SGU Episode 88

This episode needs: proofreading, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, categories, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing!

How to Contribute

SGU Episode 88
March 28th 2007
(brief caption for the episode icon)
SGU 87                      SGU 89
Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella
B: Bob Novella
R: Rebecca Watson
J: Jay Novella
E: Evan Bernstein
P: Perry DeAngelis
Guest
DS: David Seaman, DC
Quote of the Week
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951)
Links
Download Podcast
Show Notes
Forum Discussion

Introduction

You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society, and today is Wednesday, March 28^th,, 2007. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella...

B: Hey, everybody.

S: Rebecca Watson...

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Perry DeAngelis...

P: Good evening.

S: Jay Novella...

J: Hey, guys.

S: And Evan Bernstein.

E: And I want to wish everyone a happy Teachers' Day to our listeners in the Czech Republic. Happy Teachers' Day, everyone.

R: What?

S: So, Evan, I'm noticing a theme here: every week, you find some obscure holiday or commemoration that happens to be the day we're recording.

R: That one was definitely the worst.

E: I wouldn't call it "every day".

S: Teachers' Day in the Czech Republic?

R: Teachers' Day in the Czech Republic is the best you could do?

J: Rebecca, how do the vegetarians celebrate this now? Where do you go, where do you go with this?

R: Oh let's not go there. OK?

P: You sure it's the Czech Republic and not the Union of Slovakia, Evan? You know, it's two different places.

E: Uhhh... Slovakia-comma-Czech Republic, so apparently it's both. I guess—so, I apologize to both of our Slovakian listeners out there.

P: Thank you.

E: And happy Teachers' Day to both of you.

P: Get your geography right.

J: Evan, did you spend three bucks on some extra calendar or something? Where you getting these?

E: No, I'm just a font of useless information. That's all.

P: The magic of the Internet.

S: So we have a very interesting interview coming up later in the show with David Seaman, who is a chiropractor.

P: Yes, we actually know it's interesting, 'cause we've already done it.

S: Now, Perry, you're not supposed to say that. (laughter)

P: Destroying the magic of the—

R: Don't look at the man behind the curtain! (laughs)

P: Yeah, right.

S: Sometimes we record the interview first. Yeah. Something tells me it's going to be a very interesting interview.

P/B: (Chuckling)

News Items

UFO News (2:01)

• UFODigest.com: Former Arizona governor says he saw 'Phoenix Lights' UFO
• CNN.com: Link to Archival Video
• PopSciBlog: They're Out There. And They're French

S: But before that, let's start with some news. Former Arizona Governor Fife Symington states that he was a witness to the huge Phoenix Lights phenomenon ten years ago, and he thinks they were UFOs.

J: Was this the lights—this is the "Lights over Phoenix" phenomenon, right?

S: This is the "Lights over Phoenix"; the Phoenix Lights. Now, ten years ago, it was observed—

J: Ten... years... ago...

S: —at night, over the city of Phoenix, Arizona, a formation of points of light, sort of hovering in the air. They were seen by thousands, tens of thousands of people; there's video and pictures.

E: Oh, yeah.

S: They slowly disappeared, and this was a big UFO flap at the time. Now, it's been thoroughly investigated, and first the UFOlogists thoroughly embarrassed themselves by saying all kinds of ridiculous things. My favorite one is the investigator who did a spectral analysis of a picture of the lights—

E: Uh huh.

S: And used that as—

B: Ohhhhh.

S: —to determine that it was of an unearthly or unusual origin.

P: He discovered they were made out of photographic paper?

S: Right, right.

R: (laughs)

S: And that was likened to doing a chemical analysis of a picture of a rock. (laughter)

J: Oh, my God.

S: "That's good work, boys."

P: (laughs)

J: Steve, I was talking to my friend Michael Orticelli that lives in Phoenix about this.

S: Yep. What does he know; was he there?

J: Couple weeks ago. No; We were just—he was actually listening to a local radio and he played—the way the conversation started was he basically recorded on my cell phone about five minutes of the broadcast and it was a total train wreck. These people were talking about the dumbest crap; like, they were switching psuedosciences left and right. You know, they're talking about the UFOs and then they were going into homeopathy; they were going all over the board.

E: Birds of a feather.

J: "You just gotta believe"-type talk, you know?

S: Yeah, yeah.

J: The last thing he said that we were talking about, and this is the one point I want to make, was that there's absolutely no physical evidence. The only thing that they have on this case is some footage. But these people are claiming all of these facts about it, and there's no way to corroborate any of the claims that they're making.

S: Yeah. But actually, Jay, we have a lot more, because we know exactly what these things were, right? At the time, the Air Force was running a training mission, and they dropped a number of flares at that place and time. The flares are on little parachutes; they just float down slowly. And of course, they were in the formation of the jets that dropped them. And the video of the Phoenix Lights, of these lights, shows that they wink out, they disappear, as the flares drop below the mountain range that was right there. And in fact, if you superimpose a day-time picture over the night-time footage, you can see that the flares wink exactly when they drop behind the mountain. So, we have the Air Force testimony; it's absolutely consistent with the footage; it definitely proves that they were behind the mountain range. These were flares. There's really no question about this.

B: Yeah, Steve, even the pilot of one of the aircraft, Lt. Col. Ed Jones, said "yeah! It was me; I made the order."

J: "I pressed the button."

S: Right.

B: "I gave the order. Jettison... the flares." I mean, come on. This guy says—well, of course, he's part of the conspiracy, I assume.

S: Yeah; you have to just dismiss all this evidence as part of a conspiracy.

P: He could have been under hostile alien threat; you don't know, Bob.

E: This governor says it couldn't have been flares because it was too symmetrical.

B: No, he—he also said it's inexplicable.

E: Uh huh.

S: Inexplicable!

B: This little argument from—

P: Inexplicable?

R: Argument from ignorance, perhaps?

S: He made statements to the effect that "why hasn't the Air Force made any statements about this?" Because you're an idiot. Because they have.

P: (Chuckles)

S: They said exactly what these things were. So if you're not going to actually even know the facts of the case, then you're setting yourself up to just be embarrassed. Again, he's quoted as saying, "who knows where it came from? A lot of people saw it, and I saw it too." Well, we know where it came from, in this case. So this is explained, explicable; whatever.

P: (Chuckles)

S: Again, this is a good, classic case, in terms of the UFO believers going out of their way to squander their credibility and embarrass themselves.

J: Steve, you know what would be cool? If they did it again, just to show that... "Hey everybody, at 8 o'clock tonight, take a look out your window. We're going to duplicate the Lights over Phoenix. This is exactly how we did it."

S: Eh.

P: Eh, why bother.

S: Yeah, I think that would make it worse, because—and I can tell you what they would say: "Why would they go through all that trouble unless they were covering something up?"

B: Right.

S: That's what they would say.

B: But, the best evidence—

S: 'Cause they've said the same about other incidents. Whenever you try to actually do that, anything you do just proves the conspiracy. Right?

B: I gotta throw one good quote out here that the governor said. This one is pretty compelling. He said, "In your gut, you could tell it's otherworldly." I mean, that's all—what else do you need, you know? If your gut's telling you it's out of this world, then... done.

S: The other bit of UFO news in the last week was that the French government released a massive UFO database. Basically, their government's UFO files.

R: Their X Files.

P: Les Blue Book.

J: The French have a government?

P: (chuckles)

R: The French have a David Duchovny?

S: So, apparently, there's a hundred thousand documents on this database that they basically just opened up and it took about three hours for the server to crash because of everyone accessing it.

R: Or aliens accessing it. I guess; I don't know.

P: Also, it was French technology, so... you know.

R: French technology?

P: At least it didn't surrender.

R: I was about to say, "shouldn't you be saying it surrendered?" (mock laughter)

P: You're a little late on the joke, Rebecca, OK? Back up.

R: you're a little late on the joke; like, ten years late.

P: Excuse me.

R: It's dead. Stop beating the dead horse.

B: Did you guys hear—did you guys read about what was considered the most credible case in these files?

E: I did not.

J: Yeah, it was a "Lights over Phoenix", right?

E: Phoe-nix

R: French aliens?

J: OK, go ahead, Bob. What was it?

B: Well, just briefly, the most credible case, apparently, was this story from a 13-year-old boy and 9-year-old girl that saw these four small black beings, 47 inches tall, kind of like floating through the air, going through the ship and stuff. And then, of course, they ran home crying to the mommy and daddy, saying what happened. So when the police got there, they found a sulphurous odour and dried grass at the reported place where this sphere took off. Now that is the most credible evidence after how many entries are in this database? 1,600? 16,000 was it?

S: 1,600; yeah.

B: That's the best? That's the crème de la crème right there? Sulfur and dried grass?

E: Smoking gun.

B: OK...

E: Has our country opened themselves up to a whole bunch of documents and stuff? I think we did some kind of recent purging of UFO...

S: They... there was Project Blue Book, which—

E: Yeah, there was that.

S: They made that public, right?

(others agreeing)

S: It's not in an on-line database, which I think is—what this is the first of. Yeah. They've unclassified or declassified a lot of the UFO files as well.

Houdini to be Exhumed (9:14)

• www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/22/houdini.murder.ap/index.html
  

S: Next news item this week, apparently the great, is it great-grandson or great-grandnephew of Houdini?

R: Great-grandnephew, I think.

S: Great-grandnephew of Houdini is asking to have Houdini's body exhumed because he suspects that he was poisoned and he wants an autopsy to be done to, to see if he was in fact murdered.

R: I'm okay with it.

S: The story is, yeah, who cares, right? It'd be nice to do it. It's evidence.

R: I don't think Houdini's going to mind.

S: Yeah. So the point is that at the time Houdini had a lot of enemies, many of them in the spiritualist community because he was very active in sort of exposing the spiritualists of the time as being tricksters and hoaxers. When he died, it was sort of sudden and unexpected and no autopsy was ever done. So he's just saying how do we know one of these guys, one of his enemies didn't murder him? We need to finally put this issue to rest.

J: I didn't know that there was an issue.

P: Houdini hasn't hold that urban legend of the guy came up and punched him before he could tighten his stomach and all that.

S: No, that's Hollywood. That's not what really happened.

P: That's just Hollywood?

R: That actually happened. He actually did get punched in the stomach. It just, he didn't die immediately.

S: Yeah, it was like three days ahead of time.

P: Okay.

J: But Steve, honestly, what can they, guy is a rotted corpse and what could they figure out from that? Unless he has a cracked skull or something, right?

E: Traces of poison in the system.

S: Yeah, you can still find traces of poison in the tissue. Yeah.

B: I mean, there wouldn't even be a corpse left. Wouldn't he just be like a black stain?

R: No, he'd be pretty well. There'd be enough remains left.

E: They took remains of a president not too long ago, a couple of years ago. Polk?

S: Lincoln.

E: Was it Lincoln?

R: No, no.

S: Lincoln, they showed that they were, well, they did because they were looking to see if he had Marfan syndrome.

J: When did Houdini die?

S: Houdini died in 1927.

J: So he's been dead for a very long time.

S: No, I'm sorry, 1926. He died on Halloween 1926 at the age of 52. So it's 81 years later.

J: Yeah. I mean, what would be left? Even if you were in an airtight-

B: Depending on the conditions, I mean, if he was buried properly, he could be nice and fresh.

R: Yeah, there could be plenty left.

B: Plenty enough, right. Even if it's just a big stain, you could still get some some sort of tissue to study.

E: Here we go. So it was actually Zachary Taylor. And in 1991, they exhumed his remains.

P: Why?

R: To find out if he was poisoned.

E: That's right. To find out if he was poisoned.

J: Was he?

E: [inaudible] arsenic poisoning.

R: No, he wasn't.

E: He was not.

R: But they also did it to Napoleon. They dug him up and they found that he did have poison in his system. And his was also quite a while after he had been dead, longer than Houdini's been dead, I'm pretty sure. And they tested him and found that, I think they found that the English had been poisoning him slowly over the years. So it's definitely possible.

Buddha Boy Returns (12:06)

• Wants to be buried alive.
  www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=140325&version=1&template_id=44&parent_id=24
  

S: The last news item is a follow-up. You guys all remember the story of the Buddha boy, which we've been following.

J: Namaste.

S: Namaste. So this is a young lad in Nepal, I believe, who his followers claim has been meditating under a tree without eating or drinking for months.

P: And when they close the curtain every night, I mean, this story is so stupid.

E: It gets better.

S: He reappeared for a while, because the crowds were getting too much for him.

J: The crowds were getting too much for him. He leans over to the guy next to him, how the hell am I supposed to pretend I'm not eating and going to the bathroom with all these people around me?

E: I'm really hungry.

J: Get rid of them.

S: Well Buddha boy has reappeared. And now he's saying that he wants to be buried alive while meditating.

R: You know, when you say it like that, sorry, but I think of Bat Boy from the weekly world news. He just keeps appearing. Sorry, go on. I just thought you should all know what's in my head.

J: You know what's lame about this news story is how many magicians and everyone, how many people have buried themselves alive? It's not even remotely interesting anymore.

R: Even Houdini did it for 80 years.

S: So his followers have already started digging an eight foot deep trench. The trench will then be filled. He's replicating a lot of the Asian religious tradition. So this one, there are tales of holy men being buried alive. So this is a traditional thing to do for Buddha boys.

B: Steve, I think I've got more up to date information than you from DNAindia.com. Apparently he's already meditating in a bunker shaped ditch cemented from all sides with the roof made of tile having seven feet high and equal width. So apparently he's in there as we record. He's already there and apparently they're not going to fill it.

S: They're not going to fill it.

B: At least not at this point in time. He's just kind of sitting in the empty pit.

R: Wait, so he's just sitting in a hole and that's his thing?

B: Right.

P: Why do we care about this adolescent emaciated Buddha boy?

R: Extra extra boy sits in a ditch. Who cares.

E: Because he hasn't been kicked off American Idol yet. Oh wait, wrong story.

J: We care because he's an idiot and he's funny. That's why we care.

R: Can we go throw things at him? Like at least when David Blaine did it, he did it right there in London so he could chuck crap at him.

P: That's true.

R: I think we should have a field trip.

B: I'm trying to get into his head though and think of what this guy's thinking. Now does he have like a secret tunnel under there now where they can slip him some whoppers and stuff? Also it's difficult for his thousands of followers to see him in a ditch. So what's he thinking?

R: Well I don't think he could afford a glass box over the tent.

E: I don't think there are that many whoppers in Katmandu.

P: The assumption that he's thinking is a big one Bob.

S: Well he got in the headlines again so that may be the ultimate purpose of it all.

P: I'm a big fat guy. If I dig a ditch and sit in my front yard are they going to come and will I make a drudge report?

R: I don't know. I think you should try though.

P: I look a hell of a lot more like Buddha than that chum.

S: Bury in a ditch minute three.

R: Starting to get hungry.

E: Someone call Geraldo Rivera.

J: Why are other people fascinated to the point where they follow someone who sits there and does nothing?

P: Jay, why do they go look at freaking grease stains that look like the mother of Jesus? You know, I mean, come on.

J: Perry, we got to give them something to really chew on. We got to give them you, man.

P: Because people lead lives of quiet desperation. That's why.

R: Yeah, unlike you lot.

S: Well let's move on to your emails.

Questions and E-mails

PETA (16:04)

After listening to #87, i have two issues:
1. painting all animal right activists with a single brush
2. PETA wants all pets released

as for #1, i am a longtime vegan and animal rights activist, and i completely against the ALF and whatever organization that guy is from who wants to euthanize the bear cub. He speaks only for himself and maybe his organization. i can not find one mention of the name of his group. i am surprised you guys are falling into the same trap as MSM and reporting this as he represents all of the animal activists.

for #2, please site where you got that information from. all i can find was anti-PETA websites that make that claim and nothing to back it up. here is the FAQ i found on petas website, and look and answer #1:
http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp
it seems like they are more against puppy mills and cruelty to domesticated animals, and not the release of your pet dog or cat into the wild.

how many logical errors and falicies were created in this podcast?

i am writing this because i am a big fan of your show (yes, even Perry *can* be funny sometimes), but i was really dissapointed in the handling of this issue.

thank you,
Adam G.
Philadelphia, PA

S: First email comes from Adam G. from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and he writes, "After listening to number seven I have two issues. One painting all animal rights activists with a single brush and two, PETA wants all pets released. As for number one, I am a long time vegan and animal rights activist and I am completely against the animal liberation front and whatever organization that guy is from who wants to euthanize the bear cub. He speaks only for himself and maybe his organization. I cannot find one mention of the name of his group. I am surprised you guys are falling into the same trap as MSM and reporting this as he represents all of the animal activists. As for number two, please cite where you got the information from. All I can find was anti PETA websites that make that claim and nothing to back it up. Here's a fact I found on PETA's website and to look for an answer to number one. It seems like they are more against puppy mills and cruelty to domesticated animals and not the release of your pet dog or cat into the wild. He says how many logical errors and fallacies were created in this podcast? I write this because I am a big fan of your show, yes even Perry can be funny sometimes, but I was really disappointed in the handling of this issue." I actually had a few emails back and forth with Adam just to clarify some points. On the one factual claim that PETA advocates the release of pets into the wild, it is true that they do not do that on any of their literature that I could find and certainly not on their websites, but they do make a series of claims. They are certainly against pet ownership. What they advocate is that we should stop all breeding of pets, that those pets that already exist should be essentially rescued and taken care of, but there should be no breeding of pets. They should basically be rescued from the street or wherever else they would end up if they were let out.

R: And Steve, not only is that their claim, but also representatives of PETA have said things in the past that can easily be mistaken as meaning that they want to release pets into the wild and I think that that's where that got started. They've said things like, and I have a quote from Elliot Katz, president of In Defense of Animals, said, "It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long but just road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." And when they say things like that without clarification or just stopping it there, people kind of take that as a natural progression.

R: Absolutely.

P: I'm not sure. What is the ultimate goal of the policy?

S: To end pet ownership.

P: And to do what with cats and dogs?

R: Well, their point is that we should neuter all of the animals, all of the domesticated animals, not breed anymore, and eventually, because they're not breeding anymore, because they're all neutered, eventually they will be no more.

S: And animals will only exist in the wild. That's their ultimate goal.

P: So, all right, so the goal of the policy is to get rid of cats and dogs.

R: Ultimately, yeah.

S: Right. But they're not saying set them all free. At least not PETA.

P: No, they're not saying anything as cruel as set them free. They're saying make them extinct.

S: Basically, yeah.

P: Much better.

S: They also do euthanize a lot of animals themselves. I mean, they say animals can't be taken care of humanely or they're broken, tortured animals by their own definition. They will euthanize them. So they will kill animals in certain situations, which again, I think is perfectly fine in and of itself. They also, Rebecca, you quoted somebody who actually, is that from PETA or from some other animal actors group?

R: That was from Elliot Katz, who's president of In Defense of Animals, and I believe that they are associated with PETA, but not PETA.

S: Part of the complexity here is that there's actually dozens, if not more, of these groups with various policies. PETA has the big name, so I'm sure a lot of things that get said, just people associate with PETA, because that's the group people know. So that's another generation of confusion.

R: Let me just say that PETA supports a lot of these organizations, and oftentimes does it secretly or in a slightly clandestine and a little shady manner.

S: There's also lots of instances where research animals get set free into the wild. So that happens. Again, I don't know if in each case it's happened at my own institution. I don't know if it was PETA people per se.

R: Well that's often like Animal Liberation Front, who PETA has directly funded a lot of their ventures and has publicly stated that it's a good organization and that some of the terrorists who run it are a fine young man is the quote that gets repeated most often.

P: A lot of them were swept up in a FBI sting called Operation Backfire, which arrested a lot of members of the ELF and the ALF. Some of them re at large and stuff, but Operation Backfire got a lot of convictions in 2006.

S: Reading the actual link that Adam sent me, and I pointed this out to him, I think they're being a little coy, because they're trying to massage their public image, because even though they're saying that they're not advocating releasing animals into the wild, if you read what they do recommend, they basically don't like anything that pet owners do. So you can't do any of the specific things that you would have to do to be a pet owner, but they're not saying that you should get rid of your pet. Like you can't keep birds in cages, you can't keep animals in the house or on a leash, or blah blah blah. I think a lot of their own...

R: That's not true. They do say that you can keep animals in the house and on a leash.

S: Well, not the side I said they said they think it's cruel to keep a dog on a chain.

R: No, they say don't keep it on a chain outside.

S: On a chain outside, that's what I read, yeah.

R: Right. But they do say that you can put a dog or a cat on a leash to take it outside, and they do say that you should keep animals inside. And for the record...

P: Until they become extinct.

R: Well, yeah, Perry. They're talking about a natural death. And you know, but they're not advocating that you kill your animals. I feel the need to be particularly clear on this now following the emails that we got because I definitely feel like I didn't do my part last week as the resident animal rights person and crazy liberal.

S: On that issue, I consider myself a pro-animal rights, and I certainly am against any cruelty to animals. I think that researchers need to treat their animals ethically, and there shouldn't be any unnecessary harm or suffering. Where I differ philosophically from, I think, people who are most of the people who get labeled as animal rights activists and associated with these groups, is I don't think that across the board animals deserve the same rights as people. I do think that we can apportion rights to the level of awareness and sophistication neurologically that animals have. And they exist on a complete spectrum, from bacteria to chimpanzees, you know. I think we can eradicate bacteria. Bacteria don't have the same rights that people do. And you can work your way up the chain, you know. Insects don't really have much self-awareness going on. I see no problem exterminating pests.

R: Most reasonable people do agree with that position.

S: Yeah. But you have a lot of these activists who are saying that rats it's unethical to do medical research on rats, and they wouldn't kill a single rat in order to cure all the diseases in the world. I mean, that's a quote. That's how extreme it gets. That I think is absurd. And I think it's those kinds of positions that sort of taint the whole movement, you know.

J: You know, people eat animals, you know. Why wouldn't they start with...

S: Well, they're against that too, Jay.

J: I know they're against it, but why would they even begin to talk about people shouldn't own animals? The worst thing we do to animals is we eat them.

R: That's true.

J: Start with that.

R: They're basically taking the multi-pronged attack. PETA gets out there and they get in the public eye by doing things that generate controversy. Pure and simple, that's their bread and butter. So on the one hand...

J: PETA can go to hell. Me and my animals are very happy over here. I don't need them telling me what the hell they think I should do with my animals. I've got four animals in this house.

P: When they compare pictures of animals suffering some indignity to people who went through the holocaust and put the pictures side by side with the dead millions, it's an outrage almost beyond words.

S: So they ask for a lot of the trouble that they get and the bedwet, but certainly just from our point, we didn't mean to paint every animal activist with the same brush. There's a spectrum, absolutely.

P: And I said last week, you want to help animals join the humane society.

S: Yes, you did. Absolutely. And I did point that out to Adam as well.

J: The article that we were talking about at the time, if people need to remember this, we recorded the show on Wednesday nights and we were behind the curve. A couple of days went by...

S: I was going to bring up, there's actually a development in the story that we reported on. Now at the time when we recorded last Wednesday, what we reported was the only news that was in English at the time about Albrecht, who is an animal rights activist, who was reported as saying that this polar bear cub who was abandoned by its mother should be euthanized because bottle feeding it is not species appropriate and it would be humiliated. Now what he's saying is that he was misquoted. The paper that misquoted him is politically on the opposite end of the spectrum from him. And that what he really was saying was that he wasn't seriously proposing that the polar bear be euthanized. He was just drawing a comparison to a previous incident where a sloth cub was euthanized by another zoo. I think it was the Leipzig Zoo. And he's saying if it was okay to euthanize the sloth cub, which he says he opposed at the time, why isn't it okay to euthanize this polar bear in the same situation?

B: Well, the polar bear is a lot cuter.

S: Well the real answer is that the sloth cub was sickly and not going to survive without its mother, whereas this polar bear cub is doing just fine. That's the real difference in why one was euthanized and the other wasn't. So Albrecht I think is wrong on that point. But certainly it's possible that he was misquoted deliberately by a politically motivated newspaper and certainly now he's saying that he never seriously intended to suggest that the bear should be euthanized.

B: I knew that didn't make sense. Didn't make sense.

P: But isn't it also at least possible that he is shocked that the worldwide recognition this has gotten and now he's backtracking?

S: It's possible. These kind of people actually live to shock the world, don't they? I don't know that that would, they would recoil from that.

J: Yeah, give them the benefit of the doubt.

B: But that's too much of a shock.

J: Guys, does PETA really not want anyone to own one pet?

S: Yes, yes. That's what they say.

B: That's what they get to you Jay, huh?

J: Yes.

R: I think PETA top brass are our crackpots and I think that there are a lot of people who subscribe to PETA and who think of themselves as followers of PETA who don't really grasp how nutso PETA is.

J: So to take it just one little step further, then every dog that man has selectively bred, all the different breeds of dogs, all the different types of cats that are out there, they would all just be lost.

S: That's right.

J: Forever.

R: Yes.

S: Right.

J: Right? There would be no more black labs.

R: Yesterday there would be no more black labs. What are you not getting here? They don't want any pets to be around.

J: That sucks. It pisses me off. These people can go to hell if that's what they want.

S: They think the whole phenomenon of people owning pets is an outrage and they want it to end.

R: They put the idea of pets to having slaves, which I find incredibly-

S: It's absurd. In fact, they don't even like to use the word pets, they like to use the word animal companion because pets has a lot of negative connotations they don't like.

J: Animal companion. How politically correct can you get? This is my animal companion.

P: My wife treats their family dog better than me.

S: Your wife and family are very, very in love with their animals, it's true.

P: That dog lives the life of Riley, runs that house, so please.

GM Food (28:32)

S: The next email comes from Sean Safken from Denver, Colorado, and Sean writes:

Hello,
I have been trying to do research into the big debate over the safety of GM foods. In my research I have failed to find many reliable sources that aren't motivated by political agendas. Are some of them safe? Most of them safe? Are there many that are confirmed dangerous? If you can think or talk about any studies that test food safety with GM crops, I would greatly appreciate it!

S: So G.M. is—

P: What's G.M.?

R/E: Genetically modified.

S: Genetically modified. Thanks, Perry. So, I think that there are people who are against the very concept of genetically modified food, and I don't think that there are any legitimate points on that side—end of the spectrum, to say that we shouldn't be genetically modifying food at all; it's all bad; it's all dangerous. Sometimes it's tied to, you know, mystical notions about what is natural or what is supposed to happen. And somewhat hysterical fears about monstrous crops or whatever. But those are really, you know, unfounded. There are—and actions are—there's already a lot of genetically modified food in the food chain—in the food supply. You know, so you've probably eaten genetically modified food. That means if... scientists tweak one gene to slightly alter one protein in a crop, that's technically genetically modified food. And—

B: Since 1993, people have been eating G.M. foods.

S: Yeah. Absolutely. And if you think about it—

B: In the United States.

S: And actually—and at the most minimalist and benign level, genetic modification, or G.M. foods, is really no different than cultivation that's been happening for thousands of years; you know—

R: Right; we've been doing it; just, it takes a long time and it's not very... it's variable.

S: Yeah. I mean, none of the foods that we eat today evolved in nature. You know, most of the foods—

R: Right; look at the banana...

S: Yeah, right! (laughs)

R: We would never have the banana, which is the atheists' nightmare, if you'll recall from Kirk Cameron's video.

B: (Laughs)

R: Because God designed it, apparently.

E: Artificial selection.

R: But man designed the banana and...

S/B: Corn!

B: How about corn?

S: Wheat.

J: Garlic.

E: So many things.

S: Basically, all cultivated domesticated crops.

B: Twinkies!

S: All domesticated animals; you know, cows and pigs and chickens.

E: Cows.

J: Gummy Bears!

R: I see parallels between the G.M. controversy and herbal remedies, where on the one hand, you've got herbal remedies, which are the supposedly natural and good thing, when in fact, they're just... you know, they're not tested well and they might have some good properties, but we can refine them and we can make them better and we can turn them into medicine, and then that's supposedly what makes them bad in the eyes of the alternative crowd.

S: It's the naturalistic fallacy, basically.

R: And yeah, it's the same thing here, where we're just speeding things up a bit and perfecting what we can do with nature and that, apparently, turns it evil.

S: Yeah.

J: Hey, do we know what, for example, a pig was before we morphed it into a pig.

R: It was a chicken.

S: (Chuckles)

R: Little-known fact.

S: There were pigs that occurred in nature; they were just a little bit different than the pigs that we have.

R: They're called wild pigs. They're still there.

S: They are. There are wild pigs; boars, et cetera. There are legitimate safety concerns to some genetic modification of some crops. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis; you really can't talk about genetically modified as a group, 'cause some are completely safe and benign and others are very experimental. When you get to the real experimental end of the spectrum, then we're, like, inserting new genes into plants to give them some property; make them more resistant to pesticides, or to pests—

R: To glow in the dark.

S: Yeah, whatever. (chuckles) I mean, you could actually do really funky stuff for research. But to give them properties that they probably—you would not develop on their own. The risk is that because of the way that some plants reproduce, they get pollinated, et cetera; those new genes could actually wind up into wild species. So, theoretically, we could insert a gene that would make a plant—a crop—very hardy and resistant and that gene could wind up in some weed, which could then grow out of control, you know. So we basically—

J: Super-weed.

S: —unleash this thing into the wild. So that's a legitimate—

R: Super-weed. That doesn't sound too bad.

J: Yeah. Of course.

P/R: (Laughs)

S: It's a legitimate concern.

P: Sounds like a profitable crop.

R: Sorry; just inserting my resident hippie comment. Go on.

J: Steve, that would be like bringing a plant that's indigenous to another part of the world—bring it to a—bring it to a different—

R: Yeah, it'd be bunnies in Australia.

S: Yes. We've actually—You're right, Jay; that's like an invasive species that is—because we've—people do that all the time; buy trees from China and they plant them and suddenly they're all over the place. It's the same kind of thing, but this is more of invasive genes than invasive species. So again, this is a perfectly legitimate concern. There's evidence that this can happen and even... more widespread than we originally thought. Originally they said, "as long as we have a buffer around the crop then this won't happen", and there have been... there's evidence to suggest that it actually can happen, even given the current safeguards that are in place. But you know, this is all an evolving scientific discipline and the people who are involved with this are certainly not interested in spreading unwanted genes throughout wild species. I think that there's a lot of research being done that—the safety precautions that are being taken are pretty significant. And I think that we just need to let it progress. Let the scientists do their job; make sure that it's monitored; that we are being—erring on the side of safety so that untoward consequences do not occur. I don't think we should shut down genetically modified crop research. This has the potential benefit from this is huge. So as long as we proceed carefully, I think that it's fine. And again, the end result could be crops that are safer, more healthful, better for us.

J: I mean, you know, within 50 years, we're going to be genetically altering—

S: Ourselves.

J: Our babies; ourselves; I know. It's funny that people... I don't know; I look at it like, "yeah, of course they're doing that"—

S: One controversy at a time.

P: Technology will be fought every step of the way.

S: Some steps more than others, though.

P: Yeah.

Satanic Barcode (35:13)

Hi Guys,

Love the podcast, have been listening for a few months now and I am catching up with all the older episodes too, it help me keep sane at work in my mind numbing boring job, the quality to information is first rate plus the humour between the rouges is ace too!

I have a 'believer' friend at work who has been telling me all sorts of stories about conspiracies and so on, and when I heard you out line the classic red flags and ploys they employ you are describing this chap, amazing!

But one ting has got me wondering, he explained about the brackets on bar-codes and the middle and end brackets are 6 and there are 3 of them, you guessed 666! But I have wondered why this is as a bar code used 1 to 10 and logically the centre weighted number should be 5? However I do suspect there is a reason for this and I just don't know it yet, maybe you could throw some light on this subject?

Did you get the Nikon D80 in the end, as you mentioned you were shopping for one? I've just got into photography and have this model too, not captured any ghosts yet!

Kind Regards Damian 'Shropshire, England'

PS, a big thank you to all involved in the podcast.

Damian Dodd

S: The next email comes from Damian Dodd and Damian asks, "Hi guys, love the podcast. Have been listening for a few months now and I am catching up with all the older episodes too. I have a believer friend at work who has been telling me all sorts of stories about conspiracies and so on. When I heard you outline the classic red flags employees they employ, you are describing this chap. Amazing. But one thing has got me wondering. He explained about the brackets on barcodes and the middle and end brackets are six and there are three of them. You guessed it six, six, six. But I have wondered why this is as a barcode used one to 10 and logically the center weighted number should be five. However, I do suspect there is a reason for this and I just don't know it yet. Maybe you could throw some light on the subject. Kind regards to Damian from Shropshire, England."

P: Damian? Like you don't know.

S: But I replied to him and I basically said it's a coincidence, kind of like your name and he said, I never thought of that.

B: Oh my God.

S: So this is in fact the Antichrist asking this question in order to get more publicity.

P: And he shall rise from the grocery store.

R: Steve though, it's actually not just a coincidence, the six, six, six thing. It's actually a myth.

S: Yeah, you're right. I looked into it. The numbers are not actually on the barcode.

R: Yeah, six, six, six doesn't appear like that in barcodes.

S: There are stop and end brackets and what they use, I think it's basically just three lines. And those three lines could be a part of the code for six, but it's only a piece of it. There should be, I think there needs to be four or five spaces and then the three bars and that's a six. And so the actual code for the number six is not there. It's not in the barcode. But of course the conspiracy theorists see six, six, six in here and they say, some of the sites I've looked at do actually take this seriously, say that this is just getting, the purpose of this is to get everybody used to barcodes. So that when the end time comes, the crisis taking over the world will be comfortablewith being branded with barcodes and the number six, six, six on our heads or our hands, right? So that's why. So when they come around to put the barcodes on your hand, that will fulfill the prophecy of the revelations.

J: Could you imagine sitting around in your living room worrying about getting a barcode branded on you someday? I mean, could you imagine?

E: If it's 1939, Germany, I'd be worried about it.

S: They're going to have a, they're going to have a fun time when people start implanting our fed chips into their hands.

R: Oh God.

P: Barcodes are like on their way out. So the devil better get to it.

S: Thanks for the question, Damian, if that is your real name, let's move to our interview.

Interview with David Seaman, DC (38:33)

• Dr. Seaman is a scientific chiropractor and is critical of those in his profession who perpetuate chiropractic pseudoscience
  His column: www.chiroweb.com/columnist/seaman/
  His bio: www.chiroweb.com/columnist/seaman/bio.html
  

S: Joining me now is Dr. David Seaman, David, welcome to the skeptics guide.

DS: Thank you, Steven.

S: David is a chiropractor. So you graduated from New York chiropractic college. Is that correct?

DS: Uh-huh.

S: And you have all set to master level training in nutrition and neurology.

DS: The neurology would be what a chiropractic postdoctoral program is different than what you guys do, but it's not a master's degree in additional 300 hours of just more intensive neuroscience. If you can imagine, I guess even medical school training too, the basic sciences, they're fairly wide and broad and not necessarily deep in a whole lot of different areas so you specialize. So the additional hours were just to get more education in neuroscience.

S: And you also have a column that where you write about these issues in a chiropractic and you were recommended to me by one of your colleagues who listens to our show as somebody who can talk about so-called scientific chiropractic and what that is. And this chiropractic is certainly an issue that has come up on our show before often not in a terribly good light, but why don't we just start by having you tell me what you think the current state of the profession of chiropractic is and where you think it's going and what you think we need to do about it.

DS: Well, I think we lack a large enough group of evidence-based chiropractors. We still have a lot who are sort of encumbered by the dogma that I understand that you all have had fun with before.

S: And by that, you're talking about primarily subluxation theory.

DS: Yeah, subluxation theory and, and all the different things that kind of go along with it, that really hold us back because one's never been measured before or after an adjustment. It was a theoretical, I guess you'd call it a 1900 theory that was really the best effort that they could put forth a hundred years ago. But things have changed in a hundred years. Back when they did deliver their first adjustment, they didn't, Ramon Santiago Cajal didn't publish his neuron doctrine, so they were pretty much encumbered by or living with the reticular theory at that point.

S: So just again, for our audience briefly, what, can you just describe what the classic, philosophy-based subluxation theory of chiropractic is?

DS: It's the notion that the IVF becomes, the classic definition is a misaligned spinal segment that occludes the foramen through which the nerves pass, through which the nerves travel. So you have a misalignment and occlusion, and then there's pressure on the nerve and interference to the transmission of mental impulses, which are immaterial impulses that are supposedly a healing force that gets blocked. And when the healing force gets blocked, anything that is blocked in its path, if you're leaving, say, let's say the T5 segment, you're going to block the flow to the gallbladder, the stomach, whatever it might be, and then that organ will suffer. And then if you have a subluxation, at the atlas, well then that's when it really gets bad because then the flow gets blocked from the brain on down and every organ can suffer potentially.

S: Right.

B: Is it, is this what's been referred to as innate intelligence?

DS: Innate intelligence, sir. That would be it.

S: So that's a vitalistic sort of philosophy of healing and illness. What percentage of chiropractors practising today would you say still adhere to that philosophy?

DS: The estimate is about 17%.

S: I've seen estimates as high as 30%. You think that number's a bit high?

DS: It could be. It's hard to say. Maybe, maybe the 17% is a really hardcore bunch, and then you have people who can blend into that or they're apologists. I think we have a lot of apologists who don't object to the whole thing, so I think that's part of the problem, too. I think we've got 17% that are really strong and then maybe another 13% who can morph into that mode and then too many apologists that allow it to continue.

R: And to be clear, you're a vocal opponent of this.

DS: Oh, yeah. Yeah. To me, I think it is a dumb luxation.

S: It's kind of like physicians still practising the humoral theory of medicine around today.

B: Quick question. Does the belief in subluxations and innate intelligence, do they necessarily go hand in hand?

DS: No, because as time went on, there's also some history behind this that's kind of interesting actually that had to do with licensing issues that we can talk about in a couple seconds. But the subluxation theory, the modern version of it is now nerve impulses, action potentials become disrupted, and so they've morphed it from a spiritual force being blocked to a standard neurologic impulse being blocked. So you can actually, many of the strays have taken away the spiritual association with innate intelligence and made it more of just a nervous system communication issue through whether it be axoplasmic flow or action potentials or whatever it might be. So they've come to a position where it's more of a physical issue, but then whenever you listen to them talk about it, they always spiritualize it.

S: So they're just changing their jargon, but the underlying practice and philosophy is the same.

DS: Yeah, pretty much.

S: And to be clear, there's no evidence for the notion that subluxations block any kind of nerve function and therefore result in secondary organ damage. That's pure nonsense.

DS: Yeah, absolutely.

S: So as a neurologist, I hear that, I'm like, well, we actually know what happens when nerves get compressed. It produces pain, sensory and motor symptoms, and they're saying that subluxations which you can't really verify are happening in the absence of all the normal consequences of nerve compression, but it's preventing this flow of whatever you want to call it and then leading to organ damage. So it really is scientifically untenable.

DS: It's ridiculous.

S: So why does it persist?

'DS: You know, I've tried to actually engage these folks and actually kind of funny. The last two days, just by chance, it turns out or by coincidence, it turns out that I spent maybe 50 emails going back and forth on this one talk list that we have with a straight. And it doesn't make any sense. I don't know why it persists. I'm sort of at a loss as to the way you guys are at a loss to it. And most of the folks who think and feel the way I do about this, we're at a loss. You know, one of our brighter guys says, essentially, you have two different groups that call themselves chiropractors. And we both look at the spine and we see different things. And if you look at the two professions who look at the stars, you've got an astronomers and astrologers. They're not in the same profession.

S: Right.

R: David, when you were going to school, when you were pursuing your degree, how much of this subluxation crap made its way into the curriculum?

DS: We had an introduction to the, for us, it was really more of a history lesson. I don't remember this 20 years ago, of course, too. I don't remember anyone forcing dogma on us at all. The guy who taught the history was entertaining. I think he believed it. But I had a bachelor's degree from Rutgers and I studied, I was going to go into exercise physiology potentially, or maybe do a PhD in nutrition. And I fell into chiropractic because I thought it was something different than the 17th component of what it is. So it was really not an issue for us. Some schools, and I really don't want to mention schools, I don't think, but some schools, unless you really push me on it.

S: Well, we know that. I mean, I said before, the Life University, right? That's the one that really pushes the straight.

DS: Sherman College, Actually. Sherman College, Life, they're the ones who are pretty much sticking with it.

S: Yeah.

DS: And you can go to their website, particularly Sherman's website, and you'll see D.D. Palmer discovered that the brain impulses were blocked at the IVF. D.D. Palmer, if you read some of his work, D.D. Palmer was a brilliant guy. He actually, he was sending out letters to his colleagues at that point, and he called it the adjuster. He would give them sort of psychological adjustments, to try to keep their mental orientation appropriate. He said 100 years ago that the cause of most disease is inflammation, which you now know is true.

S: Well, a lot, yeah.

DS: Yeah, well, of course, a lot. But your classic chronic degenerative condition is absolutely. There was some really good stuff back then. It just got twisted up by the people who've actually really manipulated, like B.J. Palmer himself. B.J. Palmer said, we only charge by, this is an advertisement, we charge by the week. It would be unethical to charge longer because we typically get our results within a week or two. People get better. This lifetime care for wellness was not part of the historical B.J. Palmer, D.D. Palmer chiropractic.

S: So just to move beyond this point, there are basically, chiropractic is really two very distinct professions. The so-called straight chiropractors who adhere to this vitalistic philosophy, and then the rest of the chiropractors who are doing manipulation and other interventions for neuromuscular problems.

DS: Absolutely. Just to jump in for a second though, if you were to mute what's being said in a straight chiropractic office and then the others, you'd see similar activity in terms of the manipulation. But if you turned up the volume, you'd hear very, very different things.

S: Okay. And we both agree that the philosophical subluxation theory is pre-scientific nonsense, and it should go away, although nobody has an answer to how. It's kind of entrenched, and it's probably not going. It's like homeopathy. It's not going to go anywhere soon.

DS: Regrettably. We are trying though. A lot of us are trying hard. Well, you saw the papers that I wrote. The curse of chiropractic, that's pretty hardcore.

S: It seems to me, just for legal, historical reasons, you guys are kind of stuck with the name. I know that there was a brief movement. I think it started in Canada called OrthoPractic to try to just come over with a different name that's not tied to subluxation theory, and it died mainly because they couldn't get reimbursed because the name doesn't exist legally. Do you see that too, that there's just some legal inertia to the name and that's why you're kind of stuck with it?

DS: No. That one, although it may exist, I've not really encountered that particular aspect of it.

S: Well, OrthoPractic is dead now. I mean, it was sort of a short-lived movement to try to say, all right, scientific chiropractics, we're going to start calling ourselves OrthoPractics now just to distance ourselves from the straights, but it didn't work. So there's no plans on the drawing board or in your circles about how to separate the two professions into distinct bodies. So you're kind of stuck, is I guess my point.

DS: Presently we're stuck, yeah.

P: I realize, Dave, it must be a continuum, but when you have this debate with straights, do you find that most of them are reasoned and interested in the debate or are they defensively hostile or what?

DS: Most get lost when you actually start talking about the nervous system, believe it or not. Isn't that funny?

S: Right.

P: They just can't hold up scientifically, I mean, with the conversation.

DS: Well, if you ask them, say, well, you're worried about, well, it's flowing through the IVF. And by the way, there's a great paper that was published. And this kills the straights also. There's a great paper published in 2002, I think it was, where they put someone into a side posture position and then did an MRI on the lumbar facet joints, brought them out, manipulated the lumbar spine, put them back in, took them in a picture. And what they showed was joint gapping, which was theorized to take place because they saw it happen with manipulation of fingers. So an actual effect is kind of funny. The adjustment puts bones out of place temporarily, narrows the IVF temporarily, and reduces pain in those who are fortunate to have that experience. So the adjustment actually puts bones out of place and causes nerve interference.

S: Right.

DS: The exact opposite of what they say.

S: Right. Let's shift now to the 70 or whatever percent that don't practice straight chiropractic that are doing spinal manipulative therapy and other interventions for more musculoskeletal reasons. And what I found just in talking with chiropractors, reading their advertisements, in looking at the very few surveys that are out there, and also in just what my patients tell me who have been to chiropractors, I still see that in that 70%, there's a lot of nonsense going on. There's a lot of prescribing of homeopathic remedies, incorporating acupuncture into their practice, the use of applied kinesiology, which is, I believe, originated within the chiropractic profession, and other similar pseudoscientific invalid or not validated modalities. But it's very hard to come up with firm numbers. And it's actually interesting to me that we don't have good numbers about what chiropractors are doing. It's almost as if, I mean, you expressed some reticence about engaging in a conversation about chiropractic because there's so much baggage. And I found that too. In fact, we tried to do a survey, to try to remember that, Perry, you were trying to call chiropractic offices. And the response was, well, how do we know you're not going to use this information to hurt chiropractic? Let me ask you, so what's your assessment of what the state of the practices in that 70% who are not doing practising subluxation theory?

DS: You actually did more work on it than I. You tried to do some actual number counting in the survey. I would say it's a tough one. And Stephen, it's really, really hard to come up with a number. I would say that if you're talking about people who are really focusing on being evidence driven, maybe 30% of the profession, but that's just totally against us. So I don't know if it's fair to say that. But I agree. And here I think is part of what the real problem is when it comes to those other techniques that you're talking about. Up at Harvard recently, I don't know his first name, but Kapchuk is his last name. He wrote a really neat paper looking at acupuncture treatment, and then sham acupuncture, and then amitriptyline, and then a placebo. And pretty much the people who were given the placebo, they had, I think, 20% had a statistically significant improvement in their upper extremity pain. But what was intriguing was that those who got the acupuncture placebo but were told about the side effects of the acupuncture, they actually got the acupuncture side effects even though they didn't get anything. And they didn't get the amitriptyline side effects. Those who took placebo amitriptyline got the amitriptyline side effects. So a lot of times, as you all know, what you tell a patient is pretty powerful. I think a lot of, one of the studies that, I forget who published this, but the people who were happy with their chiropractor and the approach to care was that the chiropractor talked to them and told them what their problem was. So if you tell someone that they have a dumb luxation and the DC really believes it, and the patient for some reason believes it, that patient may get better even though, and it could just be thoroughly placebo. So when you have those types of responses to care, it's easy to believe that your treatment is effective, as you all well know.

S: So if I could summarize what you're saying is certainly there's a big placebo effect potentially to any therapeutic intervention. And also-

DS: Absolutely.

S: You know, actually, we survey our patients all the time. Actually, we have outside groups do this, and physicians generally have this sense, but I actually have quantitative information to back this up, that if patients rate their satisfaction with their therapeutic relationship and experience entirely upon the superficial aspects of the visit, did the physician spend time with them? Did they get their parking validated? Did they get their calls answered quickly? That's it. That's what patients base their satisfaction on, not on the actual scientific medical quality of the intervention that they were getting. Which makes sense because really, unless you're very sophisticated or you're a healthcare professional yourself, how do you really know the quality of the intervention that you're getting? But obviously, if you want to be practising scientific medicine or healthcare, you have to actually also be delivering meaningful scientific care.

DS: Absolutely. And I'll tell you something else when it comes to the Straits and a lot of the people who are successful who are not scientific, they have excellent office procedures, so the system flows beautifully.

S: Yeah, I agree. I think in alternative medicine in general, I think that they've basically evolved to be maximally effective in terms of bedside manner and the patient experience, and they're also unencumbered by having to actually do real medicine. So sometimes I have to prescribe uncomfortable or painful things for my patients, or I might have to tell them things they don't want to hear because it's the truth.

DS: That being said, there are some really good books on treating the lumbar spine, cervical spine, and spine rehabilitation in general that are edited by chiropractors, and they have MDs, PhDs, and PTs who are well recognized in the spine care field who are authors of chapters in those books. So when I see that compared to when I was in school, there's significant progress in that aspect.

S: What's your opinion about the appropriate way that spinal manipulative therapy or whatever other interventions you do should be used in the management of say lower back pain? What's your approach?

DS: Well, it would depend upon what's causing the low back pain. So are you familiar with the problem that's gone on over the years into the diagnosing low back pain, the term nonspecific low back pain or mechanical low back pain has been used for a long time? Well, that's just basically saying mechanical low back pain, although it's kind of easy to appreciate what that means. It essentially means it's a non-red flag back pain, something mechanically is wrong with your spine. Well, that word is sort of as general as the word subluxation actually, something's wrong with your spine. So in recent years, chiropractors and physical therapists have tried to hone in on specifically what might be wrong with the spine. Is it a disc problem, a joint problem? Is it a functional muscle deconditioning and stability problem? And then target their examination to bring out one of those problems and then treat it accordingly. Typically, if you're going to get better with manipulation, if you have back pain or neck pain, you should feel better almost immediately than the first few visits. If not, it's probably not going to be helpful. And it seems about, we actually have two dosing studies where we looked at about 12 visits for chronic low back pain seem to get the best outcome or at least it plateaued. And then same thing for silverogenic headache. So if you don't get improvement after 12 visits with manipulation, you either got to refer out or refine what you're doing and try something else, which is what you guys do.

S: Do you always do imaging before you manipulate?

DS: No, no.

S: So are you concerned about the fact that there may be a herniated disc that you could worsen with manipulation?

DS: Well, if you have signs of herniated disc, like if you have, let's just say we're looking at lumbar spine, you got lancet pain that's shooting down below the knee. That's actually, depending upon the case, but that's a sign not to manipulate.

S: So you'd rule it out clinically, even if you think that's adequate and not, you don't think you have to do an image like an MRI scan or something before manipulation?

DS: Well, it depends. If someone comes in and they start to get perianal anaesthesia, then off you go for a picture. And I'm probably not going to treat it.

S: So clearly if there are signs of nerve impingement, which is actually ironic, considering what the straights are.

DS: Isn't that hilarious?

S: And in fact, all the studies that were done of manipulation ruled them out with imaging, which is probably why I asked this question. At least most of the studies that I've read in the medical literature, they've screened patients with MRI before putting them into the trial and doing manipulation. That's one of those interesting questions. I wonder how much real evidence is there to know if the absence of clinical findings of nerve impingement is sufficient or do you really need an imaging study? One of my concerns, even though I agree that there is that subset of chiropractors who are scientific, my sense is that there isn't enough of that sort of self-critical research going on to really ask those fine questions about exactly how chiropractors are practising. Do you agree with that?

DS: Yes, yes, I agree with you. I do agree with you.

P: Dave, I have to ask. I hope the question isn't unfair, but if you had to do it again, would you go into chiropractic?

DS: You know, that's not an unfair question because I actually ask myself that a lot. But here's the thing. I don't want to be an MD. I like being a chiropractor. I like manipulation when it's applied properly. I think that rehabilitation is an extremely important aspect of spinal care. My main interest really is nutrition and inflammation. I don't think I would be doing this, which is what I really like, if I went to medical school because I don't think I would have been directed in that way or would have had as much... It's just a hard one because it's kind of like you tug on part of your life and if I go back and became a medical doctor, what would I be doing now? I'm not sure. So I'm glad I'm a chiropractor. I'm just not happy with the chiropractic profession. So it's a tough one.

P: Well stated.

S:All right, David. Well, we really appreciated having you on the Skeptics Guide. Thanks for talking with us.

DS: Thank you very much for having me.

B: Thank you.

S: Take care.

DS: Okay, bye.

P: Bye-bye.

Science or Fiction (1:01:49)

Question #1: In order to help relieve China's chronic food supply problems, Chinese scientists have discovered how to process panda poop into an edible fiber rich wafer.

Question #2: Scientists have discovered a pair of semi-identical twins who share 75% of their DNA.

Question #3: Taiwanese officials have shut down a major highway in order to make way for a butterfly migration.

Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.

S: Each week, I come up with three science news items or facts. Two are genuine and one is fictitious. And then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake and you all could play along. Is everyone ready to hear this week's items?

R: I was born ready.

S: All right. Number one, in order to help relieve China's chronic food supply problems, Chinese scientists have discovered how to process panda poop into an edible fiber rich wafer. Item number two, scientists have discovered a pair of semi-identical twins who share 75% of their DNA. Item number three, Taiwanese officials have shut down a major highway in order to make way for a butterfly migration. Evan, go first.

Evan's Response

E: Government shutting down a highway for butterfly migration seems like the kind of things silly governments do. So I believe that's correct. Chinese panda poop wafer, sure. You have a lot of people to feed. You got to find things to feed them. So therefore, I will say that the 75% identical twins, that is fiction.

S: Okay. Jay?

Jay's Response

J: I don't think. All right. So what do we got? The panda poop. We got the butterfly situation. What was the other one?

S: The semi-identical twins.

J: You know what, Steve? You're a tricky bastard. That's for the record. I'm going to go with the panda poop is the fake.

S: Okay. Rebecca, you go next.

Rebecca's Response

R: I'm going to go with the panda poop too, actually, because I like saying panda poop.

S: Okay, Bob.

Bob's Response

B: See, identical twins. I'm going to go with that one. Three. I mean, I believe it. Three butterfly migration. That makes sense because you don't want cars running into these damn things. Panda poop. I mean, how many pandas are they? Steve, read the whole number one to me again.

S: In order to help relieve China's chronic food supply problems.

B: That's enough. That's enough. No way. That's bullshit.

R: Why not just eat the pandas?

J: I've got two of my garage chained up. I don't know if anyone's going to get upset about that.

S: Perry?

Perry's Response

P: If the Chinese are eating panda poo, their ascension to world dominance is at an end. I have to agree. The panda poo sounds ridiculous.

J: Panda poo is made of people.

E: It's bamboo.

P: No, the point is it's made of poo. That's the point.

Steve Explains Item #3

S: So you all agree that Taiwanese officials have shut down a major highway in order to make way for a butterfly migration is science.

J: Yes.

P: In this day and age.

S: And that is in fact science.

R: What do you mean in this day and age? It's a good thing that scientists can track butterfly migration.

J: Shut up you.

R: You shut up. I'm so sick of you. I will kick your ass. Second of all.

S: So that one's true.

Steve Explains Item #1

S: Chinese scientists have discovered how to process panda poop into an edible fiber rich wafer. And that is in fact science.

P: What? Get outta here!

E: I'm eating some right now. It's delicious.

J: That's bullshit Steve. I read the article, Steve. That's not true.

S: No, that's bullshit. That's true. Jay is correct. That is my little April fool.

J: It's paper. It's paper.

R: It's not April fools?

S: It will be when this goes up. Oh, come on. It's two days away. That one's fiction. You guys are all right except for Evan.

P: So Evan was the only one who was wrong?

S: Evan was wrong. We'll get to the semi-identical twins in a minute. The story is that they are making panda poo into paper. It is very fiber rich and they have a process by which they can make it into paper.

B: That's stupid too.

S: Now apparently the zoos and preserves, they have to dispense with tons daily of panda poop.

J: Look at Guana.

P: Really?

S: Tons every day.

P: I didn't think the population was that big.

Steve Explains Item #2

S: Which means that number two, scientists have discovered a pair of semi-identical twins who share 75% of their DNA is true. That was the fascinating one this week.

B: Yeah, basically what's happening, Steve, if you don't want me jumping in.

S: Apparently you've read the article.

R: It's a little too late now.

B: Yeah, right? Tough. No, I didn't read the article. I actually heard it on the radio.

R: Tell it slow. Tell it smooth.

B: Two sperm, fertilize egg at the same time. So each kid, each kid has identical, mother's DNA is identical but the father's DNA is what they have.

S: They have different father's DNA.

P: So it was two different sperms into the same egg from two different fathers?

S: No, no, same father. Two different sperms.

J: Two sperms Perry, two.

S: No, it's two different sperms. So the two kids have the same exact DNA from their mother but only half of the DNA from their father.

P: Why don't they have double the DNA from their father?

S: Because here's the thing, that's exactly a good question. So normally what happens is you get double the DNA from the father and the embryo is not viable and it dies. But this must have split right at the right time so that each two eggs had the right amount of DNA. So it became two viable embryos. So it's just a rare occurrence that it just divided up properly so they had the right amount of DNA. Now the other thing they mentioned is that now this could happen more often than we recognize but how would we know? You know, how would you?

B: You could have boy and girl semi-identical twins and you would think they're fraternal but they're actually semi-identical.

S: No, Bob, you're wrong.

B: What? That's not what the radio guy said.

S: No, that's how we know that they were semi-identical because they were a boy and a girl. If they were two boys or two girls then you wouldn't know unless you did a DNA analysis, right? But here both of the children are hermaphrodites because they have half male and half female genes from their father because there was one Y and one X from the two sperm. So both, although and they noticed it, one of the children is anatomically male, the other one has ambiguous genitalia which is the technical term for that. And that's what they first noticed. Why do they have ambiguous genitalia? Usually that is a sign of a hormonal problem but that wasn't present. So that's what led them to figure out that this was a chimera, if you will, that this was the semi-identical twins. If they were both male or both female, they wouldn't know.

P: These ones are hermaphrodites?

S: These are hermaphrodites, yeah.

P: Oh, they can go f' themselves.

B: He's been waiting for that one.

P: I had to set it up. It wasn't easy.

E: He's been waiting three years to say that.

P: It wasn't easy.

S: You had to set yourself up for that one, Perry? The geneticists are very excited about this case because it's very rare, very interesting.

R: It takes a lot to get a geneticist excited, too, so this is good.

S: Well, actually, they're quite excitable actually.

R: Are they?

S: Yes.

J: I'm very excited about it.

E: Oh, yeah.

P: Mostly about mutant food.

E: They're a lively bunch.

J: Okay, I'm not excited anymore.

S: So everyone got that one right except for Evan.

P: Ah, it's too bad. Oh, well.

E: Who cares?

S: I really wanted to get you guys with the panda poop.

E: I'm a nihilist.

J: Evan, you better care. I'm closing in on you and Perry.

E: Yeah, well, you only had that direction to go, huh?

B: Nice.

P: Good one, Evan.

E: I love you Jay.

Skeptical Puzzle (1:09:56)

This Week's Puzzle

Take a rose
Place it in lime
The outcome is usually death

I am mired by what Doctor Griffin would say
A dimmer version of a baby's last breath


What am I describing?


Last Week's Puzzle

Between us, if I raise my goblet to you, and open my heart, on the grounds of conjecture, what psuedoscientific act am I performing?

Answer: Tea leaf reading - tesiography
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond

S: All right, Mr. Bernstein, give us your puzzle. Actually, first, read last week's puzzle and give us the answer.

P: They got last week's quick, Evan.

E: They did. They got it so quick. I'm not even sure how. I thought I'd Google proof this one.

R: They are a clever bunch.

S: But in any case, they got it quickly, too.

E: They got it quick. Between us, if I raise my goblet to you and open my heart on the grounds of conjecture, what pseudoscientific act am I performing? And Cosmic Vagabond is in fact correct when he guessed testiography, which is tea leaf reading, for lack of a better term. It actually encompasses not only tea leaf reading, but coffee ground readings and wine remnants readings. Who knew there was such a thing?

J: I thought those were people that hung out at the docks.

R: No, that's sailors.

E: You can go back and figure out all the clues and stuff. But in any case, Cosmic Vagabond got very quickly and congratulations.

J: That guy has got to be a genius.

E: I challenge him this week.

P: All right.

E: I challenge him directly this week to get this one so quickly. Here you go. Take a rose, place it in lime. The outcome is usually death. I am mired by what Dr. Griffin would say, a dimmer version of a baby's last breath. What am I describing? Good luck, Cosmic Vagabond.

R: And just so listeners know, if you're not on the message board, you can email it in to beat them, but they are all over there working it out together.

E: So we've had some email winners, definitely. So give it a shot.

P: There's even a chat room now. If you go on the SGU fan site, there's a chat room. You can go talk about it if you want.

Quote of the Week (1:11:49)

'Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.'-Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).

S: Well, that is our show for this week.

J: What about Bob's quote?

P: What about a quote?

S: As always, we close out with a quote from Bob. Bob, what do you got for us this week?

B: I got a quote here from Andre Guy, French author and critic. He said, I like this quote, "Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it."

S: Very nice.

P: Very profound.

R: Thank you, Bob.

S: Well, thanks everyone for joining me. Pleasure as always.

P: Good night.

J: Thanks Steve.

R: Thank you Steve.

B: Good episode.

S: —and until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

S: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by the New England Skeptical Society in association with the James Randi Educational Foundation. For more information on this and other episodes, please visit our website at www.theskepticsguide.org. Please send us your questions, suggestions, and other feedback; you can use the "Contact Us" page on our website, or you can send us an email to info@theskepticsguide.org'. 'Theorem' is produced by Kineto and is used with permission.

References