February 27, 2004

Dane Backs Out, Georgia On My Mind, Family Foto, Psychics Banned?, A John Cleese Surprise, Jim Thomas Drops His Suit, Schwartz Safe at Home Base, Products for the Foolish, KISS-Off, Eloptic Esoterica, and No Lead In This Pencil….!


Table of Contents:


DANE BACKS OUT

Here is the complete correspondence between myself and a Danish man who at first appears to want to apply for the JREF prize of one million dollars. I've made a few spelling corrections and small changes as a courtesy to this gentleman, who is writing in his second language. He begins:

I don't know if this fits the paranormal challenge. To me this is not paranormal, it is mathematics. And furthermore the most important thing for me is to prove in public that my invention works rather than winning a prize.

I am proud to announce that my research with neural networks (= artificial intelligence emulating the biological brain in a computer program) in the field of astrology has finally yielded some significant results. I have worked with this project since 1997. I have created a neural network, which I call Astromate, and I have trained it to discriminate charts from two different professional groups, composers and politicians. This research project is an ongoing project, which has not been finished yet, but when it happens (probably in the spring or early summer of 2004) the final results will be published in the British magazine Correlation, provided of course that the work is accepted by the editor.

Randi comments: The assumption made here is that astrology works, and this is yet another example of an attempt to simplify the resolution of that old problem: it's complicated and labor-intensive to get the data together and analyze it, so we'll apply new technology — in this case, a computer program — to help us do the grunt work. I recall back in the 60's that the wife of a good friend tried to reduce the "science" of palmistry to an automated system whereby the lines and other characteristics of the human palm would be entered into a computer and a prediction would be churned out for the subject of the reading. It was not successful. This astrologer has a simpler but no less futile plan: to sort out by computer the birth-data generated for two different professions, a 50/50 proposition.

Readers should know that "Correlation," the UK magazine referred to, is the Astrological Association's official Journal of Research in Astrology. It runs articles such as: "Astrology's increasing presence in academia," "Winning the lottery with astrology," "Experiences of Nadi (palm leaf) astrology," and "Research presentations including work on astrology and incidence of prostitution in Nepalese women." Just so you'll know. My correspondent continues:

The training set consists of 176 composers and 176 politicians. Any work with neural networks is time-consuming, but this project is particularly time-consuming. I can process on average 1-2 charts per day. After having processed 150 charts from the training set (75 from each group), Astromate made only 3 misses — that is an accuracy of 98%! What is more, the precision can still be improved, since I continue to calibrate the network during the training. However, there is no guarantee that Astromate will be able to generalize from the training set to new charts, which the network is not familiar with. After finishing training, I will have to run a series of tests with "unfamiliar" data to verify that Astromate is capable of generalisation. And finally it would be nice to have independent people providing me with data for blind tests — and that is why I am writing this mail to you.

Randi: Please note that by his own admission, those 150 matches were not done "blind"! Already, his work will not survive critical examination. He continues:

Here is my suggestion for a test: Give me 20 anonymous data sets, among which 10 chart owners have a professional career with music (but without being either conductors nor singers) and the other 10 chart owners have a professional career in politics, and allow me (or rather Astromate) to guess which charts belong to which groups. Each data set must consist of a birth date, exact time from birth certificate, a birth place with longitude and latitude and 5 different rectification events: What happened, where it happened, when it happened (a date or even the name of the month + the year is sufficient). A rectification event can be anything a person thinks was an important event, typically birth of children, marriage, career events, acquiring real estate, journeys, educational events, etc. but also birth of siblings or even parents. I guarantee that I will make the correct guesses in at least 90 % of the cases.

Randi comments: First, I see no reason to have a 50/50 proportion of the two professions represented. I'd like to see a randomly arrived-at proportion. More importantly, I think that readers can see just how difficult it would be to get together a database of this sort, but that's the kind of thing we agree to when we accept such a challenge. You can see that there are possibilities for arguments over whether or not a chosen subject actually has a "professional career" in either of these categories; if a politician is currently out of office, is that person still a professional politician? Is a person in the engineering end of the recording industry a "professional" in music? And how about a musician who runs for office? All that would have to be ironed out before we could go any further. But, we're willing to do so. Our correspondent continues:

Of course you have to be able to verify the birth times with birth certificates and the profession with some other written documentation.

Again: The whole process is extremely time-consuming. Your finding data takes time. Rectifying a chart may take from 2 hours to an entire weekend. Then comes ½ day to 1 day for processing the chart in Astromate. From Monday to Friday I work with software testing in the day hours. But I think the reward is worth the effort: This might be the breakthrough for a new form of scientific astrology, maybe the one which Michel Gauquelin dreamed about and called "neoastrology."

Med venlig hilsen, E.R., DENMARK

I simply answered:

"It qualifies. Apply."

He responded:

No, I will not apply. Yes, I would like to be tested, but only if there is no money reward at the other end. I am a single-minded person, and I prefer not to do the test work with a split or dual motivation. The single purpose, which I would like to focus on, is: To prove that astrology (if applied properly) actually works. Besides I cannot imagine any greater reward than having you (an opponent) recognize my research results. If no money is involved, then I am prepared to undergo the test I have described in my first email.

Sincerely, E.R., Denmark

I'm not an "opponent" here, only a skeptic concerning the viability of such a scheme. As always, I'm willing to be shown, and I'm putting up the JREF million dollars as a sign of that willingness. I answered him:

If you will not apply, we will have no further discussion. We test only in a proper, scientific, fashion, under the published rules. Everyone who applies is absolutely sure of success, and most want to give the money away to some charity. All you have to do is apply formally, and do the test. If you should win, you are free to give away the money or simply refuse to accept it. However, everyone comes in under the same rules. We make no exceptions to accommodate special ego needs, or altruistic/esoteric "motivation" limitations. Those are your problems, not ours.

He came back with:

Anyway, I think the money award is just a gimmick. If you won't pay for your own stamps, you will certainly not pay the award — you will have an army of lawyers ready to defend the fortune in case I pass the test. The money award is just another illusion — to make it look like you are the generous person, and I am the greedy astrologer. I won't play by such rules — so I will find somebody else to test my claim. There's plenty of time until June. Thank you very much.

Kind regards, E.R.

PS: There is nothing "scientific" about a money award.

Leaping to seize upon imagined character and/or procedural flaws, the astrologer has drawn attention to the fact that I ask for a stamped, self-addressed envelope from applicants. Yes, that's to save us the burden of having to write out and stamp some hundred-or-so envelopes every year, not an unreasonable request. He celebrates this obvious sign of miserly and selfish behavior, having little else to explain his sudden reversal of intent. I wrote back:

Perhaps you've never hear about the Nobel Prize….?

And where did you get the silly notion that I won't pay postage? Did that come from your astrological calculations? If you were to send us an application from Denmark in the form of a self-addressed envelope, we would simply put the airmail postage on it and send to you! That's not too difficult to understand, is it? I don't make any pretensions about being a "generous person," though for all I know you may be a "greedy astrologer."

I can see that you are already beginning to make excuses for not actually taking the test. You refer to the money as, "just a gimmick." I think you know differently, that we have the money and we can prove it. If those were the rules, I certainly wouldn't blame you for not playing by them. But they're not, and you know that. Don't play games with me. I don't have the time.

I have no idea of what you're referring to in "June." In any case, I'll report this on my web site as an excellent example of an applicant's evasive tactics. And, this will serve as yet another case where the noble claimant disdains the winning of the prize, in order to keep his soul pure. They're always so generous with money they don't have.

You're a fake, Mr. R. But the challenge is still open to you, and that has to give you some reason to be very much afraid.

He shot back:

No matter what you say, you leave me standing on the stage as the winner. When the journalists ask, I can say: "Yes, I offered Mr. Randi to test my claim, but he did not have the courage; he was so scared that he had to hide behind a bag of money." This allegation will of course be purely speculative, but so will your allegation about the size of my ego.

And as for giving the money to charity, the money does not have to pass through my hands first. Why don't you give the money to charity? There's plenty of war-victims in Iraq, and they all need a helping hand. It will look good in your record, once you have to leave planet earth — and you won't stay here for ever, will you? Anyway, a man's character should be judged by his actions, not by his intentions, and your actions show that you are too stingy to pay for your own stamps.

In June I will have passed the whole training set through my neural network — that means that I cannot improve it further. Since the network already has a precision of 98%, when I am halfway through the training set, it means that it will be infallible by that time — provided that it can still generalize, which is a pitfall I have to guard myself against by making tests with charts not belonging to the training set. All this (which I mentioned in my first mail to you) is generally accepted neural network theory, but I understand that you don't want to hear such talk, so I will stop it here.

The challenge is still open to you too, Mr. Randi — the challenge of your lifetime, the challenge, which you have declined. Without your money, you are void, null and zip. At least I have managed to prove that. I also have a website for publishing such correspondence — alas in Danish — it's called www.astro-service.dk.

Have a nice day! Kind regards, E.R.

I answered:

Thank you. Your arrogance, presumption, and ego come through very clearly in this message. It seems so strange, to the casual reader, that with such a confidence level in your "precision" you still don't want to test it against the JREF prize. But such an attitude is not at all surprising to me; I get this all the time from fractious people who know that they're blowing hot air — and nothing else — in my direction.

I think that this is all the correspondence we need to exchange. You've opted out, and I have authentic claimants to handle, people who really want to be tested.

Goodbye.


GEORGIA ON MY MIND

Last month, the State of Georgia made a step in the same direction that Kansas tried not long ago: they decided that, among other things, science classes and text books in Georgia would not use the word "evolution." After the proposed changes were made public, the state's superintendent of schools, Kathy Cox, explained that "evolution" is "a buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction." She decided to replace it with "changes over time." But a few days later, following a flood of criticism, she was recommending that the use of the word "evolution" be restored. She added that people often associate evolution with "that monkeys-to-man sort of thing." Still, Ms.Cox said the concept would be taught, as well as "emerging models of change" that challenge Darwin's theories. "Galileo was not considered reputable when he came out with his theory," she said. One has to wonder where Ms. Cox was educated. The "monkeys-to-man thing" is an invalid concept and view of evolutionary theory that I hope she does not accept, and most intellectuals of his day believed that Galileo was right; it was the church that condemned him, bashing science much the way that the creationists are doing today.

Former President Jimmy Carter said that he was embarrassed for the state, and Governor Sonny Perdue said that restoring the word "evolution" was "the right thing to do." Educators said that such censorship could leave the state's public school graduates at a disadvantage. Biologist David Bechler said, "They've taken away a major component of biology and acted as if it doesn't exist. By doing this, we're leaving the public shortchanged of the knowledge they should have." And in a state where religion-based concepts of creation are widely held, many teachers said a curriculum without mentioning "evolution" would make it harder to broach the subject in the classroom.

But the Georgia Education Department had censored other chunks of material, including references to Earth's age and the concept that all organisms on Earth are related through common ancestry. In a phrase that referred to the "long history of the Earth," the authors removed the word "long," since creationists say that the Earth is at most several thousand years old, based on their literal reading of the Bible. Biologist Sarah L. Pallas said, "By removing the benchmarks that deal with evolutionary life, we don't have a chance of catching up to the rest of the world."

Ms. Cox's attitude should have been evident from the beginning. During her run for office, she had congratulated parents who wanted Christian notions of Earth and human "creation" to be taught in the Georgia schools.

Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, the author of a 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences titled "Science and Creationism," in an effective phrase, told the media, "Creationism is not science, so it should not be taught in science class. We don't teach astrology instead of astronomy or witchcraft practices instead of medicine."

There was more in this Georgia re-writing of science. The Big-Bang theory — the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe — would also be written out of the text-books and the curriculum. That theory holds that the universe was created 10 to 20 billion years ago when a cosmic explosion hurled matter in all directions. As the universe expanded, common particles were formed. These particles became the building blocks of matter and life. The theory accounts for the observed presence of radiation and movement in the universe that when extrapolated backward, shows the likelihood of everything originating in a point. It's a well-reasoned treatment of observed facts. Also, lessons on plate tectonics have been scaled back. That aspect of geology denies the popular but erroneous notion that the Earth is only 6,000 or so years old. Concepts like the Big-Bang, evolution, and plate tectonics offer sound scientific explanations of how the world began, concepts that don't correspond with some religious beliefs about how a deity simply created the universe, including the Earth and humans.

Under the revision Cox has now approved, evolution is now back in the curriculum. The Big-Bang theory and plate tectonics are addressed "in middle school," she says, as if that insulates students in some way.

The anti-science element has been busy elsewhere. In Ohio, creationists are seeking once more to force their religious prejudices into school classrooms. Lesson plans up for approval at a recent Ohio Board of Education meeting included "intelligent design," as well as young-Earth creationism.

Reader John Weber comments:

Not to be outdone by the folks in Georgia, Missouri state legislators will take up HB 911 sponsored by Republican Rep. Wayne Cooper of St. Louis (and 5 other Republican lawmakers) that would mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools. Under the guise of presenting equal time to competing "scientific" theories, the bill states that "if scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught, biological evolution and intelligent design shall be taught and given equal treatment." To be sure that the public schools provide this "equal" treatment, the bill also provides that "willful neglect of any elementary school superintendent, principal, or teacher to observe or carry out the requirements of this section shall be cause for termination of his or her contract…"

The bill also specifies requirements for new textbooks that will be mandatory by 2016 which will be written by a committee made up of at least 5 people who support intelligent design. I can only assume that there will also be a committee of 5 supporters of astrology to rewrite the astronomy sections, 5 supporters of homeopathy to rewrite the sections about medical science and 5 supporters of the Flat Earth Society to rewrite the geography books.

That a state, with a projected deficit of $750,000 that could prevent schools from even providing basic education to Missouri public school children, could spend valuable legislative time on an issue like this is absurd, irrational and deceitful.

Intelligent design seems to have missed the Missouri State legislature.

I strongly suggest that readers go to www.petitiononline.com/gasci04/ and sign the petition found there. Please….


FAMILY FOTO

Jason van den Elzen, in Christchurch, New Zealand, tells us of his attempts to bring reason into a fellow-worker's life….

I have recently started a new job in a small company which leaves me in an office with a middle aged woman (L) and a lot of time to talk. She believes in a lot of the usual mystical stuff, and while I would dearly love to launch into my regular dismemberment of her worldview, I have to show tolerance of what she holds dear, in order to keep the peace in our workplace. Every now and then, though, I manage to make her think about what she believes, even if she still holds to it.

After one of our more drawn-out discussions about a photograph she has (the result of slow shutter smear, plus the desire for our brain to make faces out of everything) she brought it in for me to see. She held it in front of me and said: "It seems that only our family can see the face in the blurring, which tells me that it was only meant for us to see. We think it has the (family name) nose." Of course, I could see no face. As it happens, her sister works at the same company, and so I suggested a small test to see if this "family-only vision" was the case. I convinced L to place a piece of acetate over the photo and trace the face she saw. I took this and tucked it away, then, with L out of the room, to which she agreed to surprisingly readily — she is actually quite open to my testing, probably because the circles she travels in have never actually questioned her ever before, and so she hasn't had to defend herself — I asked A (her sister) to trace the face that she saw.

When overlaid, they had actually drawn around a fairly similar piece of the photo. L looked at them she said: "How about that for a scientific test!" The problem for them was that in order for them to actually have drawn the same face, a hat brim would have to be a nose; a nose a mouth; a mouth a chin, etc. Obviously, this makes the shape of the nose completely different…

When I told her that after we die, we are no more than worm food, she was shocked. And when I told her that there were actually more people out there with that same view, she could hardly believe it. She couldn't comprehend that I could be at peace with myself knowing that I would end. I tried to convince her to look at your site, but she doesn't want to find out that there really are more people out there that believe the same as me. Look out sand, here comes my head…


PSYCHICS BANNED?

Reader George White asks a pertinent question:

I am sure you have asked this question many times, but if psychic powers were real wouldn't casinos have signs on the door banning "Card Counters and Psychics"? Wouldn't state lotteries be in an uproar because psychics were winning every week? The American public is so uneducated in critical thinking!!


A JOHN CLEESE SURPRISE

From Vincent Jorgensen comes this observation:

John Cleese, of Monty Python fame, is apparently a believer of paranormal arts, to put it nicely. I respect the man highly for his comic genius, but at a benefit for Esalen (http://www.esalen.org), he decided to turn the second act into a digression on mysticism, life-after-death, and cosmic belly-rubbing. When I bought tickets for the event, I didn't know what Esalen was, and I didn't care. I wanted to see one of my comic heroes speak. After the close of the event though, I left a bit saddened that a man of such intelligence could waste his precious brain-power on the likes of such patent claptrap. He attacked the usual suspects, universities which "stifle" paranormal research; scientists who can't see the forest through the trees (in his metaphor, the topology before them because the features there aren't on the map); organized religion (well, ok, he got one point right); and mentally-ill (read spiritually-ill) people who had ill-conceived notions of the divine.

Esalen, conveniently, provides a seaside resort in Big Sur, California, for such inquiring minds to discuss openly that which is verboten in our mystic-stifling society. For some reason, this new-age religious anti-religion just isn't as funny as "The Life of Brian" or "The Holy Grail." He went out on a limb saying that mystics were perhaps more in tune with the universe than the rest of us, and that they were harmless folk who exist mostly as irritants to organized religions. (They aren't harmless, btw). But he completely left the bough when he likened the mystical experience to petting a cat. The cat leaves the experience better for it, and Mr. Cleese hopes that the universe will one day pet him behind the ears, too.

John Cleese has many talents, but critical thinking apparently isn't one of them.

This is a stark contrast with Cleese's colleague Eric Idle, who is quite outspoken about his skepticism on such matters. I imagine that the two do not discuss their differences too frequently, if at all.


JIM THOMAS DROPS HIS SUIT

Readers will recall the accounts here of dowser and vendor of a "hi-tech" piece of junk that is supposed to be "tuned" to various substances, Jim Thomas. He not only ignored my offer to pay him a million dollars, but he refused even to accept delivery of the certified letter I sent him for that very purpose. (See www.randi.org/jr/101703.html, www.randi.org/jr/110703.html and www.randi.org/jr/120503lin.html.) Thomas brought a libel suit against well-informed critic Carl Moreland, and a court hearing was set for January 23rd. Now Carl tells us that the hearing was delayed until Feb. 13, and:

My lawyer had also filed a laundry list of discovery requests, demanding proof of their claims. Thomas quickly withdrew all of the claims (no proof, since the claims were false), with the sole exception of his claim that I used his likeness in my report, which was the one true claim. He then offered to drop the suit, if I would cease using his picture. I said, "No way, see you in court," and one day before the hearing, he dropped it anyway. In the words of Monty Python's King Arthur, "Run away, run away!"

I never heard any mention of your direct offer to Thomas (via Agnew), so I assume you got no reply, either. I strongly suspect that, between your offer and our discovery motion, Thomas' lawyer began to understand the true nature of his client's business, and convinced Thomas that he could not win. Now that the suit is over, I have posted a full report of the "Treasure Scope" device I had sent you... it is, of course, the same old nonsense as the others.

I had sent a copy of the JREF offer to one Randy Agnew, Thomas' lawyer, since Thomas was refusing my certified mail — as Sylvia Browne does — but I'd received no reply from the lawyer, either. This appears to me to be a classic case of a frivolous lawsuit, in which Thomas brought the action against Carl, who promptly and properly responded, after which Thomas failed to meet his obligations and finally just abandoned the action after causing Carl much trouble and expense. Here's a question for you all: I need to find a lawyer in North Carolina who would accept to undertake a suit for frivolous litigation….


SCHWARTZ SAFE AT HOME BASE

Reader Kile Baker tells us he has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from Stanford and has been active in space physics research since receiving his degree. He is an avowed agnostic, a term which he prefers to "bright." He writes:

Just last night I spent an hour rereading some of Thomas Huxley's essays on agnosticism and was once again impressed at how clearly he saw the issues a hundred years ago. On the other hand, it's depressing that a hundred years later we seem to have made so little impact on public perception. Your web page is a shining light of sense in a sea of inanity. Keep up the good work.

Dr. Baker wrote to the University of Arizona concerning some of the recent public antics of their Dr. Gary Schwartz, a tenured professor there who we've seen on these pages frequently before:

Let me preface this email by saying that my comments and views are entirely my own and they should not be taken to reflect an official policy by my employer, the National Science Foundation.

I recently came across a web page that indicated that a University of Arizona researcher, Dr. Gary E. Schwartz, has been granting television interviews stating that he had scientifically proven the existence of life after death (see quotation below from the James Randi Education Foundation web site, http://www.randi.org)! Apparently the University of Arizona has not made any disclaimer concerning Dr. Schwartz's claims and the public is therefore led to believe that Dr. Schwartz's claims are accepted by the University and by the scientific community. As one member of the scientific community, I can assure you that I react to Dr. Schwartz's claims with the most profound skepticism. It is my understanding that James Randi has contacted the University of Arizona and offered to verify Dr. Schwartz's claims and if the claims are verified, the University (and Dr. Schwartz) would receive the one million dollar Paranormal Challenge prize. It is also my understanding that the University of Arizona has refused to consider Mr. Randi's offer. I think it is unconscionable for a supposedly reputable research institution to allow a member of its faculty to make such outlandish claims without bothering to do a serious study of their validity. I fully support academic freedom, but I would maintain that the University nevertheless has an obligation to check the validity of a professor's statements to the press. I believe the University of Arizona is complicit in a serious misleading of the public and that something should be done to address the situation.

Dr. Baker quoted Jon Herron of Tucson, Arizona from our web page of two weeks ago, who wrote:

It seems that there is an obviously tenured Dr. Schwartz who somehow gets grant money to bring in mediums to do readings and arrive at the conclusion that these studies conclusively show life after death! This piece took a whole segment with smiling Dr. Schwartz boasting that anyone who has ever looked at the data has concluded there is something to it and shots of a reading being done with a woman just amazed at the accuracy of it. There are mentions of 80% hit rates as simply too high to be accounted for by chance. Of course what they score as a hit is any tenuous connection to vague references. Predictably not a single skeptic or even mention of possible dissenters from the conclusions and methods of Dr. Schwartz is mentioned.

And, gentlemen, the University of Arizona, though well aware of these exchanges — which are read by people all over the world! — continues to ignore the situation. They will not respond to your inquiry, though proper academic courtesy should call for that action. My personal opinion is that Gray Schwartz is an embarrassment to the university.

This has perhaps created a new picture of the retreat of academics: heads buried in sand, in the cellar of an Ivory Tower. You are both wasting your efforts at getting them to squint at the sunshine. Though they may be — and should be — highly embarrassed at this situation, they are safely in retreat from any action on the matter.


PRODUCTS FOR THE FOOLISH

Reader Bob Pagani asks us to go to www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/redxpen/rxp.html to see just how ridiculous the quacks can get. And bear in mind that they have supporters and sycophants a-plenty! Says Bob:

Check out this and the other "products" on this webpage. Now, admittedly, I haven't tried these products myself, but since I live near a lot of farms these days, I think I know the subtle whiff of manure when I smell it. And be prepared for "scientific" doubletalk to the nth degree.


KISS-OFF

Reader Jeff Mink, along with several others, points out to me:

Just for purposes of clarification, the "KISS Guide to Astrology" [mentioned last week] has nothing to do with the rock band KISS, but is instead part of the "Keep It Simple Stupid" series, which include such informative titles as "KISS Guide to Massage," "KISS Guide to Kama Sutra," and "KISS Guide to Feng Shui." Well, at least some of the titles are potentially informative.

I also find that KISS musician Gene Simmons has a rather skeptical point of view on the paranormal and other such matters. Though on his web-page he has Nostradamus being shot rather than dying in bed of natural causes, he seems otherwise generally well-informed on these subjects. You see, firearms were not in use in 1566, when Michel died. I think Gene had monk Grigori Efimovitch Rasputin in mind; in 1916 this "mystic" was shot, poisoned, stabbed, drowned, and frozen before he exited life. They don't make durable monks like that any more.


ELOPTIC ESOTERIA

Reader Craig Harman seems possessed of rather esoteric knowledge. Referring to last week's "Miracle II" article, he tells me:

The word "eloptic" is another quack word coined from "electrical" and "optic" and used by a guy who got a patent by examiners in 1956 for detecting it (he didn't use the word in the patent): www.rexresearch.com/hieronym/1hieron.htm

You know, that word "eloptic" bothered me when I came upon it. I thought I remembered it, but couldn't quite place it. Then I remembered the "Hieronymus Machine." That was a ridiculous "invention" that was awarded a US patent back in 1949. I refer you to patent number 2,482,773. Followers of "radionics" (see the site Craig suggests, above) adore such matters, also embracing the weird ideas of such people as Ruth Drown, Thomas De La Warr, and Albert Abrams. Thomas Galen Hieronymus was promoted by John W. Campbell, science fiction writer and editor of "Astounding Stories," which then became "Astounding Science Fiction" and then "Analog." Campbell believed in every crackpot idea that Hieronymus came up with. Campbell, at the time he died, was even touting a system for fertilizing farm fields by spreading the fertilizer over a photograph of the property….

And reader Jerry Shaver informs us that the FDA recently sent Brother Clayton Tedeton, the creator of the Miracle II family of products, a warning letter which can be seen at: www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g4153d.htm. This appeared simultaneously with our running the article. One must wonder if the FDA is actually beginning to pay attention to what appears here….!


NO LEAD IN THIS PENCIL

Milestones: Jack Temple, a self-styled "homeopathic dowser healer" in the UK whose clients included Diana, Princess of Wales, the Duchess of York, the model Jerry Hall, and the Prime Minister's wife, Cherie Booth, has died at age 86. Temple peddled a "New Age" mixture of crystals, dowsing, energy-enhancing Neolithic circles, Hebrew teaching, herbalism, homeopathy, and oriental medicine. His £40 consultation fee was in addition to the cost of remedies he offered from an array of exotic potions with names such as Banana Stem, Monkey Sticks, Rancid Butter, Volcanic Memory, and Sphincter. That last one has me worried — but since these substances and objects were not ingested but merely strapped to the body of the victim, the only damage done was to the wallet. The IQ and self-respect have already left the patients.

With Diana, Temple found that her problem was lead poisoning, a condition which he was able to diagnose simply by watching her give a television interview. He noticed that she bowed her head, which we all know is a sure sign of lead poisoning. Informed of his finding, Diana called him personally and verified the problem. As a schoolgirl, she told him, she had pierced her right cheek with a pencil, and the point had broken off into her face! Fortunately, Temple was able to mystically extract the poison and the princess could hold her head up again. Neither he nor Diana ever learned, apparently, that there's no lead in a pencil, the active ingredient being graphite, a harmless variety of carbon.

But hey! It worked, so who's to complain?


IN CONCLUSION….

I erred last week. I had remembered seeing news films in which Beatle George Harrison was extolling the virtues of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his political party, but George never actually ran for office. In 1992 he campaigned for the Natural Law party, whose candidate lost dramatically. Mea culpa.

Sylvia Browne's at it again — or should I say, still at it — bad-mouthing me in her mendacious, slanderous, bitter, manner. I'll handle this next week, the 3-year anniversary of the Clawed Clairvoyant's agreement to be tested by the JREF. What a bad liar she is! And she's had so much experience in the art, too! This examination will be brutal, impolite, and straightforward, so get ready….!


View the Commentary archive.