In the UK, homeopathic treatments are widely used by children with asthma and one survey found about 15 per cent of youngsters with the condition had tried them. However, a new study has just revealed that homeopathy is no better than a placebo remedy at improving mild to moderate asthma in children who are also given conventional treatment. Led by Dr. Adrian White of the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, Devon, the test involved 93 children from Somerset aged from five to fifteen, who were also treated in the usual way with reliever or preventer inhalers. Half of the children were given homeopathic remedies in up to six sessions over the course of a year. The other half were given placebo remedies instead of homeopathy. Neither the children nor the practitioners knew who received the placebo and who had the homeopathic treatments.

There can hardly be any complaints about this result from the homeopathic community — though there will be. The tests were designed by classically trained homeopaths who had been in practice for at least ten years and who met membership criteria for the UK Society of Homeopaths.

It was found that in twelve months, they had found no evidence that homeopathy had any measurable impact on quality of the children's life. The severity of symptoms lessened among children taking homeopathic remedies, but not to any extent that was greater than among those taking the placebo. The authors of the report pointed out that their research was "pragmatic" in that it let homeopaths practice in their normal way by combining prescriptions with lifestyle suggestions and advice.

Here in the USA, the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences in Arizona plans to test homeopathic hay fever treatment in a free clinical trial using a homeopathic product for hay fever and allergy symptoms. Participants are to receive laboratory tests, a physical examination and other clinical tests before and after the four-week treatment. It will be supervised by a naturopathic physician licensed by the state of Arizona, who says it will be:

. . . a double-blind placebo controlled study; half the participants will receive the actual product and the other half will receive the placebo. A nice thing about the study is those participants who receive the placebo will be given the product at the end of the study, if they want it. . . . This trial will help determine a natural alternative means of treating allergy symptoms.

Wow! Even if it's useless, here's a life-time supply? Well, we'll await the results of this test. I'd rather see it done by an independent group, not by a school who just must have positive results, or would have to resort to alibis and denial of the conclusions. And I'd like to have a look at that protocol, too.

Reader John Clavis alerts us to the God-of-the-Month Club website, which can be seen at http://community-2.webtv.net/magentashadow/GOMC/ As John says:

Once again, the WWW proves its value as a source of enlightenment. Minds Deflowered. Mysteries solved. Worlds torn asunder at reasonable rates.

We've assailed the use of polygraph ("lie detector") technology here, many times. It is simply an area of failed technology, one that seemed promising, but then proved to be not only faulty, but quite dangerous to those upon whom was inflicted. State and federal governments, however, opted to embrace it despite the facts. Why are we not surprised? We can't forget that jailed nuclear physicist Wen Ho Lee was misled by federal investigators who told him he had failed a Department of Energy lie-detector test. During a lengthy interrogation, FBI agents pressured Lee to admit to passing nuclear weapons secrets to China. Lee said he had not and insisted he was telling the truth. His interrogators, however, never told him that DOE polygraph operators had actually given him a high score for honesty. Lee is only one victim of this mis-use of technology.

Now, in the latest reality check, Dr. Stephen E. Fienberg, chairman of the statistics department at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, concluded that "almost a century of research has produced a pseudoscience good for tricking naive people into blurting out the truth, but not much else."

Fienberg headed up a panel appointed by the National Academies of Science to evaluate the worth of polygraphy, and found it used by "every three- and four-letter agency you can imagine, including the US Postal Service." The report was released last October, but the US Department of Defense (DOD) happily found a loophole that allowed them to notify Congress that it might ask for authorization to conduct more than the 5,000 polygraph exams now allowed per year under Public Law 100-180, passed in 1991, because the NAS report said that the polygraph technique is "the best tool currently available to detect deception and assess credibility." "Yes sir, we're still going to remove your appendix, even though we have to use a pickaxe — the best available tool, don'tcha know?"

As Fienberg noted, the DOD is only one of many government agencies that use polygraph examinations on employees and contractors. When asked, a spokesman for the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services would not discuss whether polygraph tests were in their investigative arsenal, but the DOD spokesman did name OIG as one of the government bodies that use polygraphs.

Fienberg's panel was organized at a time when scientists were protesting the use of lie detector tests at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and as a science recruiter has warned, the use of this failed technology "causes so much more turmoil than it solves. The big concern is that you're going to chase away scientific talent. It's not an environment scientists want to work in, where pseudoscience can end your career."

I would add that any responsible scientist would balk at working for an organization that uses pseudoscience to test his suitability for the position. That would also apply to tarot cards, tea leaves, and fortune-cookies as tools of the Truth Trade. Not much sillier, folks!

Reader Mike Ruskai notes, in reference to the "clustered water" matter discussed last week:

The latest clustered water claims are not like the Penta claims. They are, in fact, the exact opposite. Penta claims that "normal" water will get into clusters, which is bad, and that Penta water doesn't cluster, somehow making its absorption easier. Another sort of "clustered" water was mentioned in a previous column, called Vivo Water, with these contradiction in claims pointed out.

Well, since the "clustering" of water only lasts for a few picoseconds, making an eye-blink seem like a lifetime in comparison, the matter is moot, anyway. Now, about those angels dancing on the head of a pin�..

At www.members.shaw.ca/freethink/JREFConference.jpg/Links.html you'll find Larry Thornton's latest, improved, version of his "The Amaz!ng Meeting" report. Thanks, Larry.

Mogen Winther reports more from Denmark about the very effective "debunking" TV show currently being offered there. I'm told I'll soon have a translation of the show to offer readers. Reports Mogen:

Last night (March 27) we got the first transmission of the �jvind Kyr�s TV show — it was wonderful. This noon I visited our neighbouring school during their lunch break, when they were having a wild and laughing discussion on both the Geller Spoon trick, and Kyr�s' "Barnum Effect" demonstration on horoscopes.

A pity that just one day before the first TV show was to start, some of the fellows who were tested — and failed — got the opportunity to claim to the press that they had been misled and misused by Mr. Kyr�. Still, I do not understand. How is it possible to fool even the chairwoman of the "Danish Clairvoyant Association" — or even a business astrologer like Karen Boesen?

Randi comments: Mr. Boesen is the head of an astrologers association in Denmark that professes to assist business people there — for a stiff fee, of course, with no refunds when the advice is — typically — useless. Mogen continues:

If they are able to do what they claim — it would be scientifically impossible. But still these fellows only keep howling about lawyers and police action.

Mogen points out the fact that these "sensitive" people are just about the most litigious group you can find. They summon lawyers as soon as anyone expresses doubt about their claims, but it's obvious that they can never see the trouble coming�.!

William Grewe-Mullins is the registrar at the Fernbank Museum of Natural History in Atlanta, Georgia. He reports to us his observations on a popular quack notion:

I thought I'd tell you about my conversion to homeopathic medicine. The other day, I found that I had a toothache. Now I've always been very skeptical about homeopathy, but I decided to do an experiment, and try a homeopathic cure, just for giggles. Lo and behold, (and abracadabra too), it worked! Not only did it work, but homeopathic medicines are so powerful that it worked without me even needing to take the medicine. You see, I'm a very lazy guy, and I never got around to getting any homeopathic medicine, but my toothache went away! Now that's some seriously strong medicine. One thing I don't get though, is why people even purchase any homeopathic medicine, when just thinking about buying some is as effective as actually buying it and taking it?

Just what we need, William. Another philosopher�.. But he adds:

My tongue is so firmly planted in my cheek that people think I'm a giant chipmunk or something.

A few personal thoughts, the result of a recent plane trip�.

I'm frequently asked my opinions on how the charlatans seemingly manage to ply their trade without any trace of guilt or embarrassment. It's difficult to understand how an astrologer can knowingly issue drivel as a monthly airline magazine column, how a slick, smiling, former dance instructor is able to prance about feeding on the grief-driven needs of the bereaved, and an "anointed" preacher has no problem pretending to heal afflictions that he knows will not be affected by his exhortations for the Devil to depart. I believe that it's better understood when we consider the nature of living creatures, and the survival techniques that are absolutely required for survival.

Observing, as I do, the processes entered into by the "psychics" and "healers" who plague our species, I am able to isolate certain gimmicks they use to survive and flourish. They need to neutralize objections, to override the logic and common sense that could betray them, and to create an environment that is fictional, idealistic, and naive. They never tire of pointing out that their critics are often "godless" and "unbelieving," as if acceptance of highly unlikely and unproven notions is a mark of wisdom. They remind everyone that they are "family" people, and are "only trying to help," benevolent gurus who sacrifice their own comfort to benefit others. They express pity and sorrow over anyone who questions their claims, often offering to pray for them so that this ignorance of "the truth" will be relieved.

I often recall how Chaucer, some six centuries ago, referred to such a person, as a "smiler with the knyf under the cloke."

We should have no surprise at the success of the swindlers who are so highly successful at duping the public; it's a feature of all forms of life. The lion, the hog, the wolf, the vulture, the mosquito, are each what they are, by nature. They act and react according to how they were already wired at birth. Man is one more animal that shares this need and drive. But, almost uniquely among species — at least on such a scale — he also shapes and alters his environment drastically in many ways. He lives in a world that he can often dress, design, and reconstruct to fit his needs. He can remodel landscapes, ecosystems, and major features of geography, as well as modify his person and its immediate surroundings. In common with other predators, he can also produce illusions and misdirection to attract his victims.

Much of the framework of deception is constructed on misconceptions that are already firmly in place in our society. Science, to so many of us, is an occult procedure carried out by strange old people in white coats, carrying about smoking test-tubes and speaking fluent algebra. The "government" and the "establishment" consists, we think, of impenetrable masses of documents and strange phrases that only the cognoscenti can understand or deal with. We abandon hope of ever even getting a glimpse of what the "expanding universe" is all about, and quantum physics is a murky cabala of which we are only dimly aware. In short, we are primed to be attacked by the opportunists armed with the vocabulary and the flourishes of knowledge, though even they are without the faintest idea of what their own words really mean. It is very difficult for us to admit to ignorance.

Buzz-words such as "vibrations," "quantum," "magnetic," "frequency," "intuitive," "data," "spiritual," and "dimension" are brandished freely, frequently quite out of context and not at all applicable, but they sound just fine to the na�ve listener. I recall that the manufacturers of a dowsing-rod device that was claimed to be scientifically-based, stated without any hesitation that it could detect bullets because it was "tuned" to the frequency of the DNA of bullets. That passed as science in their brochure and their instructional video — and they sold thousands of the devices.

A species has an obligation to survive. That's brought about by the application of greed and selfishness by every individual of the species. In homo sapiens we like to modify that procedure by considering the well-being of our fellows, not to the point where we ourselves will suffer unduly — though admirable and memorable examples of genuine altruism certainly exist and would seem to deny that prime directive — but (from a practical view) that practice does act to preserve the species as well as the individual.

I'm perhaps getting far too philosophical here, but my point is that the swindlers out there just have a different "take" on what's right and what's wrong, on what's moral and immoral. These observations were triggered by a recent conversation I had with a colleague, in which I told him about an event of fourteen years ago, when I was invited by one of the charlatans into an empty dressing-room backstage at a TV taping. There, after he mumbled about the possibility of "hidden tape recorders," he launched into a long rant about how it had been some twenty years that we had been engaged in battle, and that we should bring it to an end. I made it short and sweet: "You and I have different views of how we should treat others. To you, it's a jungle we live in, with predators and prey. The predator — you — is stronger, so you eat up the weaker. As for me, I favor trying to survive while helping the weaker to get stronger, and thus contribute to society. We just will never agree, and I'm wasting my time trying to make you see my view." I turned to leave, and he jumped in front of me. "But I never stole anything from anyone!" he exclaimed. "Only their security and their sanity," I answered, and left the room.

Spare me the guesses, please�..

Reader Steve Meltzer helps us on the vocal fish we featured last week:

Be assured that the talking fish is not being taken seriously in any but the most fringe, credulous circles among Orthodox, or even Hasidic Jews.� Hebrewphone fish that speak to people who cannot even understand the language seem not only frustrating, but also a bit of a wasted miracle, if you know what I mean.� Also, according to the accounts I heard, they went ahead and chopped the fish up, on schedule.� It seems that if I had had the world's first Hebrew-speaking fish that was spouting serious prophesies, I might try to record his sage advice at least by taking notes.�

If I'd witnessed this, I might be a bit nervous about shredding him up. You can see in the Bible that annoying prophets can be dangerous to your health.� Bottom line: Talking fish might have been bought hook, line and sinker by those waiting for something to believe in, but it sounds too apocryphal and fishy in the details.� Most of those in the Hasidic communities that I spoke to, found the story amusing, not serious, and worth keeping alive for that reason.� But there is always hope for a lucky Hebrewphone coffee pot.

That last reference is to the coffee-brewer that uttered mysterious messages to its owner, an event dealt with some months back in this web-page. Steve gives us his analysis of the quotes heard from the clever fish:

"Ha sof bah." Literally, "The end is coming."� Jews do not believe in "Doomsday."� That's a Christian concept.� And a devout Christian heard it and had a little exposure to Hebrew speaking clients over the years?� Hmmm. To strengthen that Hmmm, the "end time" that Jews believe in, the Messianic redemption, is referred to as the "ketz" (or appointed time, implying the end of the days that we have understood until now, with less sinister connotations), never as "sof" (which would imply the "Doomsday" end).� In other words, in Judaism, "Doomsday" is a good thing to be hoped for, not something to be feared.

Randi comments: But Steve, seeing a cleaver over your head, as the fish did, would you not be apt to give out a "Ha sof bah!" yourself? Just wondering. And it occurs to me, now, that this was a wondrous fish in yet another respect: it was able to speak even after it was very dead! Unless this fish market only deals in very fresh product�..

"Tzarich shmira." Literally, "requires guarding."� What does the fish mean by that?� What requires guarding?� I disagree with your rendering that it means "everyone needs to account for themselves."� "Shmira" is the guarding of something good that you want to keep, not guarding against bad.� Then one needs to specifically say "Guard yourself" — "Sh'mar l'cha," not "requires guarding." �

I hate to be giving simple grammar lessons to an all-seeing fish, but if you are going to prophesy, you must speak the language correctly.� Let this be a warning to the next one.� Throw it back.

That's not my "rendering," Steve, that's from the news stories. I couldn't even render "chutzpah," except that it's a requirement of my profession�.

About this fish, reader David Rutman asked, "Did you check if the talking fish didn't somehow swallow a Hebrew Spiderman wristwatch?" No, never thought of that, David. Go to the head of the class.

Reader Bart Lidovsky offers us this:

Something has come up recently on the news which is a wonderful example of utilitarian science vs. causative science: Kevlar. A soldier who was shot several times in his head was saved by his Kevlar-lined helmet. Also reported was that nobody is quite sure exactly why Kevlar is so effective. Yet, its effectiveness is so clear that nobody is claiming that it doesn't work. This is utilitarian science; we know the effect, but not the cause.

But let's say that somebody came up with a theory, say, of "smart molecules" which concentrate on the point of impact, and claimed that is how Kevlar works. Imagine setting up a test for "smart molecules," proving that this theory is entire nonsense. This does not mean that Kevlar does not work; it merely means that it does not work by means of "smart molecules." Yet, in testing so-called "paranormal" effects (I personally believe that there is no such thing as "paranormal," it's either currently unexplained normality or nonexistent), very often that is the very logic used in the tests. This is just as much a misapplication as any other junk science.

In the case of Therapeutic Touch, failure in practitioners to detect a human energy field does NOT invalidate Therapeutic Touch; it merely invalidates the theory behind Therapeutic Touch (invalidation requires direct experimentation, as was done in Michigan a few years back with inconclusive results). What those tests DO invalidate is the acceptance of courses in Therapeutic Touch as a fulfillment of a science requirement in nursing schools, especially teaching the "theory" of the "human energy field."

The short version is: Just because the theory is nonsense does not imply that the effect which the theory is supposed to explain does not exist.

I agree 100%, Bart. In the case of TT, the practitioners claim they "feel" the field and manipulate it. They agreed that if they couldn't feel it, they couldn't manipulate it. That's why we did the test that way, to their standards. I'm all for accepting the effect without knowing or expecting to be supplied with the theory. I'm only looking for evidence of the phenomenon. And the JREF will pay off, a million bucks, as soon as that evidence is produced�.!

Pressure of work, computer breakdowns, and other problems have interfered with our tranquility in recent weeks. But we're getting the act together again. Bear with us�.