I’ve written in the past how my particular brand of skepticism includes atheism.

I see religion as no different to any other topic – provide me with the evidence and I’ll reconsider my stance.

And so on to the news. You may have already read about the decision by NZ Bus to deny the Atheist Bus Campaign advertising space on their buses.

Now to some extent I believe they are entitle to accept and reject adverts as they see fit. But frankly I just wish NZ Bus would grow a spine.

Company spokesperson Siobhan O’Donovan said a number of people found the potential advert (”There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”) ‘distasteful or distressing’.

This just winds me up no end.

I see, read and hear things every single day of my life I find distasteful and distressing (I listen to Newstalk ZB so it’s not hard). But I have the option to ignore it if I so choose.

The thing I don’t understand is why that simple message is so controversial. It’s not like the giant billboard of the planes flying into the Twin Towers with John Lennon’s famed ‘Imagine no religion’ lyric which was designed to be deliberately provocative.

The only conclusion I can draw is these people’s faith is on such shoddy grounds that even suggesting to them there might be no god is enough to turn them to the dark side.

Frankly I feel sorry for people who found this distressing. If someone was to put up a sign on a bus saying “Atheists are probably going to hell” then I wouldn’t be distressed. I’d probably laugh.

In the meantime those things which I (and many people I know) find truly distasteful and distressing – poverty, child abuse, racism, sexism – go unaddressed.

Hey, here’s a thought. Maybe NZ Bus could have taken the multiple thousands the atheists were offering to pay and given their bus drivers a raise. Might have helped with the whole poverty thing.

What do you do when friends pay money to see a ‘psychic’? Do you spend time trying to convince them otherwise or do you just accept it and try and explain some of the hits afterwards?

I had often thought about this in the past and had always come down on the side of the former. Then I actually got some friends who paid money to see one and now I’m in the latter.

In fact, I’m now almost past the latter to the stage where I’m not even going to try and explain it because it turns out it doesn’t actually matter what anyone else thinks.

And it’s not like these people are unintelligent – they’re not. These are clever people with good jobs, but seem willing to believe that someone who can make some educated guesses about them is able to see the future or talk to dead people.

The thing that got me (and led to a fair proportion of time speaking about it) was the disclaimer the ‘psychic’ gave up front – to paraphrase, ‘this reading is accurate for today but you may make decisions in the future which will alter this and threfore you cannot come back to me and say this didn’t come true’.

To an open-minded person I would have thought this would have raised a massive warning flag – and I like to think my friends are pretty open-minded. But no, this was accepted without question.

This so-called psychic just gave themselves the biggest out in the world and yet neither of my friends even considered this as a bad thing.

And then we got onto the hits – those things which were apparently so accurate that only someone who had special abilities would be able to know them. And yes, some good guesses were apparently made – but nothing beyond the bounds of some decent cold reading and a little research.

So I moved on and asked about things that didn’t make sense. One of my friends said the ‘psychic’ had mentioned a name which didn’t mean anything. I thought this would surely raise the alarm bells.

Nope, how wrong could I be. This just meant the person might not have come into their lives at this point, or maybe it was a reference to a family member they weren’t aware of. Just great.

So, with tail firmly between my legs, I gave it one last shot. Both still have tapes of their visit to the ‘psychic’.

I asked them to listen to the tape with a piece of paper in their hands and to mark all the things that were accurate and could apply only to them, things which were accurate which could apply to lots of other people and things which were inaccurate.

I’m figuring it’s never going to be done.

So what do you do if a friend tells you they’re going to see a ‘psychic’? As much as it grates and goes against everything I stand for, in the future (at least with these friends) I might just bite my tongue.

Apologies for the lack of updates recently. Rest assured my skeptical brain has been working while the rest of me has been slightly worse than useless.

I’ll be back with more regular updates now Real Life (TM) has once again deigned to allow me some spare time.

And what better way to celebrate my impending return than with the announcement of TAM (The Amazing Meeting) Australia?

The Amazing Meeting has been held since 2003 and has become the premier meeting for skeptics worldwide. Unfortunately for those of us outwith the United States it can be very expensive to attend.

Earlier this year the first international TAM took place in London and it was widely acclaimed.

And so hot off the back of that was the announcement that Australia will become a focal point for skeptics all around the world from 26-28th November next year.

It’s a major coup for the Australian Skeptics and the list of skeptical attendees is already looking impressive.

The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe cast (Dr Steve Novella, Bob Novella, Jay Novella, Evan Bernstein and Rebecca Watson) had already announced they would travel to Australia next year but this will now coincide with TAM Australia.

And if that isn’t exciting enough, Skeptoid’s Brian Dunning and skeptical podcaster and singer George Hrab will also be making the long trip.

Oh, and a certain diminutive magician widely loved by the entire skeptical community has also said he intends to be in Sydney.

One of the greatest things about the skeptical community is how in touch the ‘leaders’ are with the base. I’ve exchanged e-mails, Facebook messages and Tweets with the biggest names and it’s amazing (no pun intended) to be able to do that.

And the highlight had to be an e-mail from the man himself, James Randi. I sent him some birthday wishes last year and I was stunned to receive a message back from him.

It was short, amusing and has become my most treasured e-mail. I’ll be hoping Randi has fully recovered from his recent health issues so I may shake his hand next November.

Congratulations Australian Skeptics and I can’t wait to meet everyone next year.

I’ll be looking for cheap tickets to Sydney every day from now on!

Skepticism can sometimes be a bit of a dry topic.

I’ll wait with baited breath for the accusation of being ‘closed-minded’ and the pearl of wisdom that ’science can’t explain everything’ because those are the two things I read and hear most when I write or speak about psychics.

But sometimes it’s worth hearing that rhetoric because the story is much more important, and that’s the case today.

I imagine many of you are familiar with the disappearance of west Auckland todder Aisling Symes and the police search to find the two year old.

Stories like this really tug on my heart strings, particularly with two young-ish kids of my own.

I can only imagine the pain the parents are going through at the present time, particularly their desperation to hear anything which could help re-unite them with their baby.

But even knowing that the decision of TVNZ to put self-proclaimed ‘metaphysical researcher’ (ie psychic, medium) Deb Webber in contact with her parents is beyond the pale, in my opinion.

Media columnist John Drinnan wrote about the story eloquently in the NZ Herald this morning, so I recommend jumping over there and reading his words.

But the only thing I don’t agree with Drinnan on is his characterisation of TVNZ’s role as unsettling. I’d go way beyond that. It’s utterly disgraceful.

Psychics, in my opinion, fall into two categories – those who know they aren’t psychic and are deliberately using hot and cold reading techniques and those who seriously believe they have the ability to talk with dead people but are just good cold readers and intuitive.

I have no reason to doubt Webber doesn’t seriously believe she has the gift of talking to the spirits.

But that doesn’t mean she is and it certainly doesn’t mean TVNZ should be facilitating any kind of meeting with parents who will be struggling to deal with the situation they find themselves in.

What makes it worse is TVNZ have a relationship with Webber because of her part in Sensing Murder, a show which to my knowledge – and of course I’ll amend this should someone provide evidence to the contrary – has never resulted in the solving of an unsolved case.

The state broadcaster then used the knowledge they had filmed Webber and she had ’some information’ on the case to ask “how seriously are police likely to take that information” at a media conference.

Unfortunately Drinnan’s piece doesn’t say what the police response to that inappropriate question was.

Is it too much to hope the police aren’t going to waste precious resources on what is likely to be nothing more than an educated guess based on the history of these types of disappearances?

The last thing this devastated family need to hear is the words of a person who has been caught talking with the spirits of dead people who didn’t exist.

Unfortunately I can’t bring you Eating Media Lunch’s deliciously satirical take on Webber and her ability to speak with non-existant spirits because the Sensing Bullshit segment has been removed from YouTube due to “use violation”.

In my opinion the search for young Aisling should be left to the professionals and not because the spirits are telling me so.

Common decency is.

Here are some links if you want to read some more about psychics and the Sensing Murder television show:

Skepdic on psychics
CSI’s story on ‘psychic’ John Edward
Skeptico’s psychic debunking
Sensing Bullshit
Sensing Murder

Ever since I became aware I was a ’skeptic’ I had struggled to find any kind of skeptical community to feel a part of.

That changed when I discovered podcasts like The Skeptics Guide to the Universe and even more so when I started using twitter regularly.

In fact, I conversed more with skeptics in Australia than I did with any in Auckland or even New Zealand.

But then I ‘met’ unifex on twitter. He is the organiser of Christchurch Skeptics in the Pub (SitP), webmaster of skepticsinthepub.net.nz and he offered some of his meetup.com credits to allow us to start Auckland SitP.

I set up the first meeting expecting 20 or so skeptics to crawl out of the Auckland woodwork but on the 10th September around 50 turned up at the Horse and Trap for the inaugral meeting.

Our numbers were definitely boosted by the attendance of special guest Kylie Sturgess, an Australian skeptic and a member of the Skeptic Zone podcast team.

She shared some of her experiences, recorded a conversation with a group of us to form part of the podcast (which you can download in mp3 format here) and even had time for some video shooting:

The meeting was a little disorganised, partly because no-one had any idea what was expected from the meeting, but despite that it was successful and plenty of ideas were shared for the next meeting.

And so this Thursday at 7.00pm another group of skeptics will gather at the Horse and Trap to listen to Matthew Dentith give a talk about conspiracy theories, have a beer and some snacks and do some networking.

If you’re in the area feel free to drop in and check it out, and ideally join the group online so you can keep in touch with what’s happening and help us build up our Auckland group.

Of course, if you’re in Wellington or Christchurch then feel free to join their groups and head along to their meetings instead.

I promise you won’t regret it.

It’s a question that’s often asked about natural alternatives to pharmaceutical medicines and often there is no harm. (That doesn’t mean there’s any benefit either, but that’s for another day.)

But that’s not true in this heartbreaking case from Australia.

If the death of a child isn’t hard enough, living with the knowledge you could have done something to save them must be a burden which can never be shaken off.

Unfortunately for Thomas and Manju Sam that is the reality. They’ve both been jailed for the manslaughter of their daughter Gloria because they didn’t care for her as they should have.

Essentially they treated a very treatable condition – eczema – with homeopathy and ignored advice to get her seen by a real doctor.

This ended with the death of the nine-month-old in May 2002.

Now I have very little sympathy for the Sams. They obviously didn’t set out to have their daughter die a slow and painful death so it may be that I appear heartless.

But when you read that Thomas Sam had “an arrogant approach to what he perceived to be the superior benefits of homeopathy compared with conventional medicine” then I find it hard to feel sorry they’re spending time in prison for this.

And the reason I feel like that is because in the wide spectrum from conventional treatment to full-on woo, homeopathy is as psuedoscientific as they come.

My own (anecdotal) surveys have found people don’t tend to know exactly what homeopathy is. They appear to know it’s natural and have some vague idea it might be something to do with herbs.

But it’s way worse than that.

At it’s heart homeopathy uses the idea “similia similibus curentur” or let likes be cured by likes.

This premise came after the founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, developed symptoms of malaria after swallowing some quinine-containing cinchona bark (quinine is a drug used to cure malaria).

This may sound vaguely plausible, and is often confused for the effect that allows vaccinations to work, but that is different.

In vaccinations a foreign antigen is used to provoke a response from the immune system meaning the body is prepared should the disease be encountered.

But that antigen isn’t just any old thing which causes the same symptoms of the disease – often it’s simply a weakened or inactive form of the actual pathogen.

And it gets worse. Homeopathy also works on the premise that the more dilute the sample the stronger its effect, something which is counter to all logical thinking.

Here’s the excellent Science-based Medicine’s take on the so-called law of infinitesimal doses.

The law of infinitesimal doses also runs contrary to chemistry, pharmacology, and thermodynamics. Homeopaths today use dilutions of substances which essentially remove all traces of the substance from the final dilution.

There is not likely to be even a single molecule of the original drug in the final remedy which is given to the patient.

Homeopaths conclude from this fact that the substance is transferring its essence to the water into which it is diluted. The more it is diluted, the more potent is the water.

They offer, however, no possible explanation for how simple water molecules can contain the essence of far more complex substances.

Modern homeopaths have also tried to rescue the notion of infinitessimals by invoking the concept of water memory. They claim that water molecules can form a structure that contains the information of the homeopathic remedy.

However, such claims are fanciful to the point of invoking magic and are devoid of any evidence. Water structure is very transient and ephemeral.

They last moments and could not survive repeated dilution, let alone ingestion, absorption into the body, and transport to whatever their alleged site of action is.

Essentially this means in all likelihood the solution you buy from the health shop or pharamacy is simply a sugar pill or a solution of diluant – most likely water.

It’s no surprise, then, that I would never recommend homeopathy as a means of curing anything – bar thirst.

And I would certainly never allow anyone who recommends homeopathy to treat any of my friends and family if they were ill.

Anyway, humour is often an effective means of getting the message across and this clip from That Mitchell and Webb Look sums it up pretty well:

Unfortunately any examination of homeopathy and its place in treatment of 21st century diseases is too late for poor wee Gloria Sam.

Should you want to read more in-depth information about homeopathy then here are some excellent resource:

Science-based Medicine
Science, Reason and Critical Thinking
Skepdic
Homeowatch

First up, I’m incredibly excited about the launch of Sciblogs. My experience of New Zealand as an immigrant leads me to believe we often punch above our weight and it’s great to see the Science Media Centre continuing that in an area close to my heart.

There are many great Kiwi bloggers writing about science and how it impacts on our lives and to have so many aggregated in the one place is a great achievement.

I was honoured to be asked to contribute to Sciblogs and delighted to be able to accept. For one thing in such esteemed company it’s a nudge for me to write many more posts and keep a high standard.

We have our own scientific challenges in Aotearoa (just listen to talkback radio for a week and hear how many pseudoscientific adverts, advertorials and comments there are) and I look forward to writing about many of them in the future.

So welcome to a fantastic new phase for nz skeptic!

I hope many of you will be reading this blog for the first time so feel free to browse some of the (small) archive to get a better idea on what I write about.

But today I want to deal with one of the things skeptics are often accused of – and that’s being overtly cynical rather than skeptical.

Of course there are many cynical skeptics – but this is a good time to point out one of the basic tenets of science, that correlation does not mean causation.

I could spend three hours writing and re-writing exactly why I think a cynic and skeptic aren’t interchangeable but this passage from the Skeptic website’s A Brief Introduction section says it far more eloquently than I could:

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo.

This is wrong.

Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed.

In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true.

When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Of course requiring evidence brings skeptics into direct conflict with anyone or anything that has or requires faith, but let’s not jump too far ahead just yet.

I’ll be writing about many things which will undoubtedly annoy people and provoke a strong reaction. This isn’t my intention. I’m merely sharing the opinion I’ve formed based on my reading and research.

But the greatest thing about the internet is that people can disagree with me and we can debate the issues.

So when we get into the substantive posts about homeopathy, psychics and other woo areas then feel free to comment and tell me why you disagree with me.

And, being a skeptic rather than cynic, it means if someone points me to new information then I may even be forced to change my mind.

Now there’s a challenge!

I can’t state my support for Simon Singh enough. While I don’t know the man personally, nor have I ever spoken to him, what he’s going through in the name of science and skepticism shows a man whose principals put him head and shoulders above those in the various woo industries.

For those who don’t know Simon is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association after he wrote a column in the Guardian. You can read more here.

In the meantime, like various other bloggers around the world, I’m republishing this article today. By doing so I show my support of both Simon and the desire to keep libel laws out of science.

Beware the spinal trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”.

In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor.

This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency.

Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic. In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches.

These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors. More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks.

This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures. Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain.

So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death.Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years.

Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck.

That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse.

She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature.

This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.