />
<br />
R: If only you guys had all carried around recorders with you.<br />
<br />
B: Maybe we cursed a little more, but, that's okay.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
R: No, it's just that Steve didn't edit it out during dinner.<br />
<br />
S/E/J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: I had no edit button back then!<br />
<br />
R: But yeah, speaking as a godless heathen, it's really great to see what an impact that Perry had on people, because in my world-view he's gone, but there's this part of him that's going to live for a very long time in the impact he had on others. People can continue to hear him for years to come. There's something really cool about that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's one of those sentiments that is so over-used that it's become a cliche and it's almost been spoiled and watered down, but it's actually literally true - that Perry does "live on" in all of us, certainly he is still inside my head. I mean, there are even, it's been very difficult in the last week or so not to be thinking to myself constantly what Perry would say or how he would respond to a certain situation.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like what would he think of this whole week, you know?<br />
<br />
S: I would love to talk to him about what he would think about everything that has happened, but he still definitely had an impact on all of us. A lot of us thought that Perry was always larger than life - his personality, his charisma. Again that came through on the show and that's sort of the impact that he had on all of us. It is very nice to hear that he had the same impact on so many other people through the podcast. Certainly there is a hundred or so episodes of Perry that we can always go back and listen to, that will exist into the foreseeable future, preserved, and that's a great thing. I'm so glad that we did this in the last couple of years for that reason, but also, perhaps less concretely, but Perry's impact on all the people who have listened to him and the influence he has had on their way of thinking is something else that will live on. And I agree, Rebecca, if your world-view is materialistic, that what more could you have, right?<br />
<br />
S: Well, we're actually going to bring on with us this evening Mike LaCelle who runs the SGU fans.net to give a little bit of the fan's perspective on Perry, so let's bring him in now. We are now joined by Mike LaCelle from SGU fans.net. Mike, thanks for joining us.<br />
<br />
ML: Thank you.<br />
<br />
All: Hey Mike, hi Mike.<br />
<br />
S: So, Mike is I guess by definition our no. 1 fan, since he runs our fan site. Mike has been very supportive over the last week, again helping us get through this, helping us every step of the way. Mike, you set up on the fan site the Perry DeAngelis Memorial Fund, which again, we greatly appreciate that. And you also took it upon your own initiative to register perrydeangelis.org which will, we're still sort of thinking about exactly we're going to use that but this could be a permanent site to enshrine, if you will, on the web all things Perry DeAngelis, and we can link to that from the fan site and from our own site. [Now a German holiday spam site.] So just very quickly, a lot of people have asked us, "I want to do something, I want to make a donation or do something in honor of Perry, what can I do?" so Mike set up, on the fan site, a link to donate to the Perry DeAngelis Memorial Fund. This money is going to the New England Skeptical Society, which is a non-profit organization, so this is all tax deductible. The money will be used in some fashion to commemorate Perry and his dedication to skepticism. There's no question in my mind this is exactly what Perry would want us to do. And we're in the brainstorming and taking suggestion phase in terms of the details of how we're going to use it, but it's going to be something like either an annual lecture or an annual meeting for the SGU that will be the Perry DeAngelis Memorial whatever, podcast or lecture or meeting. The alternative suggestions have been to set up a scholarship for young skeptics and some groups do this where they may have an essay contest and the winner of the essay contest then gets a certain amount of money as a scholarship towards their higher education. <br />
<br />
R: Or also there's been a suggestion that we just have a big fight with a monkey and an ostrich.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Like a cage match?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, the monkey gets a knife.<br />
<br />
S: The Perry DeAngelis Memorial Cage Match between a monkey and a bird.<br />
<br />
E: We can't take bets on it tough.<br />
<br />
S: That's true, we can't.<br />
<br />
R: No, that would be -<br />
<br />
E: Illegal<br />
<br />
J: I like the scholarship, I think that would have a lot of meaning.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Well, Mike is in touch with the fans, what do you think, Mike?<br />
<br />
ML: I think it's pretty all over the board with those suggestions. Some people have told me that the scholarship idea is a good idea, the lecture series is a good idea. I've talked to a few people that knew Perry from the chat room and they say pretty much anything that would carry on Perry's memory in that sense would be great.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So yeah, the on-going cage match I think.<br />
<br />
ML: Yeah, the cage match.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, that's Rebecca's vote, the cage match.<br />
<br />
J: Hey Mike, when you first started listening to the show, did Perry stick out?<br />
<br />
ML: Yeah. When I first first started listening to this show, the way I saw Perry was the grumpy guy. The guy who sort of had one too many encounters with those types of people, pseudoscience and all that. He's just there to say "this is all BS." But after listening to a few shows, he grows more and more on you and you can see where he's coming from, but yeah, the first impression would have to be that, that he was the grumpy guy!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Perry was always the lovable curmudgeon.<br />
<br />
All: (laughter), yeah.<br />
<br />
R: It just takes a while for the lovable part to make itself apparent.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Someone said that Perry was the id of our show, that he -<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - would say exactly what everyone was thinking and wanted to say but he had the balls to actually say it.<br />
<br />
E: Good observation.<br />
<br />
S: Is that also the kind of impression that you got Mike?<br />
<br />
ML: That's exactly it. Yeah. He would say what I was thinking. It was like, "this is BS. Let's just move on."<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. "Let's just cut to the chase and call it what it is." Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, Perry had one of those personalities where he could say it, he really could call it like he sees it, but his charisma was able to soften it somehow, even though I don't think Perry came off friendly either. But he just, it was delivered with so much charisma that you just kind of sat back and nodded when he would do his thing.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And I always respected the fact that Perry always felt, that he not just wanted to but he felt obligated to communicate that way because that was important to him. Even to the very end I'll disagree with him right now, the whole global warming thing, and he really didn't, he really stuck to his guns, even against scientific evidence!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, obviously there are things about which even good skeptics can disagree. Perry could be stubborn at times as well.<br />
<br />
R: Tell me about it.<br />
<br />
S: There's no question. But you're right, and even some of his close friends and others have observed that Perry had this strange charisma, it was hard to put your finger on. Even when he was being irascible, even when you disagreed with him, even when he was being -<br />
<br />
E: He was charming.<br />
<br />
S: - stubborn, it was always charm. Right? You couldn't get mad or stay mad at him. <br />
<br />
R: You could get mad at him, let's be honest! You could get mad at him! (laughs) Staying mad, though, yeah, that's another thing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it wouldn't last.<br />
<br />
S: But not, he said things to me and to the people close to him that if someone else said it, the emotional response would have been ten times as bad. I mean, like, I tolerate things from Perry - <br />
<br />
B: Oh, Steve!<br />
<br />
S: - I would not tolerate from anyone else.<br />
<br />
B: Right. Steve, think of the emails we've gotten from him where he, his emails of course would be, he would not forward emails, he would not have the attachment the previous email, so every email he sent was completely out of context, it would be a comment. Sometimes you wouldn't get your email for an hour, maybe a day later and you have ''no clue'' what he's referring to, and you're trying to think "what's he referring to?" so you sort everything by date and you try to see what he's referring to here, but of course a lot of times it was absolutely clear exactly what he was referring to and some things he would come across, some of the things he would say in his emails were like "oh my God! I can't.." At first you're like "I can't believe he said that!" and you think if anyone else did that, the reaction would be completely different, but it was Perry. It was Perry and he had carte blanche, he could do that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Like nobody else could do that.<br />
<br />
S: Mike, you got to know Perry in the chat room quite a bit.<br />
<br />
ML: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think Perry more than any of us frequented our chat room and made a connection with the fans that were in there. <br />
<br />
ML: He did, yeah, he made a lot of friends in there. Yeah, he was in there at all hours of the day and night. He would chat with everyone, it was awesome.<br />
<br />
E: Perry was not a good sleeper, especially those last 8, 9 years.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: He had trouble sleeping the night through so he would get a couple hours of sleep but then he would be up from 2 to 6.<br />
<br />
S: Go in the chartroom and talk with people in Australia.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Right. How is your afternoon going in Australia?<br />
<br />
S: We were sent an audio, a clip from another listener who frequents the chat room. This one's from Candace who actually got to know Perry quite well. So let's listen to her clip right now:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Hello, this is Candy from Eureka, California. Perry offered an alternative point of view to the mainstream of the SGU panel. His popularity was not due only to his charisma but to his courage as a skeptic. His skepticism was genuine and he was not just some ditto-ing yes-man. Perry was not intellectually lazy and was willing to truly put all of his preconceived notions aside to analyze things critically. It was this authenticity that I admired most in Perry. Many of you already know this Perry. But some of us were lucky enough to have known him outside of the podcast. Some of my fondest memories are of late night chats where you could catch Perry singing very badly to country music or listen to him curse his television when watching baseball. He never slowed his pace to change or alter himself for anyone's ego, whether he was teasing you about your Mac or needing a haircut or a Transylvanian-sounding accent. He was always straight with people and never pandered to anyone when honesty was what was needed. Perry was loved and will truly be missed. Ciao, babe."</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Well, thank you Candace, that was very nice. You mentioned the Yankees - whenever it was baseball season and we were recording a podcast, it would be frequently interrupted by Perry shouting in the background at his TV set.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You know, true.<br />
<br />
E: It's true, all of a sudden we'd be talking about something, and all of a sudden it would be "Damn! A-Road! How can you strike out! Son-of-a-gun! Blah blah!"<br />
<br />
J: You'd never know that Perry enjoyed baseball by listening to him watch a game.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But he did.<br />
<br />
E: He really did, and I actually had the pleasure of going to a couple of baseball games with Perry. I remember specifically at a time in which I was personally really down in the dumps and some really bad things were happening in my life right particularly there, and the next morning Perry shows up at my door and says "come on, get in the car with me, we're heading to Yankee Stadium, we're going to see a baseball game."<br />
<br />
B: Awesome.<br />
<br />
E: And we did, we just palled around the whole day, saw the game, it was just really a great time and I'll never ever forget it, but that's the kind of friend he really was. When you were his friend, a good friend of his, he treated you with a lot of respect and he really went out of his way to make you feel good and to try to cheer you up when you were feeling down. Perry was excellent at that.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that's cool that he did that for you Evan.<br />
<br />
R: You know, I just opened up my email and just did a search for all the Perry emails because we were talking about how he would send these random things with no context at all attached, so, can I just read a few random ones?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: For instance, one I click on says, all this is "well sure, but I told you so." Which is pretty much all he ever said. Here's one where he sent us yet another article on global warming and he writes "kicking and screaming I will drag you all into the light on this issue." Here's a particularly good one, I don't know what it was in response to, but I'm sure he didn't mean it. He says "why are our listeners so palpably stupid?" <br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Now wait a minute.<br />
<br />
R: And then another one says, I won't say the actual word 'cos it's a curse word, but it just says "F-ing hippy loser."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I assume so, he sent it to all of us but I think we can assume that it was directed at me.<br />
<br />
S: Yep, that was Perry.<br />
<br />
B: You knew what you got with Perry.<br />
<br />
S: So Mike, again, thanks for coming on and representing all of Perry's fans, and for continuing to help with the fan site. It's really been a great addition to our show.<br />
<br />
ML: Aw, thank you for letting me come on and talk about Perry. It's really helped.<br />
<br />
R/E: Thanks Mike.<br />
<br />
J: I want everyone to know, Mike actually did come down to Perry's wake and spent a few days here and Mike, we want to thank you very much for coming, it meant a lot to us, and it was, it's hard to put into words but we know you went out of your way and we know that you actually really did get to know Perry and really cared and it was very cool that you did that. Perry would have, Perry actually would have put his arm around you and said "thanks pal" or something like that.<br />
<br />
S: "You drove all the way down from Canada, you dumb Canuck!"<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: "You came down for this?"<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that really did mean a lot.<br />
<br />
E: It was great to see you Mike, and thank you so much.<br />
<br />
ML: It's good to see you guys too.<br />
<br />
S: Take care. Another Perry fan and listener of the Skeptic's Guide asked to join us to share her thoughts about Perry. This is Fernanda. Fernanda, welcome to the Skeptic's Guide.<br />
<br />
F: Thank you very much.<br />
<br />
J/E/B/R: Hey Fernanda. Hi.<br />
<br />
S: You're one of our Brazilian listeners, is that right?<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, I'm from South America, born and raised in Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: And you spent a lot of time with Perry on the chat room?<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, both Perry and I have trouble sleeping so we, and New York is like one hour, you guys are one hour ahead of us.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
F: So we were pretty much on at the same time and we'd just talk politics and skepticism and joked around.<br />
<br />
J: We wanted to bring you on just so you could share some of your thoughts and memories about Perry and some of the conversations you've had with him. I know that he really did enjoy chatting with you and he mentioned you to us several times.<br />
<br />
F: We'd talk politics a lot, I was like his South American insider. I studied international relations and sometimes it's hard to filter what is being said by the media and what's really going on here, so I tried to give him my perspective and also filter what the media here says about it. The many different countries, for example, Chavez and Brazilian politics is very leftist and, Perry was a Republican so we differed about that. I'm very liberal. I think he called me his liberal friend.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: He did.<br />
<br />
J: Wow, he actually said that?<br />
<br />
E: His South American liberal friend. He told me a lot. He often spoke about speaking to you in the chat room. He wanted to learn, basically - this was an experience for him to speak to someone in another part of the world to get their take on things. Perry was a good listener. <br />
<br />
R: That's the funny thing, is that Perry's like, he's the curmudgeon and everything and yet he was the one who was always in the chat room talking to people. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of a funny dichotomy that I don't think anybody really expected.<br />
<br />
S: Perry had a lot of dichotomies like that, like you wouldn't expect him to be extremely tolerant but in fact Perry was a very very tolerant person in terms of other people's personal choices. He didn't care what people did or what people believed - he didn't have any really judgmentalism about people's personal choices. If you were an ''idiot'' he was very judgmental about that, he did not suffer fools well, but in terms of how you lived your life, ''he could not care at all''. One thing that I think reflects that that I don't think many of our listeners know is that Perry's wife is a Jehovah's Witness. Wrap your mind around that.<br />
<br />
B/E/J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: That took some wrapping.<br />
<br />
S: That was kind of a shock to all of us when he let that bomb drop. <br />
<br />
F: That's one of the things that I could really relate to Perry because, and I think it's a problem with skepticism as well, just because you have a strong opinion does not mean you don't tolerate the other people's opinions. Your opinion is based on evidence, it's based on a lot of learning, a lot of reading, a lot of consulting other people, but that does not mean that you will not accept another person have a complete different point of view. And Perry was like that, and I'm like that in my life and I think sometimes your friends or people you talk to can have this impression of you that just because your opinions are strong you won't tolerate anything else and it's nothing like that. Perry was an amazing listener.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
F: And he was one of the very few people, I'm 21 years old, yeah, so it's very hard for people to take me seriously. Plus I'm a woman and in South America and a little in the United States, it's very hard for you to take a young woman seriously. I just felt very respected in that sense by Perry.<br />
<br />
S: Do you find that Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: No, not at all.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Oh, wait, about Perry, or not being respected in general?<br />
<br />
S: Not being taken seriously as a young woman.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, no, it's always hard and it's kind of like low-hanging fruit -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody wants to insult me, they're going to insult me because of my gender, because of my age, call me a "slut," whatever, so yeah.<br />
<br />
S: All true but irrelevant.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: All true, 100% true, which Perry would gladly point out.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
R: But with love. That's the thing though.<br />
<br />
B: And a wink.<br />
<br />
J: You were his favorite hippy.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I hope so. <br />
<br />
F: It's an affectionate way of calling it, like he used to call me Mexican. Of course he knew I wasn't a Mexican. <br />
<br />
E/J/B/S: Oh my God, oh Perry. (laughter) Oh come on.<br />
<br />
F: It's just affectionate, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Perry definitely showed his affection by tweaking you, by making fun of you.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
S: If he bothered to make fun of you, to Perry that was showing a certain amount of respect. We had mutual friends, we knew people that Perry did not like or didn't respect, and he didn't make fun of them, they were just below the radar, he just completely ignored people.<br />
<br />
E: Didn't give them the time of day.<br />
<br />
S: Did not give them the time of day if he did not think that they were worthy of his respect, so you should actually take Perry's chiding as a compliment.<br />
<br />
J: Perry didn't do it like "I'm pretending to ignore this person," there would be people who are in our larger circle of friends and Perry would literally be like, not even know their name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Oh what's this guy with the green shirt? That guy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: That's your dad, Perry.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh yeah, that guy, yeah.<br />
<br />
F: And it's funny because of the internet, I live so far from you guys in a complete different country and complete different culture but by the learning of the common language, now the international language English, and the advent of the internet, I am now mourning the loss of a friend really. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
F: Because a person I spend a lot of time with, talking about personal beliefs and sharing knowledge and sharing information and it's funny how technology has brought people so much closer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Absolutely. Even in like the last couple years, Perry didn't get around much, but we still had a virtual meeting with Perry almost every day. We were with Perry even when we couldn't be with him physically, whether it was on the podcast or, we would sometimes have social gatherings and gaming or whatever over Skype, over the internet, and the internet and the virtual connections that we could make are just as intimate, just as meaningful in many ways as meeting face-to-face.<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, and I think it's a shame that we never, Perry and I never really sat down to talk about this because I don't really think he understood how much he touched people's lives. We have to thank you, you're really bringing skepticism into our lives and connecting skeptics all over the world and we really appreciate that, the effort and the energy you guys put into making the podcast every week.<br />
<br />
S: It's ours pleasure. And you bring up that skeptics all over the world and we have gotten emails responses about Perry literally from all over the world. It does show I think how close really the skeptical community is and how vibrant it's becoming and also, sometimes it's like a cliche now, but skeptics sometimes get a bad rap as maybe being a bit cold, but it's totally not true and we all know it. The warm, genuine, sincere, really heartfelt response we've gotten from so many people, it's hard for us to express how much that has meant to all of us.<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, so thank you for the opportunity, yeah, to express our sentiments.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you Fernanda for spending some time with us tonight, and sharing your thoughts, we appreciate it.<br />
<br />
R: Thanks Fernanda.<br />
<br />
F: You're welcome.<br />
<br />
J: We'll see you in the chat room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll see you in the chat room.<br />
<br />
F: Bye. Take care. Good night.<br />
<br />
All: Bye.<br />
<br />
S: A few of our fans have asked, concerned, if we plan to continue the Skeptics' Guide after Perry. The answer is: of course. I mean Perry obviously would not have wanted his passing to end something that he cared about so much, and of course we all still are very dedicated to this, so the SGU will definitely press on. It will never be the same without Perry; we will always feel his loss for as long as we do this show. In his honor, more than anything else, it will definitely press on. And in fact, we are going to do more of a, the rest of the show is going to return to our more regular format. We're going to go into some news items. We'll do science or fiction, and end with a skeptical puzzle and a quote.<br />
<br />
So first some news items.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Jerry Andrus Passed Away on 8/26 <small>(45.20)</small>===<br />
<br />
First some news items. Unfortunately there's another bit of sad for the skeptical movement - another skeptic, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Andrus Jerry Andrus,] passed away on August 26<sup>th</sup>. Rebecca, you wrote about his passing on your [http://skepchick.org/2007/08/not-a-good-month-for-skepticism/ blog] this week.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Jerry was a huge skeptic, pretty much all his life, I think a good friend of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Randi Randi's.] A lot of our listeners might have met Jerry at one of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amazing_Meeting The Amazing Meetings.] I think he was at every single one, usually set up with a table of just the most amazing optical illusions you've seen. He would build these great big pieces where you could actually stand in them and get your picture taken and just really cool stuff. It's another huge loss. It's not been a good week for skepticism.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we met Jerry this January at the TAM. His demonstrations were tremendous, his optical illusions, it was one of the favorite booths for people to stop by. I want to read one quote off his website which I think represents his slice of skepticism, what he did. He wrote: "I can fool you because you're human. You have a wonderful human mind that works no different from my human mind. Usually when we're fooled, the mind hasn't made a mistake. It's come to wrong conclusion for the right reason." <ref>[http://jerryandrus.org/ Jerryandrus.org]</ref><br />
<br />
B: I clipped out that exact quote, Steve, I'm looking at it right now. That's great.<br />
<br />
S: It's great, that represents illusions and a lot of what magic is, is fooling people to coming to the wrong conclusion but by exploiting the way the mind and the brain works.<br />
<br />
R: The good thing is that Jerry lived a really long life where he made such a huge impact in the magic world and the critical thinking world that he's another person whose, his impact is going to continue for a very long time I think. He's going to have a, there's a documentary that has been in production for quite a while on Jerry's life. I haven't heard recently what's been going on with it but I know that they were filming at TAM this year. Hopefully they've got enough footage that they can go forward with that and we'll be seeing that premiere, I don't know, hopefully soon.<br />
<br />
=== HIV Denial paper published in PLoS Medicine <small>(47.50)</small>===<br />
<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is a bit of good news that we had in the last week. Tara Smith, who does the [http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/ Aetiology blog] on infectious disease, a physician who's also a skeptic, we had her on our [[SGU_Episode_28 show]] about a year and a half ago to talk about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_denial HIV denial.] She and I wrote a paper and submitted it together in the Public Library of Science Medicine, and it was just published last week, so the name of the paper is [http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256&ct=1 HIV Denial in the Internet Age,] and it's been quite well received. It's certainly made the rounds. The journal PLoS Medicine did a press release, so it got a lot of play and the HIV denying community has been responding as well. So we definitely got their attention. Their response is generally as lame and intellectually dishonest as their beliefs. I was not surprised to see that some even made some rather sexist swipes at Tara. It was really, some real personal attacks at her, which is, you know, that's the level that we're dealing with intellectually.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yeah, it's not like they have real arguments to make 'cos they've been proven wrong again and again. Maybe you could describe briefly what the paper involves.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-denial-on-the-internet/ blogged] about it, I'll have the link to that, but very briefly, we didn't go after the specific scientific evidences for HIV causing AIDS or the specific arguments that the deniers use to say that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, because that's been done very well by others in other venues. What the paper was about was the intellectual strategies used by HIV deniers to perpetrate and propagate their beliefs. So what logical fallacies did they commit, the kind of conspiracy theories that they weave etc. It was actually written initially to put it into the context of other kinds of denial, like denying evolution, but we had to sort of pare the paper down and focus really on the HIV denial part. So, and Tara and I are already talking about expanding this into other projects dealing with the issue of denial and denialism. But take a read of the paper, I think in the end it was a nice paper, and again I'm happy to see that it was well received and that it definitely perked up the attention of the deniers.<br />
<br />
R: Cool. Congratulations.<br />
<br />
=== Jesus in the Fence <small>(50.16)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Quickly, another news item. Rebecca, you sent this one. There was a Jesus sighting in a fence.<ref>Original story gone, can only find secondary sources.</ref><br />
<br />
R: Yeah, very exciting. Jesus spotted in a fence. Actually out in California, a woman was doing some meditating in her sister's backyard and she saw a vision of Jesus in a knot in the wood of a fence. It's okay though, she was a skeptic about it, she did seek out evidence to back this up, and so she called her sister over to ask her what she saw and her sister also agreed that it was in fact the son of God. So.<br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
R: I guess those of you who -<br />
<br />
E: Iron clad.<br />
<br />
R: - if you need to make a pilgrimage somewhere to worship Jesus, you should book tickets now.<br />
<br />
S: There will be people there, I guarantee it.<br />
<br />
R: I'm sure.<br />
<br />
E: And if you're feeling any doubt, bring a relative along so they can assure you of your beliefs.<br />
<br />
R: Right, right. Excuse me Uncle Jim, is that the son of God? Why yes it is. Just like that.<br />
<br />
S: Looking at the picture, I don't even see what they're talking about.<br />
<br />
R: It's really difficult to see.<br />
<br />
J: I see it but he has no nose.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, actually that's funny, that's what, I was having a contest on the blog for people to photoshop the picture and one person used the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster Flying Spaghetti Monster] got my nose joke, which was pretty funny. Someone else said it look just like Pac Man. I mean, it's really even one of the more absurd -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - sightings I've seen.<br />
<br />
S: You've really got to use your imagination. That's a weak [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peridolia pareidolia.]<br />
<br />
R: Very weak.<br />
<br />
E: Weak is right. I can't make this out to be anything.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not even pareidolia.<br />
<br />
E: Really. It looks like a smear of some kind of dirt, maybe. <br />
<br />
J: He's facing to the right, he's got a beard, that horizontal line in the center is his eyebrow.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, like a unibrow.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: I was thinking that's like a cyclops, sort of like from the X-Men. Sort of visor thing.<br />
<br />
B?: "By your command."<br />
<br />
E: Jesus, not Abraham, not Moses. Nope. Jesus. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: It's a pathetic example of a pathetic genre of idiocy. That's what it is.<br />
<br />
E: It's worth a laugh though, I mean really. On a week where we can really use a laugh.<br />
<br />
S: It's a little bit light-hearted.<br />
<br />
=== Ben Stein is an Idiot <small>(52.33)</small>=== <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Next news item is about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein Ben Stein.] This is one of those really disappointing things. Ben Stein who -<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
S: - to me always was kind of a nerdy academic who somehow managed to exploit his dirty academic persona and actually get on a movie, he was in [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091042/ Ferris Bueller's Day Off] and he had that kind of funny game show -<br />
<br />
E: Oh Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118515/ Win Ben Stein's Money] on Comedy Central. It turns out the guy is a nut-job. He's going to host a documentary movie that's coming out in February of '08 called Ben Stein Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ IMDB]</ref><ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com Official Expelled site]</ref><ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/22/you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me/ Pharyngula: You have got to be kidding me]</ref> and what it is is basically an apology for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design intelligent design.] He says on his blog, Ben Stein's Introductory Blog, "America is not America without freedom. In every turning point in our history, freedom has been the key goal we are seeking: the Mayflower coming here, the Revolution, the Civil War, Word War II, the Cold War. Tens of millions came here from foreign oppression and made a life here. Why? For freedom. Human beings are supposed to live in a state of freedom. Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given. A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry. Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without the freedom of inquiry."<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/08/23/the-fall-of-ben-stein/ Science Blogs] (original blog now spam site)</ref> Of course what he's saying is that evolution and "Darwinists" are against freedom, that we are being oppressive, that we are oppressing the free inquiry of intelligent design. This is the whining oppression argument - <br />
<br />
E: It's old.<br />
<br />
S: - that the Discovery Institute and the intelligent designers have been making for a long time. There's really nothing new here. He writes "this includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science." ''Always'', he writes, for emphasis.<br />
<br />
E: You know, he might be good at economics, politics and so forth, and that is his primary background -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: - those fields, but, when it comes to this - science.<br />
<br />
S: Stick to economics, Ben, we'll do the science.<br />
<br />
(sighs)<br />
<br />
J: It's so sophomoric, like "yeah, you're conducting science, pal."<br />
<br />
R: At least he's being truthful in advertising when he says "no intelligence allowed."<br />
<br />
S: Right, that's right, I thought that was ironic too.<br />
<br />
(laughter) <br />
<br />
B: I went through the website and to go along with the whole school schtick, he's got some links here - class officers, the faculty, the expelled. For "class officers" he's got [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins Richard Dawkins,] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_scott Eugenie Scott,] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author) Sam Harris] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_hitchens Christopher Hitchens.] And he's got an out of context quote for each of them. I guess they couldn't find much for Eugenie Scott because all they have for her is as "class treasurer," they've a quote from her: "intelligent design is ultimately a science stopper." Wow, how intolerable that is. And the faculty, the faculty link is interesting because the president, principal, office of diversity and admissions is the same person - Mr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin Charles Darwin.]<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: The "expelled" I found most interesting, it had, with Xs through their pictures, they had of course Ben Stein,and then [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bono Bono,] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo Galileo Galilei] and Albert -<br />
<br />
R: Bono?<br />
<br />
B: - yeah, I'm not sure what was going on with that, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein Albert Einstein.] And then the funny thing is that they've got quotes from all of these and for Albert Einstein they have "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details." <br />
<br />
R: (groans)<br />
<br />
B: Which I thought was interesting that they pulled that quote from him which is kind of apocryphal, at least according to some websites, that's an apocryphal quote, but he didn't even believe.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Well, Einstein did not believe in a personal god. He might have been a deist.<br />
<br />
B: Right, which is a direct quote.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, he might have been a deist. Another thing is it's irrelevant that Newton and Einstein, whatever, even if they believed that there was a god and certainly before a couple hundred years ago, all scientists were creationists and believed in god because that was all there was, that was the only game in town. But it's irrelevant. The fact is their methods were true to science.<br />
<br />
E: That's true.<br />
<br />
S: Even if they thought they were discovering the mind of god, it doesn't matter, they were still operating within the paradigm of science. The problem with intelligent design is not that it imagines that there's an intelligent designer, it's that it's not science, they have not proposed a testable hypothesis. It's crap. That's the problem with it. It's not being oppressed, it's not being discriminated against, it's being correctly and fairly characterized as utter worthless nonsense. All of their arguments are terrible. That's why it does not belong in the science classroom. It's not science, period.<br />
<br />
B: I am looking forward, though, to downloading the pirated version of the movie from the web. Check it out.<br />
<br />
S: Ugh, it's terrible.<br />
<br />
J: I was always under the impression that he was a very intelligent guy.<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends on how you define.<br />
<br />
E: I would say that he is a bit intelligent -<br />
<br />
S: He may be intelligent in some ways, but even if you generally an intelligent person, you may have some academic area of expertise, it doesn't make you an automatic expert in everything, and obviously he does not have an adequate understanding of the scientific method to understand why intelligent design is not science. Or he does but he has a religious belief which is giving him this blind spot in this area. People have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize their knowledge.<br />
<br />
R: As we've seen again and again, it's the really intelligent people who believe in the wacky crap that we have to fear the most, they're the ones who are doing the most damage unfortunately. <br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, it happens just over and over and over again. It's really not good.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(58.25)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. We have a theme for this week - the theme is the sexes. It's about differences between men and women.<br />
<br />
R: Sexy.<br />
<br />
S: Ready?<br />
<br />
Various: Mmm hmm. Yeah. Yes.<br />
<br />
S: Here we go. Item number one, a survey reveals that women, on average, are significantly more satisfied with their jobs than men. Item number two, a new study shows that men will chose romance over career success more often than women. And item number three, survey shows that married men do indeed do less housework than live-in boyfriends. Jay, you go first.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Survey reveals that women, on average, are more satisfied with their jobs than men. Uh, quick scan of all the men and women that I know and how do I gauge them liking their jobs, I probably agree with that. I know I would stay with someone that I love over work but I don't know, okay, that's interesting. And a survey shows that married men do less housework than live-in boyfriends - that is a fact and every man knows it. That's probably not true though. I think I'm going to go with the first one as the fake. The first one meaning the survey about the women liking their jobs more than men.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Ohhhhhhh. Goodness. That last one survey shows that married men do less housework than live-in boyfriends. Something's not striking me correctly about that. I don't think that one is right. So I'll say that one is fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Um, yeah, I have lived with multiple boyfriends in the past - not all at once - and never gotten married and the reason is because live-in boyfriends do more housework than married men. So I'm thinking, oh wait, wait.<br />
<br />
S: That means you think that's true.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yes, that would be true. <br />
<br />
E: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Hmmmm.<br />
<br />
S: I know it's confusing.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Anything with a negative in it always throws me off.<br />
<br />
S: I'm going to start having ones that have like triple negatives.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Oh, well darn, because I thought the other two were true too. Okay. So I am definitely more satisfied with my job than most men I know and I think men are big wussy cry-babies who would pick love over career.<br />
<br />
J: What? What the hell's that supposed to mean?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: She just called you a wussy cry-baby Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, wussy cry-babies like Jay.<br />
<br />
E: Are you going to stand for that?<br />
<br />
J: I'm not a cry-baby. I might be a wuss but I'm not a cry-baby.<br />
<br />
R: Aw Jay baby, why don't you go watch [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243155/ Bridget Jones' Diary] again.<br />
<br />
J: You're going to put me down because I enjoyed watching that movie?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Wow, I was kidding.<br />
<br />
E: Some things should not be revealed on a podcast.<br />
<br />
R: Okay, you know what then? I'm going to go against my own initial thought. I'm going to say that married men do more housework than live-in boyfriends.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, so you're with Evan that that one is the fake.<br />
<br />
E: There we go.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Bob?<br />
<br />
B: I'm not buying that women on average are significantly more satisfied with their jobs than men. I think that is fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, so we got Bob and Jay think that women are more satisfied with their jobs than men is fiction, and Evan and Rebecca think that live-in boyfriends do more housework than ..<br />
<br />
R: No, wait, I want to change my..<br />
<br />
B:What?<br />
<br />
R: I change my mind again. Can I change? You haven't said yet.<br />
<br />
S: No, you took your finger off the piece.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: I love chess.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca and Evan say that the survey says that married men do less housework than live in boyfriends is fiction. Everyone agrees therefore that a new study shows that men will chose romance over career success more often than women. You all think that one is true.<br />
<br />
E: I hope that's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: And that one is science. That one is true.<br />
<br />
E: Yey!<br />
<br />
S: You all got that one correct. This was -<br />
<br />
R: Well, that's the one I was going to change it to so I guess it's just as well.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, good. So this is a new study that's coming out in a future issue, the upcoming issue of Gender Issues <ref>Mosher C, Danoff-Burg S (2007). College Students’ Life Priorities: The Influence of Gender and Gender-linked Personality Traits. Gender Issues, Vol. 24, No. 2. (DOI 10.1007/s12147-007-9002-z)</ref> and it concludes, after doing a survey, that men may be more willing than women to sacrifice achievement goals for a romantic relationship. However this was a study of, and this may have something to do with the results, this was a study of undergraduate students, 80 men and 157 women aged 16-25. So the conclusions really can only apply to that age group. But in that population, the men did, overall both men and women prioritized romance, romantic relationships very high. They also ranked achievement very high, but men more than women prioritized romantic relationships above career success. The article was interpreted as surprising, as if that went against commonly held beliefs or impressions. What's interesting is my wife is a college counselor and she says that men come, the boy students, the male students come in to see her totally devastated when their girlfriend breaks up with them. The girls weather that much better than the men.<br />
<br />
J: Of course.<br />
<br />
S: It actually accords to her subjective experience.<br />
<br />
J: Because women are heart-breakers, I mean we know that. Look at Rebecca.<br />
<br />
S/E: Yeah, right, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Jay and Bob - you both think that a survey reveals that women on average are significantly more satisfied with their jobs than men, you think that one is fiction. <br />
<br />
B: Correctly, I might add.<br />
<br />
S: And that one is in fact fiction.<br />
<br />
R: Ah.<br />
<br />
S: So you both got that one correct.<br />
<br />
J: Yey Bob!<br />
<br />
S: This was from an article Job Satisifaction in America: Trends in Socio-Demographic Correlates. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070827.jobs.pdf University of Chicago pdf]</ref> The study showed a number of things in terms of different ages, socio-economic status, races, and however the lots of interesting differences I'll mention a couple in a second, but there was no significant difference between men and women. Women were slightly, had a slight lead on men in terms of indicating that they were very satisfied - 52% for women, 49% for men. But they also had a higher rate of being very dissatisfied, 5% to 4%, so they basically concluded that's a wash, so it's basically no significant difference between the two. One thing that's not surprising is that the more skilled jobs, more academic jobs, more jobs that require post-graduate level degrees, that were creative, that involve teaching - those jobs had the highest satisfaction. The lowest satisfaction were among those jobs that were basically mindless manual labor. Not a big surprise. This means that a survey shows that married men do less housework than live-in boyfriends is in fact science, that is -<br />
<br />
R: I should have gone with my first feeling.<br />
<br />
S: - true. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, we should have, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you should have.<br />
<br />
R: Never second guess.<br />
<br />
E: Except when you have to.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: That goes without saying.<br />
<br />
S: This was a study done by sociologist Shannon Davis at the George Mason University, studied more than 17000 people in 28 countries. <ref>[http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/28/9/1246.abstract Effects of Union Type on Divison of Household Labor]</ref> So that's a pretty extensive survey. Found that married men report doing less housework than men who are live-in boyfriends. And the conclusion, just to cut to the conclusion that they drew from this data is that they say "our research suggests that couples across many countries are influenced by similar factors when deciding how to divide the housework. It's the way the society has defined what being married means, the institution itself that effects behavior." And they basically said that "marriage as an institution seems to have a traditionalizing effect on couples, even couples who see men and women as equal."<br />
<br />
J: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8 Mawwiage.]<br />
<br />
S: That's very interesting.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(1.07.03)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Well Evan, we actually now, we have a puzzle from three weeks ago that we don't know the answer to.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, episode 107, we may have to pick it up from there. So here is the puzzle from that week. <br />
<blockquote>I sure hate this delusional person<br><br />
Though hate may be a word too strong <br><br />
As I learn more, my opinion does worsen <br><br />
Perhaps I won't re-write this song<br><br />
Micro set scams were just some of his wares<br> <br />
He claims he is spiritual at heart <br><br />
A dozen or so of these blessings are shared <br><br />
Jesus could only hope to Master their art<br><br />
From his website I read, as they humbly plead <br><br />
That they can lay hands and cure you of ills <br><br />
Just join them and pray, for you will see one day <br><br />
You've found their holy mountains and hills<br><br />
For it was their king, that taught them these things<br> <br />
They are simply swine to this pearl thrower <br><br />
A doctor, a reverend, and a knight, so he sings <br><br />
But it was yoga that made him a knower. </blockquote><br />
E: Name the person.<br />
<br />
S: And the answer is?<br />
<br />
E: Dr. George King, our dear friend from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_King_(Aetherius_Society) Aetherius Society,] an organization founded by Dr. George King in London in 1955 as the result of what King claimed were contacts with advanced extra-terrestrial intelligences. It's guiding principle is service to humanity, though the manipulation of subtle energies through prayer, healing and other technology-based means. It's teachings combine the spiritual teachings of yoga with other received through yoga mediumship of Dr King in the channeling of advanced extra-terrestrial beings. It has been characterized by some observers as a type of UFO religion.<br />
<br />
S: Sounds like a hodgepodge of new age wackiness. <br />
<br />
E: It is wacky, boy, I mean, you go to that [http://www.aetherius.org/ website] for the Aetherius Society and it is, excuse the phrase, ''kook central'' basically.<br />
<br />
J: Wooo woooooo.<br />
<br />
E: They've got quite a few stories on there. And congratulations to Cethis, C-e-t-h-i-s, for being the first to post the correct answer.<br />
<br />
S: Wow, he got that, I'm impressed.<br />
<br />
E: He did, yes. He did.He figured out the couple anagrams in there and put two and two together.<br />
<br />
S: And came up with five.<br />
<br />
E: And made it happen.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, do you have a puzzle for this week?<br />
<br />
E: I do. (clears throat) I have another poem.<br />
<br />
S: Oh boy.<br />
<br />
E: In which, so -<br />
<br />
S: Is it a limerick, you owe us a limerick, don't forget that.<br />
<br />
E: So bare with me. I know I owe you a limerick - <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, we're looking for a limerick.<br />
<br />
E: I wrote this, I wrote this one actually maybe even prior to the last puzzle, I'm just getting around to using it now, so bare with me.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Limerick in the future. So here we go, this week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Being set on the idea <br><br />
Of getting to this place <br><br />
He concocted a theory that would be a <br><br />
Controversy in science's face<br />
<br />
He says our whole conception <br><br />
Of pre-history is wrong <br><br />
He insists his arguments are not a deception <br><br />
Rather a pursuit that is life-long<br />
<br />
Three points in a row with one offset <br><br />
Is apparently the key <br><br />
To unlocking a secret that is a threat <br><br />
To how we understand our history<br />
<br />
He believes the past is misunderstood <br><br />
That history has been systematically slaughtered <br><br />
But if we tried to go see his revisionist history<br><br />
All our heads would be under water.<br />
<br />
E: So. Whom am I rhyming about this week, and it's not Dr. George King, so you can eliminate that from your list. So good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
R: That only leaves six billion people.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, thank you Evan.<br />
<br />
R: Thanks.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1.10.50)</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
S: I'm going to do the skeptical quote this week, but Jay has volunteered to take it up starting next week. So Jay, you've got some big shoes to fill. Here's the quote for this week to close out our Perry Memorial Show.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Thinking critically is a chore. It does not come naturally or easily. And if the fruits of such efforts are not carefully displayed to young minds, then they will not harvest them. Every school child must be implanted with the wonder of the atom, not the thrall of magic. </blockquote><br />
<br />
That is a quote from Perry DeAngelis, 1963-2007, a skeptical philosopher and activist and a good friend of some considerable note.<br />
<br />
E: Here here.<br />
<br />
B: Excellent.<br />
<br />
R: Good one.<br />
<br />
S: Perry, we will all miss you. Well, goodnight everyone.<br />
<br />
All: Goodnight.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}} <br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterkhttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_110&diff=4388SGU Episode 1102012-10-28T03:52:32Z<p>Hesterk: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|proof-reading = y <br />
|time-stamps = y<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 110<br />
|episodeDate = 28<sup>th</sup> August 2007 <!-- broadcast date --><br />
|episodeIcon = File:perry%202.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = ML: Mike LaCelle <br />
|guest1 = F: Fernanda <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-08-28.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=110<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,4820.0.html<br />
|qowText = Thinking critically is a chore. It does not come naturally or easily. And if the fruits of such efforts are not carefully displayed to young minds, then they will not harvest them. Every school child must be implanted with the wonder of the atom, not the thrall of magic. <br />
|qowAuthor = Perry DeAngelis<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday August 28<sup>th</sup> 2007 and this is your host Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella - <br />
<br />
B: Hello.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson -<br />
<br />
R: Hi everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella - <br />
<br />
J: Hi guys.<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey folks.<br />
<br />
S: How is everyone this evening?<br />
<br />
B: Crappy. Recovering.<br />
<br />
S: Recovering. Yeah, so.<br />
<br />
R: I think we've had better nights.<br />
<br />
== Perry DeAngelis Remembered <small>(0.41)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: This is our first show after the passing of our good friend Perry. As most listeners probably know by now, from our website and also last week's episode and also the word's been getting around in multiple other venues, Perry DeAngelis, one of the rogues, one of the members of our podcast, passed away on August 19<sup>th</sup>, which of course was a very big blow to all of us, both personally and professionally as part of, he was a big part of the podcast. Definitely lent a unique voice and was a good complement to everyone else on the show. We were very pleased however, you know in a bittersweet sort of way, to receive the tremendous feedback from all of Perry's fans and a lot of our listeners.<br />
<br />
B: That was amazing.<br />
<br />
S: That was. We've had literally hundreds of comments and emails and posts on our forums - everyone giving their reflections and their thoughts about Perry. Many extremely heartfelt. First I want to say thank you to everyone who sent in their condolences to us. We definitely passed them on to his family and they greatly appreciated that. It also helped them to understand and appreciate what Perry meant to his fans and to quite a lot of people.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, Steve, I'm not sure exactly how much his family understood or appreciated exactly what he was doing. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: I mean, you saw him more than the rest of us did. How aware was his family of this weekly podcast that Perry was doing. Was it really even on the radar for them?<br />
<br />
S: Not very much for his parents. His sister, who is also a friend of ours, obviously knew what it was and listened to it. But a lot of the older generation basically just knew of it really only tangentially and didn't really understand what a big part it played in Perry's life.<br />
<br />
B: And other people's lives.<br />
<br />
S: Now, we've had a lot of questions of course about exactly what happened, and Perry always told me that I could basically tell everybody anything that they wanted to know about his medical condition, about what happened, and I have permission from his wife of course to not only access his medical information but to discuss it. I think it does help the part of the process of understanding and accepting what happened to Perry and actually helps in the grieving process to understand just factually what happened. The quick summary is that Perry, actually Perry was a pretty healthy guy up until about 8 or 9 years ago, even though Perry was big his whole life and did have some complications from that, he did have [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_2_diabetes Type 2 diabetes,] but<br />
9 years ago he was a completely healthy, totally active guy without really any physical limitations. But then he started to get some really serious medical problems that we didn't know where they were coming from. He had two very serious illnesses that put him in the hospital for a long time, that were even potentially life threatening. One time he had, the first really serious illness he had was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericarditis pericarditis,] which is inflammation around the heart. And that led to fluid building up in the sack that surrounds the heart, the pericardium, basically squeezing in on the heart and keeping it from functioning.<br />
<br />
B: It was actually named after him, was it?<br />
<br />
S: (laughs) Right, Perry-carditis, yeah, he thought that was amusing. That was treated, these acute things were treated, but eventually it was discovered that Perry had a very serious chronic disease called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleroderma scleroderma.] Scleroderma is still a bit mysterious. It's a connective tissue disease. It's sort of an autoimmune disease, but not really. There may be some inflammatory component but it doesn't respond to immunosuppressive therapy like other autoimmune diseases might. It's basically untreatable. It's a proliferation of the connective tissue, the fibroblasts - those are the cells that lay in wait and then they might heal a cut, for example, by forming scar tissue. So essentially what happens is that scar tissue diffusely forms out of control in all the tissue. It was evident in Perry's skin as, over the last 8 years his fingers were somewhat curled up and he couldn't generally have a lot of use of his fingers because of the scleroderma of his skin. But it also happened on the inside - it was infecting his kidneys, his heart, his lungs, his esophagus. Thinking back, Perry really was progressively ill over the last 8 years. We always sort of knew that the scleroderma was there, that it was a progressive disease, it was incurable, but as he started to develop more and more shortness of breath and inability to really engage in a lot of physical activity, we were looking for other treatable things that might be contributing to it that we could do something about. In the final analysis, the underlying problem was the scleroderma, and it had caused too much damage to his heart and lungs. And then last week it just finally caught up with him. In a way, again, it's one of those things that I think down deep we kind of knew was inevitable, we saw it coming, but nothing really prepares you for this kind of thing happening. And we never gave up the hope that there would, that Perry would be stable for a little while longer, that there would be something that we could treat that would improve his function, that we would have him around -<br />
<br />
E: Or spontaneous remission or some kind of -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you know - <br />
<br />
J: We were all actually surprised to find out it was actually the scleroderma. I mean when you told me, Steve, I was shocked. I always assumed that it was weight related.<br />
<br />
B: I was surprised too. I was actually, it cheered me up a little bit, because for days prior to hearing about that, that detail, I was pretty down in that I felt like it was, his death was a preventable thing that I should have been on his case more about losing weight and wishing that he had taken his weight more seriously for the past 5 years or so and that if he had just done that, he would have had much more time. But when I found that he really had no choice, it was really not much he could have done, I mean his quality of life could have been better the past handful of years if he had lost weight, but there really wasn't, there was nothing he could have done to prevent that from happening. It was kind of reflected in the way he lived. Jay, didn't you say that when he kind of realized what was going on, that he really just tried to enjoy life more and do more of the things that he really enjoyed and stayed away from the things that were, the parts of life that are annoying, that he just had more fun when he saw that, was that accurate?<br />
<br />
J: Well, Steve would know better than I, but I remember having conversations with Perry where he would basically say he's living his life the way he wants to. It was kind of the subtext was 'cos he knew that he didn't have a lot of time and he was doing everything in his power to just make himself happy.<br />
<br />
R: And one of the big things that made him happy was doing this podcast, which I think is important to note is that that he kept at this for as long as he could. <br />
<br />
S: He did. This was very important to him. He really cared about it a great deal. This was, I think, it gave his life a tremendous amount of meaning. Perry never let me forget that it was his idea to form the [http://www.theness.com/ New England Skeptical Society,] that -<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: It was, I remember.<br />
<br />
S: It was. It was his inspiration. And through that fact he sort of took credit for everything that followed. Including the Skeptic's Guide - <br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: I let him have that. Yes, if not for you who knows what would have happened this last whatever, it's been 11 now years of skeptical activism may never have occurred at all. It may never have occurred to me to do this. It would be interesting to know, to think of what I would be doing.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why don't you go into even a little more detail about how it actually came out. He was, we were going through the [http://www.csicop.org/si Skeptical Inquirer] and in the back of the magazine they list local skeptical organizations and of course Perry was looking at this and he went right to Connecticut and he said "Wait, there's no skeptical organizations in Connecticut." And that's how I remember it came up. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah, "we should form a skeptical organization."<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: "We should."<br />
<br />
J: And this was 1995?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Was it '95? Woah.<br />
<br />
E: '95.<br />
<br />
S: And that was it. We soon became, we went from the Connecticut Skeptical Society to the New England Skeptical Society, because there was no skeptical organization in New England. Yeah, and Perry was really tireless and relentless. He really worked on this since then, since the beginning he never lacked giving his own time to this. <br />
<br />
J: Steve, why don't you give a quick explanation about the first few years and what you guys were doing, what the organization was about.<br />
<br />
S: For several years we really, when we started we had no clue, as you might imagine. None of us had ever run a non-profit organization before, we didn't know what the landscape was in the skeptical community, so we did the things we thought we should do. We held local meetings, and the first few meetings we didn't even know what we were doing, what we should do at the meetings, we just thought we should have them! And then we slowly settled into the kind of activities that a local skeptical group does - we had lectures, we did investigations, we - <br />
<br />
B: We wrote articles, did the newsletter.<br />
<br />
S: We wrote articles. The newsletter was sort of the focus back then, this was pre-podcasting.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: The website was really an afterthought, kinda just attachment, it wasn't really the focus of what we were doing. The newsletter and the local -<br />
<br />
B: Nah. And I did the website by the way. Woo-hoo!<br />
<br />
S: That's right. <br />
<br />
B: Lame HTML.<br />
<br />
R: And I saw a really great picture of Perry where he's dressed like a wizard of some sort and he's standing in front of Jack - <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Laying down on a table. Can you describe what happened there?<br />
<br />
S: That was, we had a Psychic Unfair, where we ran like a psychic fair but we basically exposed a lot of different things that happen, and Perry did a psychic surgery. He did it pretty good. As good as any of the fakes do it. Of course Perry had to get the guru costume and made a very tremendous theatrical - <br />
<br />
E: It was about showmanship.<br />
<br />
S: Perry was all about the theatrics.<br />
<br />
B: We have to get that picture out there, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: We have a good picture of that, we'll definitely put some pictures up in the notes for this episode. So that's what we did for a lot of years and it was, in a way, really like earning our skeptical bones as it were, we kind of did the grunt work of just writing a lot of articles, doing as many investigations as we could, giving a lot of lectures. Last week's podcast, some people asked me what was that from. And they also asked me what's Perry's background and training. Well, first, that was a seminar that New England Skeptical Society was invited to give as part of a continuing education for science teachers, for public school science teachers in Connecticut. I believe that was through Southern Connecticut State University.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: It was a day long, 8 hours of us giving lectures, and that piece that we had last week was one of Perry's parts of the lecture. And we may make other parts of that available. That's what that was from. Perry's background actually, Perry did not have an academic background but he just had a life-long interest and love affair with both science and also just the truth, just the no-nonsense what is the bottom line, what is the truth, and he relished sifting through the BS and the nonsense to try to get at what was really going on. <br />
<br />
B: Steve, a quick memory just popped into my head: we were at my parents' house and my parents had this little chalk board display on the island in the kitchen. I remember Perry wrote in chalk on this little board, he wrote "question everything." And then of course I wanted to add underneath "Except this."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Right. Yes, I mean he was a basically self-taught skeptic and then he began to read the skeptical literature. Of course we've had countless countless conversations dissecting everything that we can get our hands on. Pretty much like the rest of us, we're just self-taught skeptics, it's just from doing it, living it for 12 years. As anyone who listens to the podcast on a regular basis could tell, Perry got very good at it, dissecting things and seeing where the BS was, and definitely became very adept at skeptical analysis. But that said, no formal training. I don't know that there is any formal training in skepticism, you know. There are pieces of it that we put together.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: But there's no academic program of scientific skepticism, it's just knowing science, knowing logic, knowing self deception, knowing about human psychology.<br />
<br />
R: A well functioning BS detector, which Perry had.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. A functional BS detector, right. We've had a great many emails and messages from our listeners. I wanted to read a couple of them. This one came in recently. It's a bit long but it's very touching and I think is, represents a lot of what the emails said. Some of the common themes that kept cropping up in the messages about Perry's passing were one that a lot of people were shocked at how emotionally they took Perry's loss, and they didn't realize how attached they had grown to him just from listening to him on the show. Of course what is i think very touching and very revealing of a couple of things - one is just generically the podcasting format is very intimate. A lot of people have commented about how they have felt that Perry and the rest of us really are like their friends that they invite into their car, their home or whatever once a week to listen to. <br />
<br />
B: Yes, somebody had a nice quote, they said that it's like they're listening in on a friend's conversation and they're the quiet one. They're the one that's not talking.<br />
<br />
S: A lot of people made that observation. The other thing is that Perry in particular, his personality came across so well on the podcast, that a lot of the observations people made about Perry, to those of us who knew him in person and for a long time were very very true. The listeners generally "got" Perry very well. So it kind of showed us that yeah, you know, Perry was able to convey what he really thought and felt about things and how he operated just from being himself on the show, that this wasn't, the show was not scripted, it is very spontaneous and it is very genuine and Perry, what you heard of Perry on this show was him. That's how Perry is.<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: So I want to read this one email. This one is from Gabrielle Dietrich and she wrote:<blockquote><br />
"To my dearest rogues, know that you do not grieve alone for this fan grieves with you. I heard the news yesterday, a day which I will never forget. I looked at the title of the podcast 109 and all I could say was "no." I didn't want the title to be true, I didn't want to believe the news. I didn't want to be told it was true but I pushed play anyway. When I heard Steve confirm my worst fears, the tears burst forth from the pit of my being and poured out of me, I couldn't breathe. And I couldn't believe what I had heard. Perry's passing had to be a lie. This all had to be a lie. I lay down on my couch and cried with my fiance holding me till I couldn't cry any more. I got up and put on my best black shirt and mourned Perry's loss. I still feel like I need to do something in his honor. Perry was one of my heroes. All the rogues are my heroes and Rebecca is my shero. Your podcast opened my eyes to the lies I'd lived my life believing. <br />
</blockquote><blockquote><br />
I had just finished a course in massage therapy and was convinced that alternative medicine held all the answers. I was sold on essential oils and the super healing powers they possessed. I knew that aliens existed and that most conspiracies had some truth to them. I knew that Sylvia Brown was an amazing woman who could talk to the dead and that Crossing Over with John Edwards was amazingly real and impossible to fake. I knew without a doubt that coral calcium was a wonder drug that would cure all known diseases. I knew all those things and I knew that I wanted to become a homeopathic naturopathic physician. This all thankfully changed when I tuned into your podcast. I started listening to it because I was hoping to find something that would make me laugh with its complete avoidance of reality. In my world pre-SGU, skeptics were just talking heads who made some bogus claim and doubted everything. In my post-SGU life, I am a skeptic. I have you all to thank for who I am today. Thank you every one of you, and thank you as well Perry.<br />
</blockquote><blockquote><br />
One of the greatest moments of my life is when one of the rogues read my quote on the podcast, and in the end of my review I proclaimed "I take my news from the well-informed group well over my local news channels." I made that post on iTunes trying to thank you all for saving me from a path down the wrong road. I'd always planned on writing again letting you all know you saved me from my misplaced plans for a career in bogus healthcare but I didn't plan on telling you at a time such as this. I was awaiting Perry's triumphant return to SGU podcast with barely contained patience. I just knew he would be back and all would be right in the world. I lost a friend yesterday, or rather I discovered my loss yesterday. Perry may have been just a host, a rogue, a voice coming out of the speaker to some listeners but to me he was a close friend who I shared an hour with once a week talking science and news. At 24-years-old I didn't think I would be losing any of my friends for a long time to come. Fate is a cruel mistress and she played us all a very sad hand. I cannot think of Perry being gone without tears wanting to spill and I hope that this reaches all of the rogues in good health if not in good spirits. Thank you for all that you do and all that you have done, your work has saved me, it has changed me for the better. And lastly it allowed me to get to know one of the greatest men of our time, Perry DeAngelis. May the SGU continue to prove monkey superiority, may the rogues continue to be my weekly companions, and may your bacon always be healthy, all 40 pounds of it." </blockquote><br />
<br />
J: It's up to 40 pounds now?<br />
<br />
R: Thank you, Gabe.<br />
<br />
S/B: Yeah, thank you.<br />
<br />
S: It was very touching, and of course it is exactly emails like that that helped us get through what was a very difficult week.<br />
<br />
J: We're not even through it. It's not even close -<br />
<br />
S: We're not even close to being through it, but surviving the first week was certainly the roughest, and it enabled us to sit down once again, all in front of our computers and do what is for all of us a very difficult show and of course to press on into the future. We greatly appreciate everyone who took the time to write us their feelings.<br />
<br />
E: That's an incredible email -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: - that we received. There are others like it. Very similar.<br />
<br />
S: That was the most dramatic. That, and I chose to read that one because that is exactly what Perry always said he wanted to do - to take somebody who was going down the wrong path and turn them towards skepticism, "toward the light." That email is a vindication of everything Perry set out to do 12 years ago in forming the New England Skeptical Society and later doing the Skeptic's Guide podcast.<br />
<br />
J: Do you think that we actually do have an effect, you know, it's one thing to do the show and say "we're preaching to the choir." The hard part is to be able to reach out and touch people and actually make a difference in their lives and I almost can't believe it, that we can do that. It really is, in the end, it is just a bunch of friends chatting to each other.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, we used to call it dinner table conversation - we go out to dinner, and this is it. We would have podcast shows over the dinner table. It wasn't a podcast at the time.<br />
<br />
R: If only you guys had all carried around recorders with you.<br />
<br />
B: Maybe we cursed a little more, but, that's okay.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. <br />
<br />
R: No, it's just that Steve didn't edit it out during dinner.<br />
<br />
S/E/J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: I had no edit button back then!<br />
<br />
R: But yeah, speaking as a godless heathen, it's really great to see what an impact that Perry had on people, because in my world-view he's gone, but there's this part of him that's going to live for a very long time in the impact he had on others. People can continue to hear him for years to come. There's something really cool about that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, that's one of those sentiments that is so over-used that it's become a cliche and it's almost been spoiled and watered down, but it's actually literally true - that Perry does "live on" in all of us, certainly he is still inside my head. I mean, there are even, it's been very difficult in the last week or so not to be thinking to myself constantly what Perry would say or how he would respond to a certain situation.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like what would he think of this whole week, you know?<br />
<br />
S: I would love to talk to him about what he would think about everything that has happened, but he still definitely had an impact on all of us. A lot of us thought that Perry was always larger than life - his personality, his charisma. Again that came through on the show and that's sort of the impact that he had on all of us. It is very nice to hear that he had the same impact on so many other people through the podcast. Certainly there is a hundred or so episodes of Perry that we can always go back and listen to, that will exist into the foreseeable future, preserved, and that's a great thing. I'm so glad that we did this in the last couple of years for that reason, but also, perhaps less concretely, but Perry's impact on all the people who have listened to him and the influence he has had on their way of thinking is something else that will live on. And I agree, Rebecca, if your world-view is materialistic, that what more could you have, right?<br />
<br />
<br />
S: Well, we're actually going to bring on with us this evening Mike LaCelle who runs the SGU fans.net to give a little bit of the fan's perspective on Perry, so let's bring him in now. We are now joined by Mike LaCelle from SGU fans.net. Mike, thanks for joining us.<br />
<br />
ML: Thank you.<br />
<br />
All: Hey Mike, hi Mike.<br />
<br />
S: So, Mike is I guess by definition our no. 1 fan, since he runs our fan site. Mike has been very supportive over the last week, again helping us get through this, helping us every step of the way. Mike, you set up on the fan site the Perry DeAngelis Memorial Fund, which again, we greatly appreciate that. And you also took it upon your own initiative to register perrydeangelis.org which will, we're still sort of thinking about exactly we're going to use that but this could be a permanent site to enshrine, if you will, on the web all things Perry DeAngelis, and we can link to that from the fan site and from our own site. [Now a German holiday spam site.] So just very quickly, a lot of people have asked us, "I want to do something, I want to make a donation or do something in honor of Perry, what can I do?" so Mike set up, on the fan site, a link to donate to the Perry DeAngelis Memorial Fund. This money is going to the New England Skeptical Society, which is a non-profit organization, so this is all tax deductible. The money will be used in some fashion to commemorate Perry and his dedication to skepticism. There's no question in my mind this is exactly what Perry would want us to do. And we're in the brainstorming and taking suggestion phase in terms of the details of how we're going to use it, but it's going to be something like either an annual lecture or an annual meeting for the SGU that will be the Perry DeAngelis Memorial whatever, podcast or lecture or meeting. The alternative suggestions have been to set up a scholarship for young skeptics and some groups do this where they may have an essay contest and the winner of the essay contest then gets a certain amount of money as a scholarship towards their higher education. <br />
<br />
R: Or also there's been a suggestion that we just have a big fight with a monkey and an ostrich.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Like a cage match?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, the monkey gets a knife.<br />
<br />
S: The Perry DeAngelis Memorial Cage Match between a monkey and a bird.<br />
<br />
E: We can't take bets on it tough.<br />
<br />
S: That's true, we can't.<br />
<br />
R: No, that would be -<br />
<br />
E: Illegal<br />
<br />
J: I like the scholarship, I think that would have a lot of meaning.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Well, Mike is in touch with the fans, what do you think, Mike?<br />
<br />
ML: I think it's pretty all over the board with those suggestions. Some people have told me that the scholarship idea is a good idea, the lecture series is a good idea. I've talked to a few people that knew Perry from the chat room and they say pretty much anything that would carry on Perry's memory in that sense would be great.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: So yeah, the on-going cage match I think.<br />
<br />
ML: Yeah, the cage match.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, that's Rebecca's vote, the cage match.<br />
<br />
J: Hey Mike, when you first started listening to the show, did Perry stick out?<br />
<br />
ML: Yeah. When I first first started listening to this show, the way I saw Perry was the grumpy guy. The guy who sort of had one too many encounters with those types of people, pseudoscience and all that. He's just there to say "this is all BS." But after listening to a few shows, he grows more and more on you and you can see where he's coming from, but yeah, the first impression would have to be that, that he was the grumpy guy!<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Perry was always the lovable curmudgeon.<br />
<br />
All: (laughter), yeah.<br />
<br />
R: It just takes a while for the lovable part to make itself apparent.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Someone said that Perry was the id of our show, that he -<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: - would say exactly what everyone was thinking and wanted to say but he had the balls to actually say it.<br />
<br />
E: Good observation.<br />
<br />
S: Is that also the kind of impression that you got Mike?<br />
<br />
ML: That's exactly it. Yeah. He would say what I was thinking. It was like, "this is BS. Let's just move on."<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. "Let's just cut to the chase and call it what it is." Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, Perry had one of those personalities where he could say it, he really could call it like he sees it, but his charisma was able to soften it somehow, even though I don't think Perry came off friendly either. But he just, it was delivered with so much charisma that you just kind of sat back and nodded when he would do his thing.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: And I always respected the fact that Perry always felt, that he not just wanted to but he felt obligated to communicate that way because that was important to him. Even to the very end I'll disagree with him right now, the whole global warming thing, and he really didn't, he really stuck to his guns, even against scientific evidence!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, obviously there are things about which even good skeptics can disagree. Perry could be stubborn at times as well.<br />
<br />
R: Tell me about it.<br />
<br />
S: There's no question. But you're right, and even some of his close friends and others have observed that Perry had this strange charisma, it was hard to put your finger on. Even when he was being irascible, even when you disagreed with him, even when he was being -<br />
<br />
E: He was charming.<br />
<br />
S: - stubborn, it was always charm. Right? You couldn't get mad or stay mad at him. <br />
<br />
R: You could get mad at him, let's be honest! You could get mad at him! (laughs) Staying mad, though, yeah, that's another thing.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, it wouldn't last.<br />
<br />
S: But not, he said things to me and to the people close to him that if someone else said it, the emotional response would have been ten times as bad. I mean, like, I tolerate things from Perry - <br />
<br />
B: Oh, Steve!<br />
<br />
S: - I would not tolerate from anyone else.<br />
<br />
B: Right. Steve, think of the emails we've gotten from him where he, his emails of course would be, he would not forward emails, he would not have the attachment the previous email, so every email he sent was completely out of context, it would be a comment. Sometimes you wouldn't get your email for an hour, maybe a day later and you have ''no clue'' what he's referring to, and you're trying to think "what's he referring to?" so you sort everything by date and you try to see what he's referring to here, but of course a lot of times it was absolutely clear exactly what he was referring to and some things he would come across, some of the things he would say in his emails were like "oh my God! I can't.." At first you're like "I can't believe he said that!" and you think if anyone else did that, the reaction would be completely different, but it was Perry. It was Perry and he had carte blanche, he could do that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Like nobody else could do that.<br />
<br />
S: Mike, you got to know Perry in the chat room quite a bit.<br />
<br />
ML: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think Perry more than any of us frequented our chat room and made a connection with the fans that were in there. <br />
<br />
ML: He did, yeah, he made a lot of friends in there. Yeah, he was in there at all hours of the day and night. He would chat with everyone, it was awesome.<br />
<br />
E: Perry was not a good sleeper, especially those last 8, 9 years.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: He had trouble sleeping the night through so he would get a couple hours of sleep but then he would be up from 2 to 6.<br />
<br />
S: Go in the chartroom and talk with people in Australia.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Right. How is your afternoon going in Australia?<br />
<br />
S: We were sent an audio, a clip from another listener who frequents the chat room. This one's from Candace who actually got to know Perry quite well. So let's listen to her clip right now:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Hello, this is Candy from Eureka, California. Perry offered an alternative point of view to the mainstream of the SGU panel. His popularity was not due only to his charisma but to his courage as a skeptic. His skepticism was genuine and he was not just some ditto-ing yes-man. Perry was not intellectually lazy and was willing to truly put all of his preconceived notions aside to analyze things critically. It was this authenticity that I admired most in Perry. Many of you already know this Perry. But some of us were lucky enough to have known him outside of the podcast. Some of my fondest memories are of late night chats where you could catch Perry singing very badly to country music or listen to him curse his television when watching baseball. He never slowed his pace to change or alter himself for anyone's ego, whether he was teasing you about your Mac or needing a haircut or a Transylvanian-sounding accent. He was always straight with people and never pandered to anyone when honesty was what was needed. Perry was loved and will truly be missed. Ciao, babe."</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Well, thank you Candace, that was very nice. You mentioned the Yankees - whenever it was baseball season and we were recording a podcast, it would be frequently interrupted by Perry shouting in the background at his TV set.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: You know, true.<br />
<br />
E: It's true, all of a sudden we'd be talking about something, and all of a sudden it would be "Damn! A-Road! How can you strike out! Son-of-a-gun! Blah blah!"<br />
<br />
J: You'd never know that Perry enjoyed baseball by listening to him watch a game.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: But he did.<br />
<br />
E: He really did, and I actually had the pleasure of going to a couple of baseball games with Perry. I remember specifically at a time in which I was personally really down in the dumps and some really bad things were happening in my life right particularly there, and the next morning Perry shows up at my door and says "come on, get in the car with me, we're heading to Yankee Stadium, we're going to see a baseball game."<br />
<br />
B: Awesome.<br />
<br />
E: And we did, we just palled around the whole day, saw the game, it was just really a great time and I'll never ever forget it, but that's the kind of friend he really was. When you were his friend, a good friend of his, he treated you with a lot of respect and he really went out of his way to make you feel good and to try to cheer you up when you were feeling down. Perry was excellent at that.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, that's cool that he did that for you Evan.<br />
<br />
R: You know, I just opened up my email and just did a search for all the Perry emails because we were talking about how he would send these random things with no context at all attached, so, can I just read a few random ones?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: For instance, one I click on says, all this is "well sure, but I told you so." Which is pretty much all he ever said. Here's one where he sent us yet another article on global warming and he writes "kicking and screaming I will drag you all into the light on this issue." Here's a particularly good one, I don't know what it was in response to, but I'm sure he didn't mean it. He says "why are our listeners so palpably stupid?" <br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Now wait a minute.<br />
<br />
R: And then another one says, I won't say the actual word 'cos it's a curse word, but it just says "F-ing hippy loser."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: I assume so, he sent it to all of us but I think we can assume that it was directed at me.<br />
<br />
S: Yep, that was Perry.<br />
<br />
B: You knew what you got with Perry.<br />
<br />
S: So Mike, again, thanks for coming on and representing all of Perry's fans, and for continuing to help with the fan site. It's really been a great addition to our show.<br />
<br />
ML: Aw, thank you for letting me come on and talk about Perry. It's really helped.<br />
<br />
R/E: Thanks Mike.<br />
<br />
J: I want everyone to know, Mike actually did come down to Perry's wake and spent a few days here and Mike, we want to thank you very much for coming, it meant a lot to us, and it was, it's hard to put into words but we know you went out of your way and we know that you actually really did get to know Perry and really cared and it was very cool that you did that. Perry would have, Perry actually would have put his arm around you and said "thanks pal" or something like that.<br />
<br />
S: "You drove all the way down from Canada, you dumb Canuck!"<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: "You came down for this?"<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that really did mean a lot.<br />
<br />
E: It was great to see you Mike, and thank you so much.<br />
<br />
ML: It's good to see you guys too.<br />
<br />
S: Take care. Another Perry fan and listener of the Skeptic's Guide asked to join us to share her thoughts about Perry. This is Fernanda. Fernanda, welcome to the Skeptic's Guide.<br />
<br />
F: Thank you very much.<br />
<br />
J/E/B/R: Hey Fernanda. Hi.<br />
<br />
S: You're one of our Brazilian listeners, is that right?<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, I'm from South America, born and raised in Brazil.<br />
<br />
S: And you spent a lot of time with Perry on the chat room?<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, both Perry and I have trouble sleeping so we, and New York is like one hour, you guys are one hour ahead of us.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
F: So we were pretty much on at the same time and we'd just talk politics and skepticism and joked around.<br />
<br />
J: We wanted to bring you on just so you could share some of your thoughts and memories about Perry and some of the conversations you've had with him. I know that he really did enjoy chatting with you and he mentioned you to us several times.<br />
<br />
F: We'd talk politics a lot, I was like his South American insider. I studied international relations and sometimes it's hard to filter what is being said by the media and what's really going on here, so I tried to give him my perspective and also filter what the media here says about it. The many different countries, for example, Chavez and Brazilian politics is very leftist and, Perry was a Republican so we differed about that. I'm very liberal. I think he called me his liberal friend.<br />
<br />
S: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: He did.<br />
<br />
J: Wow, he actually said that?<br />
<br />
E: His South American liberal friend. He told me a lot. He often spoke about speaking to you in the chat room. He wanted to learn, basically - this was an experience for him to speak to someone in another part of the world to get their take on things. Perry was a good listener. <br />
<br />
R: That's the funny thing, is that Perry's like, he's the curmudgeon and everything and yet he was the one who was always in the chat room talking to people. <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: It's kind of a funny dichotomy that I don't think anybody really expected.<br />
<br />
S: Perry had a lot of dichotomies like that, like you wouldn't expect him to be extremely tolerant but in fact Perry was a very very tolerant person in terms of other people's personal choices. He didn't care what people did or what people believed - he didn't have any really judgmentalism about people's personal choices. If you were an ''idiot'' he was very judgmental about that, he did not suffer fools well, but in terms of how you lived your life, ''he could not care at all''. One thing that I think reflects that that I don't think many of our listeners know is that Perry's wife is a Jehovah's Witness. Wrap your mind around that.<br />
<br />
B/E/J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: That took some wrapping.<br />
<br />
S: That was kind of a shock to all of us when he let that bomb drop. <br />
<br />
F: That's one of the things that I could really relate to Perry because, and I think it's a problem with skepticism as well, just because you have a strong opinion does not mean you don't tolerate the other people's opinions. Your opinion is based on evidence, it's based on a lot of learning, a lot of reading, a lot of consulting other people, but that does not mean that you will not accept another person have a complete different point of view. And Perry was like that, and I'm like that in my life and I think sometimes your friends or people you talk to can have this impression of you that just because your opinions are strong you won't tolerate anything else and it's nothing like that. Perry was an amazing listener.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
F: And he was one of the very few people, I'm 21 years old, yeah, so it's very hard for people to take me seriously. Plus I'm a woman and in South America and a little in the United States, it's very hard for you to take a young woman seriously. I just felt very respected in that sense by Perry.<br />
<br />
S: Do you find that Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: No, not at all.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Oh, wait, about Perry, or not being respected in general?<br />
<br />
S: Not being taken seriously as a young woman.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, no, it's always hard and it's kind of like low-hanging fruit -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Somebody wants to insult me, they're going to insult me because of my gender, because of my age, call me a "slut," whatever, so yeah.<br />
<br />
S: All true but irrelevant.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: All true, 100% true, which Perry would gladly point out.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
R: But with love. That's the thing though.<br />
<br />
B: And a wink.<br />
<br />
J: You were his favorite hippy.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I hope so. <br />
<br />
F: It's an affectionate way of calling it, like he used to call me Mexican. Of course he knew I wasn't a Mexican. <br />
<br />
E/J/B/S: Oh my God, oh Perry. (laughter) Oh come on.<br />
<br />
F: It's just affectionate, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Perry definitely showed his affection by tweaking you, by making fun of you.<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
S: If he bothered to make fun of you, to Perry that was showing a certain amount of respect. We had mutual friends, we knew people that Perry did not like or didn't respect, and he didn't make fun of them, they were just below the radar, he just completely ignored people.<br />
<br />
E: Didn't give them the time of day.<br />
<br />
S: Did not give them the time of day if he did not think that they were worthy of his respect, so you should actually take Perry's chiding as a compliment.<br />
<br />
J: Perry didn't do it like "I'm pretending to ignore this person," there would be people who are in our larger circle of friends and Perry would literally be like, not even know their name.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Oh what's this guy with the green shirt? That guy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: That's your dad, Perry.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh yeah, that guy, yeah.<br />
<br />
F: And it's funny because of the internet, I live so far from you guys in a complete different country and complete different culture but by the learning of the common language, now the international language English, and the advent of the internet, I am now mourning the loss of a friend really. <br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
F: Because a person I spend a lot of time with, talking about personal beliefs and sharing knowledge and sharing information and it's funny how technology has brought people so much closer.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Absolutely. Even in like the last couple years, Perry didn't get around much, but we still had a virtual meeting with Perry almost every day. We were with Perry even when we couldn't be with him physically, whether it was on the podcast or, we would sometimes have social gatherings and gaming or whatever over Skype, over the internet, and the internet and the virtual connections that we could make are just as intimate, just as meaningful in many ways as meeting face-to-face.<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, and I think it's a shame that we never, Perry and I never really sat down to talk about this because I don't really think he understood how much he touched people's lives. We have to thank you, you're really bringing skepticism into our lives and connecting skeptics all over the world and we really appreciate that, the effort and the energy you guys put into making the podcast every week.<br />
<br />
S: It's ours pleasure. And you bring up that skeptics all over the world and we have gotten emails responses about Perry literally from all over the world. It does show I think how close really the skeptical community is and how vibrant it's becoming and also, sometimes it's like a cliche now, but skeptics sometimes get a bad rap as maybe being a bit cold, but it's totally not true and we all know it. The warm, genuine, sincere, really heartfelt response we've gotten from so many people, it's hard for us to express how much that has meant to all of us.<br />
<br />
F: Yeah, so thank you for the opportunity, yeah, to express our sentiments.<br />
<br />
S: Thank you Fernanda for spending some time with us tonight, and sharing your thoughts, we appreciate it.<br />
<br />
R: Thanks Fernanda.<br />
<br />
F: You're welcome.<br />
<br />
J: We'll see you in the chat room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we'll see you in the chat room.<br />
<br />
F: Bye. Take care. Good night.<br />
<br />
All: Bye.<br />
<br />
S: A few of our fans have asked, concerned, if we plan to continue the Skeptics' Guide after Perry. The answer is: of course. I mean Perry obviously would not have wanted his passing to end something that he cared about so much, and of course we all still are very dedicated to this, so the SGU will definitely press on. It will never be the same without Perry; we will always feel his loss for as long as we do this show. In his honor, more than anything else, it will definitely press on. And in fact, we are going to do more of a, the rest of the show is going to return to our more regular format. We're going to go into some news items. We'll do science or fiction, and end with a skeptical puzzle and a quote.<br />
<br />
So first some news items.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Jerry Andrus Passed Away on 8/26 <small>(45.20)</small>===<br />
<br />
First some news items. Unfortunately there's another bit of sad for the skeptical movement - another skeptic, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Andrus Jerry Andrus,] passed away on August 26<sup>th</sup>. Rebecca, you wrote about his passing on your [http://skepchick.org/2007/08/not-a-good-month-for-skepticism/ blog] this week.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Jerry was a huge skeptic, pretty much all his life, I think a good friend of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Randi Randi's.] A lot of our listeners might have met Jerry at one of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amazing_Meeting The Amazing Meetings.] I think he was at every single one, usually set up with a table of just the most amazing optical illusions you've seen. He would build these great big pieces where you could actually stand in them and get your picture taken and just really cool stuff. It's another huge loss. It's not been a good week for skepticism.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, we met Jerry this January at the TAM. His demonstrations were tremendous, his optical illusions, it was one of the favorite booths for people to stop by. I want to read one quote off his website which I think represents his slice of skepticism, what he did. He wrote: "I can fool you because you're human. You have a wonderful human mind that works no different from my human mind. Usually when we're fooled, the mind hasn't made a mistake. It's come to wrong conclusion for the right reason." <ref>http://jerryandrus.org/</ref><br />
<br />
B: I clipped out that exact quote, Steve, I'm looking at it right now. That's great.<br />
<br />
S: It's great, that represents illusions and a lot of what magic is, is fooling people to coming to the wrong conclusion but by exploiting the way the mind and the brain works.<br />
<br />
R: The good thing is that Jerry lived a really long life where he made such a huge impact in the magic world and the critical thinking world that he's another person whose, his impact is going to continue for a very long time I think. He's going to have a, there's a documentary that has been in production for quite a while on Jerry's life. I haven't heard recently what's been going on with it but I know that they were filming at TAM this year. Hopefully they've got enough footage that they can go forward with that and we'll be seeing that premiere, I don't know, hopefully soon.<br />
<br />
=== HIV Denial paper published in PLoS Medicine <small>(47.50)</small>===<br />
<br />
<br />
S: The next news item is a bit of good news that we had in the last week. Tara Smith, who does the [http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/ Aetiology blog] on infectious disease, a physician who's also a skeptic, we had her on our [[SGU_Episode_28 show]] about a year and a half ago to talk about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_denial HIV denial.] She and I wrote a paper and submitted it together in the Public Library of Science Medicine, and it was just published last week, so the name of the paper is [http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256&ct=1 HIV Denial in the Internet Age,] and it's been quite well received. It's certainly made the rounds. The journal PLoS Medicine did a press release, so it got a lot of play and the HIV denying community has been responding as well. So we definitely got their attention. Their response is generally as lame and intellectually dishonest as their beliefs. I was not surprised to see that some even made some rather sexist swipes at Tara. It was really, some real personal attacks at her, which is, you know, that's the level that we're dealing with intellectually.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yeah, it's not like they have real arguments to make 'cos they've been proven wrong again and again. Maybe you could describe briefly what the paper involves.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hiv-denial-on-the-internet/ blogged] about it, I'll have the link to that, but very briefly, we didn't go after the specific scientific evidences for HIV causing AIDS or the specific arguments that the deniers use to say that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, because that's been done very well by others in other venues. What the paper was about was the intellectual strategies used by HIV deniers to perpetrate and propagate their beliefs. So what logical fallacies did they commit, the kind of conspiracy theories that they weave etc. It was actually written initially to put it into the context of other kinds of denial, like denying evolution, but we had to sort of pare the paper down and focus really on the HIV denial part. So, and Tara and I are already talking about expanding this into other projects dealing with the issue of denial and denialism. But take a read of the paper, I think in the end it was a nice paper, and again I'm happy to see that it was well received and that it definitely perked up the attention of the deniers.<br />
<br />
R: Cool. Congratulations.<br />
<br />
=== Jesus in the Fence <small>(50.16)</small>===<br />
<br />
S: Quickly, another news item. Rebecca, you sent this one. There was a [http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=32116 Jesus sighting in a fence.]<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, very exciting. Jesus spotted in a fence. Actually out in California, a woman was doing some meditating in her sister's backyard and she saw a vision of Jesus in a knot in the wood of a fence. It's okay though, she was a skeptic about it, she did seek out evidence to back this up, and so she called her sister over to ask her what she saw and her sister also agreed that it was in fact the son of God. So.<br />
<br />
S: There you go.<br />
<br />
E: That's it.<br />
<br />
R: I guess those of you who -<br />
<br />
E: Iron clad.<br />
<br />
R: - if you need to make a pilgrimage somewhere to worship Jesus, you should book tickets now.<br />
<br />
S: There will be people there, I guarantee it.<br />
<br />
R: I'm sure.<br />
<br />
E: And if you're feeling any doubt, bring a relative along so they can assure you of your beliefs.<br />
<br />
R: Right, right. Excuse me Uncle Jim, is that the son of God? Why yes it is. Just like that.<br />
<br />
S: Looking at the picture, I don't even see what they're talking about.<br />
<br />
R: It's really difficult to see.<br />
<br />
J: I see it but he has no nose.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, actually that's funny, that's what, I was having a contest on the blog for people to photoshop the picture and one person used the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster Flying Spaghetti Monster] got my nose joke, which was pretty funny. Someone else said it look just like Pac Man. I mean, it's really even one of the more absurd -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: - sightings I've seen.<br />
<br />
S: You've really got to use your imagination. That's a weak [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peridolia pareidolia.]<br />
<br />
R: Very weak.<br />
<br />
E: Weak is right. I can't make this out to be anything.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, not even pareidolia.<br />
<br />
E: Really. It looks like a smear of some kind of dirt, maybe. <br />
<br />
J: He's facing to the right, he's got a beard, that horizontal line in the center is his eyebrow.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, like a unibrow.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: I was thinking that's like a cyclops, sort of like from the X-Men. Sort of visor thing.<br />
<br />
B?: "By your command."<br />
<br />
E: Jesus, not Abraham, not Moses. Nope. Jesus. Okay.<br />
<br />
S: It's a pathetic example of a pathetic genre of idiocy. That's what it is.<br />
<br />
E: It's worth a laugh though, I mean really. On a week where we can really use a laugh.<br />
<br />
S: It's a little bit light-hearted.<br />
<br />
=== Ben Stein is an Idiot <small>(52.33)</small>=== <br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Next news item is about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein Ben Stein.] This is one of those really disappointing things. Ben Stein who -<br />
<br />
E: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
S: - to me always was kind of a nerdy academic who somehow managed to exploit his dirty academic persona and actually get on a movie, he was in [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091042/ Ferris Bueller's Day Off] and he had that kind of funny game show -<br />
<br />
E: Oh Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Win Ben Stein's Money on Comedy Central. It turns out the guy is a nut-job. He's going to host a documentary movie that's coming out in February of '08 called Ben Stein Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ IMDB]</ref><ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com Official Expelled site]</ref><ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/22/you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me/ Pharyngula: You have got to be kidding me]</ref> and what it is is basically an apology for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design intelligent design.] He says on his blog, Ben Stein's Introductory Blog, "America is not America without freedom. In every turning point in our history, freedom has been the key goal we are seeking: the Mayflower coming here, the Revolution, the Civil War, Word War II, the Cold War. Tens of millions came here from foreign oppression and made a life here. Why? For freedom. Human beings are supposed to live in a state of freedom. Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given. A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry. Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without the freedom of inquiry."<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/08/23/the-fall-of-ben-stein/ Science Blogs] (original blog now spam site)</ref> Of course what he's saying is that evolution and "Darwinists" are against freedom, that we are being oppressive, that we are oppressing the free inquiry of intelligent design. This is the whining oppression argument - <br />
<br />
E: It's old.<br />
<br />
S: - that the Discovery Institute and the intelligent designers have been making for a long time. There's really nothing new here. He writes "this includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science." ''Always'', he writes, for emphasis.<br />
<br />
E: You know, he might be good at economics, politics and so forth, and that is his primary background -<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: - those fields, but, when it comes to this - science.<br />
<br />
S: Stick to economics, Ben, we'll do the science.<br />
<br />
(sighs)<br />
<br />
J: It's so sophomoric, like "yeah, you're conducting science, pal."<br />
<br />
R: At least he's being truthful in advertising when he says "no intelligence allowed."<br />
<br />
S: Right, that's right, I thought that was ironic too.<br />
<br />
(laughter) <br />
<br />
B: I went through the website and to go along with the whole school schtick, he's got some links here - class officers, the faculty, the expelled. For "class officers" he's got [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins Richard Dawkins,] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_scott Eugenie Scott,] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author) Sam Harris] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_hitchens Christopher Hitchens.] And he's got an out of context quote for each of them. I guess they couldn't find much for Eugenie Scott because all they have for her is as "class treasurer," they've a quote from her: "intelligent design is ultimately a science stopper." Wow, how intolerable that is. And the faculty, the faculty link is interesting because the president, principal, office of diversity and admissions is the same person - Mr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin Charles Darwin.]<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: The "expelled" I found most interesting, it had, with Xs through their pictures, they had of course Ben Stein,and then [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bono Bono,] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo Galileo Galilei] and Albert -<br />
<br />
R: Bono?<br />
<br />
B: - yeah, I'm not sure what was going on with that, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein Albert Einstein.] And then the funny thing is that they've got quotes from all of these and for Albert Einstein they have "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details." <br />
<br />
R: (groans)<br />
<br />
B: Which I thought was interesting that they pulled that quote from him which is kind of apocryphal, at least according to some websites, that's an apocryphal quote, but he didn't even believe.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Well, Einstein did not believe in a personal god. He might have been a deist.<br />
<br />
B: Right, which is a direct quote.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, he might have been a deist. Another thing is it's irrelevant that Newton and Einstein, whatever, even if they believed that there was a god and certainly before a couple hundred years ago, all scientists were creationists and believed in god because that was all there was, that was the only game in town. But it's irrelevant. The fact is their methods were true to science.<br />
<br />
E: That's true.<br />
<br />
S: Even if they thought they were discovering the mind of god, it doesn't matter, they were still operating within the paradigm of science. The problem with intelligent design is not that it imagines that there's an intelligent designer, it's that it's not science, they have not proposed a testable hypothesis. It's crap. That's the problem with it. It's not being oppressed, it's not being discriminated against, it's being correctly and fairly characterized as utter worthless nonsense. All of their arguments are terrible. That's why it does not belong in the science classroom. It's not science, period.<br />
<br />
B: I am looking forward, though, to downloading the pirated version of the movie from the web. Check it out.<br />
<br />
S: Ugh, it's terrible.<br />
<br />
J: I was always under the impression that he was a very intelligent guy.<br />
<br />
S: Well, it depends on how you define.<br />
<br />
E: I would say that he is a bit intelligent -<br />
<br />
S: He may be intelligent in some ways, but even if you generally an intelligent person, you may have some academic area of expertise, it doesn't make you an automatic expert in everything, and obviously he does not have an adequate understanding of the scientific method to understand why intelligent design is not science. Or he does but he has a religious belief which is giving him this blind spot in this area. People have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize their knowledge.<br />
<br />
R: As we've seen again and again, it's the really intelligent people who believe in the wacky crap that we have to fear the most, they're the ones who are doing the most damage unfortunately. <br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, it happens just over and over and over again. It's really not good.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(58.25)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. We have a theme for this week - the theme is the sexes. It's about differences between men and women.<br />
<br />
R: Sexy.<br />
<br />
S: Ready?<br />
<br />
Various: Mmm hmm. Yeah. Yes.<br />
<br />
S: Here we go. Item number one, a survey reveals that women, on average, are significantly more satisfied with their jobs than men. Item number two, a new study shows that men will chose romance over career success more often than women. And item number three, survey shows that married men do indeed do less housework than live-in boyfriends. Jay, you go first.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Survey reveals that women, on average, are more satisfied with their jobs than men. Uh, quick scan of all the men and women that I know and how do I gauge them liking their jobs, I probably agree with that. I know I would stay with someone that I love over work but I don't know, okay, that's interesting. And a survey shows that married men do less housework than live-in boyfriends - that is a fact and every man knows it. That's probably not true though. I think I'm going to go with the first one as the fake. The first one meaning the survey about the women liking their jobs more than men.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Ohhhhhhh. Goodness. That last one survey shows that married men do less housework than live-in boyfriends. Something's not striking me correctly about that. I don't think that one is right. So I'll say that one is fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Rebecca?<br />
<br />
R: Um, yeah, I have lived with multiple boyfriends in the past - not all at once - and never gotten married and the reason is because live-in boyfriends do more housework than married men. So I'm thinking, oh wait, wait.<br />
<br />
S: That means you think that's true.<br />
<br />
R: Oh yes, that would be true. <br />
<br />
E: Mmm hmm.<br />
<br />
R: Hmmmm.<br />
<br />
S: I know it's confusing.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Anything with a negative in it always throws me off.<br />
<br />
S: I'm going to start having ones that have like triple negatives.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Oh, well darn, because I thought the other two were true too. Okay. So I am definitely more satisfied with my job than most men I know and I think men are big wussy cry-babies who would pick love over career.<br />
<br />
J: What? What the hell's that supposed to mean?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: She just called you a wussy cry-baby Jay.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, wussy cry-babies like Jay.<br />
<br />
E: Are you going to stand for that?<br />
<br />
J: I'm not a cry-baby. I might be a wuss but I'm not a cry-baby.<br />
<br />
R: Aw Jay baby, why don't you go watch [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243155/ Bridget Jones' Diary] again.<br />
<br />
J: You're going to put me down because I enjoyed watching that movie?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Wow, I was kidding.<br />
<br />
E: Some things should not be revealed on a podcast.<br />
<br />
R: Okay, you know what then? I'm going to go against my own initial thought. I'm going to say that married men do more housework than live-in boyfriends.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, so you're with Evan that that one is the fake.<br />
<br />
E: There we go.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Bob?<br />
<br />
B: I'm not buying that women on average are significantly more satisfied with their jobs than men. I think that is fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, so we got Bob and Jay think that women are more satisfied with their jobs than men is fiction, and Evan and Rebecca think that live-in boyfriends do more housework than ..<br />
<br />
R: No, wait, I want to change my..<br />
<br />
B:What?<br />
<br />
R: I change my mind again. Can I change? You haven't said yet.<br />
<br />
S: No, you took your finger off the piece.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: I love chess.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca and Evan say that the survey says that married men do less housework than live in boyfriends is fiction. Everyone agrees therefore that a new study shows that men will chose romance over career success more often than women. You all think that one is true.<br />
<br />
E: I hope that's fiction.<br />
<br />
S: And that one is science. That one is true.<br />
<br />
E: Yey!<br />
<br />
S: You all got that one correct. This was -<br />
<br />
R: Well, that's the one I was going to change it to so I guess it's just as well.<br />
<br />
S: Okay, good. So this is a new study that's coming out in a future issue, the upcoming issue of Gender Issues <ref>Mosher C, Danoff-Burg S (2007). College Students’ Life Priorities: The Influence of Gender and Gender-linked Personality Traits. Gender Issues, Vol. 24, No. 2. (DOI 10.1007/s12147-007-9002-z)</ref> and it concludes, after doing a survey, that men may be more willing than women to sacrifice achievement goals for a romantic relationship. However this was a study of, and this may have something to do with the results, this was a study of undergraduate students, 80 men and 157 women aged 16-25. So the conclusions really can only apply to that age group. But in that population, the men did, overall both men and women prioritized romance, romantic relationships very high. They also ranked achievement very high, but men more than women prioritized romantic relationships above career success. The article was interpreted as surprising, as if that went against commonly held beliefs or impressions. What's interesting is my wife is a college counselor and she says that men come, the boy students, the male students come in to see her totally devastated when their girlfriend breaks up with them. The girls weather that much better than the men.<br />
<br />
J: Of course.<br />
<br />
S: It actually accords to her subjective experience.<br />
<br />
J: Because women are heart-breakers, I mean we know that. Look at Rebecca.<br />
<br />
S/E: Yeah, right, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Jay and Bob - you both think that a survey reveals that women on average are significantly more satisfied with their jobs than men, you think that one is fiction. <br />
<br />
B: Correctly, I might add.<br />
<br />
S: And that one is in fact fiction.<br />
<br />
R: Ah.<br />
<br />
S: So you both got that one correct.<br />
<br />
J: Yey Bob!<br />
<br />
S: This was from an article Job Satisifaction in America: Trends in Socio-Demographic Correlates. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070827.jobs.pdf University of Chicago pdf]</ref> The study showed a number of things in terms of different ages, socio-economic status, races, and however the lots of interesting differences I'll mention a couple in a second, but there was no significant difference between men and women. Women were slightly, had a slight lead on men in terms of indicating that they were very satisfied - 52% for women, 49% for men. But they also had a higher rate of being very dissatisfied, 5% to 4%, so they basically concluded that's a wash, so it's basically no significant difference between the two. One thing that's not surprising is that the more skilled jobs, more academic jobs, more jobs that require post-graduate level degrees, that were creative, that involve teaching - those jobs had the highest satisfaction. The lowest satisfaction were among those jobs that were basically mindless manual labor. Not a big surprise. This means that a survey shows that married men do less housework than live-in boyfriends is in fact science, that is -<br />
<br />
R: I should have gone with my first feeling.<br />
<br />
S: - true. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, we should have, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you should have.<br />
<br />
R: Never second guess.<br />
<br />
E: Except when you have to.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: That goes without saying.<br />
<br />
S: This was a study done by sociologist Shannon Davis at the George Mason University, studied more than 17000 people in 28 countries. <ref>[http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/28/9/1246.abstract Effects of Union Type on Divison of Household Labor]</ref> So that's a pretty extensive survey. Found that married men report doing less housework than men who are live-in boyfriends. And the conclusion, just to cut to the conclusion that they drew from this data is that they say "our research suggests that couples across many countries are influenced by similar factors when deciding how to divide the housework. It's the way the society has defined what being married means, the institution itself that effects behavior." And they basically said that "marriage as an institution seems to have a traditionalizing effect on couples, even couples who see men and women as equal."<br />
<br />
J: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8 Mawwiage.]<br />
<br />
S: That's very interesting.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(1.07.03)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: Well Evan, we actually now, we have a puzzle from three weeks ago that we don't know the answer to.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, episode 107, we may have to pick it up from there. So here is the puzzle from that week. <br />
<blockquote>I sure hate this delusional person<br><br />
Though hate may be a word too strong <br><br />
As I learn more, my opinion does worsen <br><br />
Perhaps I won't re-write this song<br><br />
Micro set scams were just some of his wares<br> <br />
He claims he is spiritual at heart <br><br />
A dozen or so of these blessings are shared <br><br />
Jesus could only hope to Master their art<br><br />
From his website I read, as they humbly plead <br><br />
That they can lay hands and cure you of ills <br><br />
Just join them and pray, for you will see one day <br><br />
You've found their holy mountains and hills<br><br />
For it was their king, that taught them these things<br> <br />
They are simply swine to this pearl thrower <br><br />
A doctor, a reverend, and a knight, so he sings <br><br />
But it was yoga that made him a knower. </blockquote><br />
E: Name the person.<br />
<br />
S: And the answer is?<br />
<br />
E: Dr. George King, our dear friend from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_King_(Aetherius_Society) Aetherius Society,] an organization founded by Dr. George King in London in 1955 as the result of what King claimed were contacts with advanced extra-terrestrial intelligences. It's guiding principle is service to humanity, though the manipulation of subtle energies through prayer, healing and other technology-based means. It's teachings combine the spiritual teachings of yoga with other received through yoga mediumship of Dr King in the channeling of advanced extra-terrestrial beings. It has been characterized by some observers as a type of UFO religion.<br />
<br />
S: Sounds like a hodgepodge of new age wackiness. <br />
<br />
E: It is wacky, boy, I mean, you go to that [http://www.aetherius.org/ website] for the Aetherius Society and it is, excuse the phrase, ''kook central'' basically.<br />
<br />
J: Wooo woooooo.<br />
<br />
E: They've got quite a few stories on there. And congratulations to Cethis, C-e-t-h-i-s, for being the first to post the correct answer.<br />
<br />
S: Wow, he got that, I'm impressed.<br />
<br />
E: He did, yes. He did.He figured out the couple anagrams in there and put two and two together.<br />
<br />
S: And came up with five.<br />
<br />
E: And made it happen.<br />
<br />
S: Evan, do you have a puzzle for this week?<br />
<br />
E: I do. (clears throat) I have another poem.<br />
<br />
S: Oh boy.<br />
<br />
E: In which, so -<br />
<br />
S: Is it a limerick, you owe us a limerick, don't forget that.<br />
<br />
E: So bare with me. I know I owe you a limerick - <br />
<br />
R: Yeah, we're looking for a limerick.<br />
<br />
E: I wrote this, I wrote this one actually maybe even prior to the last puzzle, I'm just getting around to using it now, so bare with me.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Limerick in the future. So here we go, this week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Being set on the idea <br><br />
Of getting to this place <br><br />
He concocted a theory that would be a <br><br />
Controversy in science's face<br />
<br />
He says our whole conception <br><br />
Of pre-history is wrong <br><br />
He insists his arguments are not a deception <br><br />
Rather a pursuit that is life-long<br />
<br />
Three points in a row with one offset <br><br />
Is apparently the key <br><br />
To unlocking a secret that is a threat <br><br />
To how we understand our history<br />
<br />
He believes the past is misunderstood <br><br />
That history has been systematically slaughtered <br><br />
But if we tried to go see his revisionist history<br><br />
All our heads would be under water.<br />
<br />
E: So. Whom am I rhyming about this week, and it's not Dr. George King, so you can eliminate that from your list. So good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
R: That only leaves six billion people.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, thank you Evan.<br />
<br />
R: Thanks.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1.10.50)</small> ==<br />
<br />
<br />
S: I'm going to do the skeptical quote this week, but Jay has volunteered to take it up starting next week. So Jay, you've got some big shoes to fill. Here's the quote for this week to close out our Perry Memorial Show.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Thinking critically is a chore. It does not come naturally or easily. And if the fruits of such efforts are not carefully displayed to young minds, then they will not harvest them. Every school child must be implanted with the wonder of the atom, not the thrall of magic. </blockquote><br />
<br />
That is a quote from Perry DeAngelis, 1963-2007, a skeptical philosopher and activist and a good friend of some considerable note.<br />
<br />
E: Here here.<br />
<br />
B: Excellent.<br />
<br />
R: Good one.<br />
<br />
S: Perry, we will all miss you. Well, goodnight everyone.<br />
<br />
All: Goodnight.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro61}} <br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Hesterk