Baumblog EST 1968 - A blog for the Baumbachs who originated in Syracuse, NY

Abby said 1 day later

I like their spelling of skeptical. Hahaha

Interesting video, though
GJ said 2 days later

The Brits spell a lot of things differently.
GJ said 2 days later

Let me guess--this was too long for Geoff to sit through. :)
Geoff said 2 days later

you guessed it! Lost me about 2 minutes in... :)
Geoff said 2 days later

if he used aliens instead of ghosts, there may have been a chance :P
GJ said 3 days later

Aliens = ghosts. There. Now watch the rest of it.
Geoff said 3 days later

ugh that was painful. We need to do a better job if we are going to convince the world they are close-minded.
GJ said 3 days later

Painful in what way? Just curious. It's actually gotten a lot of kudos from skeptics of many varieties, but of course they'd find it appealing.

You're correct, however--folks that argue irrationally aren't likely to be swayed. A cute flash video isn't going to cure them of gullibility, or teach them to work at distinguishing fact and fiction, rather than taking things at face value if they line up with one's belief system.
Marc said 3 days later

One suggestion I have goes for all skeptics. Stop acting like you know everything and don't argue in a mocking fashion. :) It's not all skeptics, but many I have seen. I just recently watched Religilous (well done documentary in many respects) and also this video both share the same quality I've seen in all debates on these types of topics. Sure, when talking about evolution, the people who don't believe in it are absolutely ridiculous, but when you come off as mocking, there's no way it will work. It will simply lead the person on the other end to get into a defensive state.

It's not just the words you use to debate, but the tone of voice as well. If skeptics in general all acted in a more professional manner, their points would come across much better. You could spend all the time in the world coming up with irrefutable evidence, but being condescending about it won't help your cause.

One of the best parts of Religilous was when they described the story of Jesus' life as being written almost exactly the same by several other, older civilizations. That is good proof to show for your point and he did it in a very factual manner, but much of the rest was very mocking, as if people are flat out stupid who don't believe what you do. Now, I'm of the spiritual side, but I still enjoyed the movie because I'm not a nut case and can accept evidence when it's brought to me.

I think if the level of professionalism is brought up in these videos, articles, etc. you'll probably find you could sway more people to "the dark side." :)
Darcy said 3 days later

GJ--it is all a question of "framing". ;)

I think Marc is correct regarding mocking. There are definitely some in the skeptic community out there that come across this way. That is a big reason why I didn't care to see Religilous--what little I saw of it was mocking. It isn't going to win anyone over, but I also feel there is a level of frustration in the skeptical community(of a "how can you not see it" variety)whether it is alternative medicine woo, or vaccines cause autism, or creationism vs evolution. The frustration is there because even when facts are presented, in a calm manner, some are so deep into denial(I am thinking of vaccines=autism folks here) that they dismiss it automatically. What many skeptics forget is that many people are not ruled by their minds. They don't reason everything out, for lack of a better way to put it they are ruled by their heart, their emotions. I don't think you can change that.
GJ said 3 days later

Marc, can you point to a specific part of this video as being condescending or mocking? I know what you're referring to, and yes, it's a common complaint I hear, but all too often people read "mocking" and "know-it-all" into situations where they're being told their beliefs are based on fallacious truths. It'd be hard to think anything else of the skeptic if your core values are under attack.

Anyhow, point me to a specific example, so I can look at it from the "other side." I'm honestly curious--even thought I suspect the British accent is enough to make this sound snooty. LOL.
Marc said 3 days later

There's various examples throughout, nothing huge in this video, but it's the small things sometimes. Like saying "if you have difficulty accepting that other people don't share your beliefs, than that's unfortunate for you." (Around 5 minutes in) It just seems like a childish way to say what is meant. Maybe that's just me, but it certainly was more predominant in Religilous. You are right, though, the British accent didn't help. ;) But to be honest, I never felt like my beliefs were being attacked, I felt like my maturity was. When a skeptic is arguing for the side of "We just don't know," I think that's a fair honest and honorable opinion, but there's ways to argue for your side without belittling others.

Darcy's point is valid too, I can imagine it sometimes feels like you're trying to teach a child when trying to convince people that things like evolution have irrefutable evidence.

I think there's a fine line between being passionate about a topic and being overly emotional and this point is often a case used by skeptics, which I agree, when you let emotions control you, you'll often ignore what's right in front of you. Skeptics need to watch out for the same problem though. I enjoy the passion and debate it brings up, but I'd hate to see Skepticism be a new "religion" involved in a holy war. We've got enough fundamentalists causing havoc. :)

If you'd like, I could attempt to bare that video looking for the specific examples, but...it's 9 minutes man...this is the 21st century, what kind of time do you think I have? :P
GJ said 3 days later

First, sorry, Darcy, you and I were posting simultaneously and I didn't see your post. I'm in agreement with most of what you and Marc are saying. However, I may have to beat you senseless for the framing pun. (Inside joke, folks, nothing to see here).

Second, Marc's point about skeptic "fundamentalists" is quite funny--that's precisely how many religious opponents paint us. However, there ARE skeptic fundamentalists out there--they are the "burn the damn bridges already" type. They are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann. If your political beliefs line up with theirs, you'll probably find them amusing, and find they do occasionally say some really good things, but by and large they are a guilty pleasure. Unless, of course, you're a total nutjob and eat up everything that comes out of their mouth, but in that case you'd be a terrible skeptic. :) They don't do much to educate the opposition, rather, they serve the purpose of revving up the core supporters.

Back to the video. "If you have difficulty". I found that line amusing--but let's face it, it's true. Why should you be offended that other people don't agree with your point of view? Skeptic or believer, it matters not. If you take offense based on this difference of belief, you're a moron. Aw, crap, that's an ad hominem. :) Still, it's just too bad for you in that case. Nothing childish about that--it's simple a no-BS way to say what needs saying, isn't it? How would you go about covering this point? Maybe there is a better way.

Religilous was pretty bad in this sense--they went out of their way to be unfair to believers, and ridicule them. Again, guilty pleasure time for the atheists, but it was unfair and unethical. In fact, it was not so different than how Expelled was made, and atheists went ape-crap over that movie (rightfully so).

In any case, my point behind the video was to try to demonstrate how skeptics view the definition of open-mindedness. And yes, I think they did get a bit childish when referring to others' definition of open-mindedness--it harkens back to the saying, "be open minded, but not so open-minded your brains fall out." All too often we're accused of being closed-minded...when the opposite is usually (but not always) true.
Marc said 3 days later

I will say that this video was not really that offensive in the sense that I constantly felt ridiculed, but it just reminded me a couple times and with Religilous recent in my head, this is something the skeptic community needs to keep in check. Overall the way things were phrased weren't all that bad, my example wasn't even that harsh, but it is a common theme I've seen and could make the process even harder for you "heathens." :)
GJ said 4 days later

Yeah, don't judge us by Bill Maher's masterpiece, Bill isn't a true skeptic (he believes some really FAR OUT crapola) and as I said before, Religious was a hatchet job on the faithful. Try reading Dawkins or Sagan to get an idea of how a real skeptic operates.

Anyhow, this was a pretty civil discussion with no name calling. See! It's possible to play nice in this area....sometimes. :)
Geoff said 4 days later

Sorry I'm late to the game...few things.

What I meant by "painful" is the way it was presented. This thing put me to freaking sleep. The quality of the content was good, but the presentation was...painful. I didn't see any explosions, spaceships, or aliens! Seriously though, a little background music would have helped just a little...and perhaps a more dynamic speaker. But that's a whole other topic.

As for the rest of this conversation...I totally agree that we can be condescending, and to tell you the truth, I find it hard not to with some of these folks. I often feel like beating them with a stick they make such nonsensical comments. My favorite part about Religulous was when Jesus described the three aspects of the Christian God...Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...comparing it to the three states of water (gas, liquid, solid). Even Bill was impressed (and how couldn't he...it's a great analogy for something totally bonkers).

In any case, you can't reason with most of these folks and in the end, us skeptics are the Anti-Christ in their mind. Once we've opened the minds of enough people, they will have their Armageddon, and hopefully our Science will trump their God. Boom!

Amen, and merry Easter yo.

GJ said 4 days later

Well, we were playing nice....
Geoff said 4 days later

:) I'm sorry but some of the folks really are morons. There is no way around it. I just don't understand how somebody can honestly believe humans were playing fetch with T-Rex. It's despicable.
GJ said 4 days later

It's not despicable. It's sad, and it's why I get so worked up about the creobots trying to manipulate schools to "teach the controversy." But that's a separate topic, covered a few posts ago.

It does bring up a good point, though. Have you been watching anything on Fox News of late? They are selling the idea that Obama will be instituting a form of tyranny, citing various changes he's made and drawing them out to absurd and nonsensical conclusions, and practically coming right out and saying that it might not be a bad idea to stock up on weapons and ammo in order to "defend our freedom." These are, of course, outright lies, but it attracts viewers and that's all that matters. However, a fair number of people take this "news" as the truth--without applying an ounce of healthy skepticism to it--and guess what? It's getting pretty hard to find ammo at Wal-Mart these days...it sells so fast they can't keep it in stock.

Scary, isn't it? And all based on lies and half-truths.

So, I'm not trying to encourage the thought that everything a skeptic believes it (or doesn't believe in) is the absolute truth. Rather, I'm hoping that you can take some things you take for granted (like the existence of aliens) and put a critical eye towards it. Does it stand up to true scrutiny...or is it in the category of "unknown, and highly unlikely." Or perhaps, "unknown, but rather likely."
Geoff said 4 days later

Aliens are definitely unknown but likely....whether they are intelligent remains to be discovered...but I don't imagine it will take long to find "alien" organisms, if they haven't already done so.

In any case, I don't watch Faux News, or much news on TV in general.
GJ said 4 days later

Aliens -- separate post. Do educate me on the aliens unknown but likely. I'm not saying I totally disagree, but I'm interested to see what you base your opinion on. That "if they haven't already done so" bit leads me to think I'll find that source *very* interesting. :)
Geoff said 4 days later

I'm talking bacteria...found on a remote moon or something. That would be considered alien....and I can almost guarantee they will find some kind of foreign bacteria in the next few decades or so, ***if they haven't already done so***.

As for intelligent aliens, I find it hard not to believe that somewhere in the universe exists some form of creature. And no I don't have proof other than statistics which would indicate that the universe is so vast, that it would be darn near impossible for our planet to be the ONLY one to sustain intelligent life.

GJ said 4 days later

They haven't found any bacteria or viruses to date. They were thinking they found hallmarks of that on a Martian meteorite, but that wasn't proven conclusively and even the original researchers aren't quite so convinced of it these days. Will they find something, someday? Maybe--but probably not soon.

The galaxy is very, very big. However, we have but one planet teeming with life that we know about. Any equation (I'm looking at you, Drake equation) that attempts to come up with a figure for the number of intelligent species out there is based solely on guesswork, not science. We don't even know how life came about here on this planet. Not knowing that, how can we begin to approximate the likelihood of it occurring elsewhere? I don't think we can--at least, not in any meaningful way.

Finally, hope that there are no other intelligent species out there. If there are, I can promise you this--neither we nor they will ever "come in peace." Just look back to how humans spread out over this planet. Expansion is always tightly tied to war--because, let's face it, resources in any closed system are finite. To the winner goes the spoils...so if I were you, I'd want to be the ones finding other species first, not the other way around.

A Triumph of Astroturf?

How a consumer protection law may be defeated
by a faux consumer watchdog campaign

by Daniel Loxton

Is it possible for a vested business interest to derail national legislation by posing as a consumer watchdog? We’ll soon learn whether a shadowy mail order drug company’s fierce, artificial grassroots campaign will rob the Canadian people of an important public safety law.

In April 2008, Canada’s federal Parliament began considering a proposed law¹ — Bill C-51 — that would revise the body of laws regulating food and drugs in Canada (the Food and Drugs Act). Of particular interest to skeptics, C-51 would finally allow Canadian federal health authorities (Health Canada) to enforce existing laws² that require substances sold under the multi-billion-dollar “natural health products” umbrella to be safe, unadulterated, honestly labeled, and marketed with supportable claims.

Although regulated in Canada since 2004, natural health products nevertheless enjoy a hothouse climate of easy licensing, minimal oversight, and toothless enforcement — which C-51 is designed to improve. “For instance,” Health Canada noted in a recent press release, “in dealing with cases of counterfeit [drugs], Health Canada has been limited to imposing a maximum fine of $5,000.”³

Think about that for a moment. The U.S. Federal Drug Administration estimates that “upwards of 10% of drugs worldwide are counterfeit, and in some countries more than 50% of the drug supply is made up of counterfeit drugs.”⁴ Counterfeits may contain any active ingredients in any amount, poison, or no active ingredient at all. Yet, if a Canadian company earns millions selling dime store candies in medicine bottles, Health Canada is powerless to fine them an amount they’d even notice. Bill C-51 would raise the maximum fine to a heftier deterrent of $5,000,000 (more if the offense is “reckless” or “willful”).⁵

Health Canada’s limited enforcement powers have created a wild west landscape in which the good, bad, and ugly parts of the supplement industry have all thrived. Not surprisingly, many — especially the shadiest operations — would like things to stay just as wild as they’ve been.

Amazingly, one supplement company’s sly manipulation of public opinion could accomplish just that.

The Anti-C51 Campaign

Like most Canadians, the first things I heard about C-51 were bad. I became aware of Bill C-51 when, largely in advance of mainstream media interest, dozens of “stop C-51” themed common interest group pages suddenly appeared on the social networking website Facebook. With alarming titles like “Stop bill C-51 from banning all natural health products!”⁶ these pages promote wildly unlikely claims about C-51, while urgently soliciting people to attend scheduled protest rallies and write letters to their Members of Parliament (MPs). “A new law being pushed in Canada by Big Pharma seeks to outlaw up to 60 percent of natural health products currently sold in Canada,” runs one often-repeated claim, “even while criminalizing parents who give herbs or supplements to their children.”⁷ Tens of thousands of people joined these groups within days.

Curious what the fuss was about, I took a look at C-51. It’s a complicated document (it amends the rules for matters ranging from drug manufacturing to fish inspection). However, its much-ballyhooed changes to the regulation of natural health products are actually quite modest.

Under C-51, the existing Natural Health Products Regulations (which came into effect in 2004 after extensive consultation with the natural health products industry) remain the law of the land. Even the standards for compliance action remain the same (a standing risk-based policy⁸ that explicitly deemphasizes vitamins, minerals, and homeopathic preparations). C-51 merely increases Health Canada’s ability to deter criminals from ignoring the existing laws.

Conspicuously absent from C-51 are provisions to “make garlic illegal” or “outlaw herbs, supplements, and vitamins” or the other dire consequences the internet furor kept warning me about. So where were these outlandish ideas coming from?

It seems that most of the blogosphere, much of the mainstream media, and perhaps even some Members of Parliament were drawing their arguments from a single source: an apparent consumer watchdog website, www.stopc51.com. The Stopc51.com website is slick, professional, and profoundly misleading. It presents screamingly hyperbolic misinformation under the guise of an urgent democratic appeal to Canadian citizens. “CALL TO ACTION” read the homepage headline over a lovely graphic of the Canadian flag. “YOUR FREEDOM AND HEALTH IS AT RISK!”⁹

What risk, exactly? The site urges us to “send our fact sheet to everyone you know.” According to the fact sheet, “Bill C-51 will … remove 70% of Natural Health Products from Canadians” and worse, “Punish Canadians with little or no opportunity for protection or recourse for simply speaking about or giving a natural product without the approval of government.” If you “give another person an ‘unapproved’ amount of garlic” this will “warrant action.” What sort of action? According to StopC51.com, “Inspectors will enter private property without a warrant … take your property at their discretion” and even “seize your bank accounts.”¹⁰

This is implausible on the face of it, of course. The idea that the Canadian federal government has the authority, inclination or even the manpower to storm the homes and seize the bank accounts of everyday folks for using garlic or vitamins is patently ridiculous. Federal authorities can’t even control the flow of marijuana, let alone police the herbs in your garden. (These claims distort C-51’s worst-case-scenario provisions for supplement manufacturers who flagrantly ignore the Food and Drugs Act: for example, Health Canada may impound drugs found to be counterfeit, adulterated, or poisonous.)

Nevertheless, many people who read these allegations were prompted into action. Which was the idea. Organizing protest rallies and urging Canadians to write and phone their MPs in complaint, the StopC51.com campaign spread the word through the web and through mass emails. The conspiratorial International Advocates for Health Freedom mailing list noted with approval that over 18 million emails had been sent to “dietary supplement consumers, supplement company CEOs, health food store owners, Naturopaths, Chiropractors, and other Alternative Practitioners triggering massive traffic to http://www.stopc51.org [sic]. So many people have been accessing the site that at times it won’t open and at other times the images on the site can’t be seen due to the effects of the traffic.”¹¹

The Company in the Shadows

But who was behind it all? Nothing at StopC51.com disclosed the authors of the site, nor did the site provide a contact address for the site’s administrators.¹² This coy façade was evidently good enough for many anti-C-51 activists, who promoted the url and the claims from the site without probing the heavily biased source.

But, it was a pretty thin facade: the 1-888 contact number for StopC51.com rally organizing¹³ is actually the phone number for a controversial online supplement company called Truehope Nutritional Support Ltd. (also called the Synergy Group of Canada Inc — both entities share the same directors and are involved in selling the same product¹⁴ ). In fact, the rally information number even spells “1-888-TRUEHOP.”

I sent formal requests to both Truehope and Truehope’s CEO asking for clarification of the relationship between Truehope and StopC51.com. I received no reply, but I was still able to further confirm the connection: the Stopc51.com domain was registered by one Ian Stewart, who remains the Administrative Contact for the site.^15,¹⁶ Mr. Stewart is the “the director of regulatory affairs for Truehope.”¹⁷ His mailing address, listed with the Stop.c51.com domain registration, is Truehope’s P.O. Box.^18,¹⁹

The primary organizer for the anti-C-51 campaign was revealed to be a vested commercial interest — a vested interest with a very shadowy history.²⁰

This is not the first time Synergy/Truehope has tangled with Canadian health authorities. Truehope has long been embroiled in a series of battles with Health Canada regarding their drug “Truehope EMPowerplus,” which is a $70 per bottle mail order multivitamin²¹ sold for the treatment of bipolar disorder and “multiple deficiencies in numerous areas of the body including the Central Nervous System.” (Users are instructed to consume between one and two bottles per month.²² )

Not surprisingly, Health Canada doubted the implausible marketing hype that an overpriced multivitamin was successful in “reducing/eliminating the symptoms of bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses in thousands of individuals.”²³ In any event, Health Canada advisories explained, “It is a drug … which has not been approved for sale in Canada.”²⁴

Health Canada had a tough time even finding this outfit; investigators were reduced to undercover phone calls and simply asking passersby on the street.²⁵ Nor was Truehope cooperative once located. After several years of wrangling, it was still the case that “Truehope Nutritional Support Limited and Synergy, despite repeated requests by Health Canada, is still refusing to comply with the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations, and continues to sell its unapproved drug, EMPowerplus, in Canada.”²⁶ A police raid and court battle followed.

Why the fuss? “Our main concern,” Health Canada advisories warned, “deals with the unproven health claims being made about EMPowerplus, and the recommendation that patients decrease the dose of, or eliminate altogether, medications prescribed by their doctors. This can result in serious adverse health consequences. The drug is being promoted and sold to treat serious disorders, such as bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, panic attacks, attention deficit disorder, schizophrenia, autism, Tourette’s syndrome, fibromyalgia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Serious central nervous system disorders such as these should not be self-medicated or self-diagnosed.”²⁷

Worse, Health Canada warned, there are reports of “serious adverse reactions associated with the use of EMPowerplus. Most of the adverse reactions relate to worsening of psychiatric symptoms in those patients with serious underlying mental health problems, such as bipolar disorder and depression. The worsening of these symptoms could be related to taking the product and discontinuing prescription medications or taking the product in conjunction with prescribed medications.”²⁸

What Went Wrong?

As Truehope’s StopC51.com conjures up protest rallies across Canada, I’m left asking, “Why has this worked so well?” Astroturf activism — the creation of a campaign that looks like grassroots activism, but isn’t — tends to be expensive. From the infamous Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry to the oil industry funding of climate change denial research, millions of dollars^29,³⁰ are typically required to purchase TV spots, commission research, hire PR firms, and otherwise buy influence. Yet, while Truehope rakes in enough money to motivate the people involved, it’s no Exxon. The anti-C-51 campaign has little more going for it than a simple website, a little legwork, and gall.

One contributing factor is that C-51 and Health Canada are easy targets. Alternative medicine is popular. So is the notion of “health freedom.” Government bureaucracies aren’t. Many people are prepared to trust the manufacturers of natural health products, even as they glare in suspicion at anything “Big Pharma” touches (this is assumed to include federal regulators). This is a baffling double standard. Despite the warm, down-home marketing of the multi-billion-dollar alternative health industry, it is not a David to Big Pharma’s Goliath. The natural health products industry is a commercial juggernaut of entirely mainstream, big business proportions. Given the scale — by 1997, American out of pocket spending for alternative medicine almost matched that for hospitals and doctors combined³¹ — it seems bizarre to arbitrarily trust one marketing brand of multi-billion-dollar, for-profit drug manufacturers while simultaneously distrusting other drug manufacturers. Yet, this seems to cause little cognitive dissonance.

Another factor is simply this: Truehope had the incentive and sheer audacity to act when their profit margin was threatened.

“This alert just in from Tony Stephan of Truehope Inc. in Alberta Canada,” trumpeted a mass mailing that echoed around libertarian forums in April, 2008. “Tony has 8 employees hard at work in an emergency call center from which they’re contacting every health food store in Canada urging emergency assistance to kill the bill from hell: C-51 … if you are Canadian, please take action yourself, then download this info and bring it to every health food store within a 25 [kilometer] radius of your house and urge them to bag stuff the alert and to urge customers to call their MPs to strenuously oppose this. If you don’t you will lose your access to dietary supplements.”³²

Take Action!

Help fight bogus medicine and “astroturf activism” in Canada (especially if you are a Canadian):

Assist local media — in advance! Tip off health reporters and health editors in your area that a controversial supplement company is behind StopC51.com’s media campaign. Share the url for this eSkeptic
If your local media does buy the anti-C-51 hype, write a letter to the editor and post comments to the news story online. Politely point out that C-51 does not ban vitamins or natural remedies, which are already regulated (since 2004). Bill C-51 just raises the fines for crooks who disregard existing public safety laws.
Write your Member of Parliament to voice support for Bill C-51’s firm enforcement of the existing regulations for natural health products. Find your MP (using your postal code)
Learn about C-51 and Canada’s existing Natural Heath Products Regulations.
- Read C-51 (or just the sections concerning therapeutic products, or enforcement, or penalties).
- Read Health Canada’s simple guide:
  Bill C-51 and Natural Health Products — The Facts
- Read the existing Natural Heath Products Regulations or the existing Compliance Policy for Natural Health Products
Share accurate information on your blog or by emailing this eSkeptic to friends who might be concerned about C-51, or

SHARE this eSkeptic
on Facebook

The Bottom Line

Discussions of the high human cost of fraudulent or useless alternative medicine often seem to circle around a simple, hopeless question: “Why doesn’t someone do something?”

The anti-C-51 astroturf activism campaign provides important answers to that question. Few politicians or law enforcement bodies have the political will to go after people who claim they can cure terrible diseases — even if those claims are demonstrably false. It’s politically dangerous, easy to misrepresent, and unrewarding.

Unfortunately, skeptics do little to improve the rewards of evidence-based policy decisions. We do not rush out into the streets to defend new laws against health fraud. Nor, when responsible measures are proposed, do we flood the offices of our elected officials with letters of support.

But the bad guys do. They do whatever it takes. As in so many things, it all comes down to an ancient problem, a problem with us: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

Bibliography

BILL C-51: An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3398126 Retrieved May 18, 2008.
Natural Health Products Regulations http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2003/20030618/html/sor196-e.html Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Bill C-51 and Natural Health Products — The Facts. Health Canada. www.healthycanadians.ca/pr-rp/billC-51_e.html Retrieved May 18, 2008.
Counterfeit Drugs Questions and Answers. US Food and Drug Administration. www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/counterfeit/qa.html Retrieved May 18, 2008.
BILL C-51: An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. 31.(1)(a) Government of Canada. www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3398126 Retrieved May 18, 2008.
Stop bill C-51 from banning all natural health products. www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11529874237 (requires Facebook account) Retrieved on May 23, 2008.
ibid.
Compliance Policy for Natural Health Products. Health Canada.
www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/legislation/pol/ complian-conform_pol_e.html Retrieved on May 23, 2008.
StopC51. www.stopc51.com Retrieved May 14, 2008.
Canadian Rights and Freedoms Are At Risk: An Important Notice Regarding Bill C-51. www.healthcanadaexposed.com/c51backups/Canadian%20Rights%20Facts.htm Retrieved May 17, 2008.
zoey_01. “http://www.stopc51.org” Online posting. May 9, 2008. www.restoretherepublic.com/component/option,com_fireboard/ func,view/catid,31/id,5848/limit,6/limitstart,0/ Retrieved May 17, 2008
Scouring StopC51.com, I failed to locate any “about us” disclosure statement, nor any “contact us” information for the site, nor any direct links to the company Truehope — except as part of a signature buried within some pdfs the site hosts. The pdfs suggestively feature information about Truehope, but do not clarify whether there is any relationship with StopC51.com. (Truehope is much admired in “Health Freedom” circles, so it’s not unusual to see information about their fight with Health Canada at many sites in which they have no direct involvement). To try to lock down the link, I wrote directly to Truehope and to Anthony Stephan, Truehope’s CEO to request clarification of the relationship between Truehope and StopC51.com. I received no reply. (A Canadian national newspaper, the Globe and Mail, followed roughly the same trail for their May 13, 2008 C-51 article by Gloria Galloway — see endnote 17)
Canadian Rights and Freedoms Are At Risk: An Important Notice Regarding Bill C-51. www.healthcanadaexposed.com/c51backups/Canadian Rights%20Facts.htm Retrieved May 17, 2008.
Brosseau, Miles. A Meeting with Truehope/Synergy Directors @HPFBI — WOC Burnaby, B.C. — January 14, 2003. Government of Canada Memorandum. Jan 16, 2003. www.circare.org/FOIA/hcls_176_179.pdf Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Network Solutions. www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=stopc51.com Retrieved May 14, 2008.
Go Daddy. http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIsVerify.aspx?domain=stopc51.com& prog_id=godaddy Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Galloway, Gloria. “Minister defends crackdown on safety of natural health products.” Globe and Mail. May 13, 2008 www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC. 20080513.NATURAL13/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/
http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIsVerify.aspx?domain=stopc51.com& prog_id=godaddy Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Truehope. www.truehope.com/SEF/depression.asp Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Polevoy, Terry and Ron Reinhold, Marvin Ross. Pig Pills, Inc. — The Anatomy of an Academic and Alternative Health Fraud. 2003. A choppy but fascinating eBook digging deep into the Truehope back-story, available at www.pigpills.com
Truehope. www.truehope.com/_empowerplus/empIngredients.asp Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Truehope. www.truehope.com/_faqs/faqs.asp#15 Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Truehope. www.truehope.com/_research/research.asp Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Health Canada is advising Canadians not to use Empowerplus. Health Canada Advisory. June 6, 2003 www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2003/2003_41_e.html Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Brosseau, Miles. Investigation: RE: The Synergy Group of Canada, Inc. Government of Canada Memorandum. Oct 12, 2000. www.circare.org/FOIA/hcati1_050056.pdf Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Health Canada executes search warrant related to Empowerplus. Health Canada Advisory. July 15, 2003. www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2003/2003-07-15_e.html Retrieved May 23, 2008.
ibid.
Reports of adverse reactions in patients with serious mental health conditions suspected in association with use of prescription medications and EMPowerPlus. Health Canada Advisory. February 28, 2007. www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2007/2007_17_e.html
Frank, John. “2 Texans dig deep for boat vet ads.” Houston Chronicle. 10/05/2004 www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2004_3806652 Retrieved May 18, 2008.
Exxon is Pumping Out Lies. Greenpeace. May 18, 2007. www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/exxonsecrets-2007 Retrieved May 20, 2008.
Eisenberg, David M., and Roger B. Davis, Susan L. Ettner, et al. “Trends in Alternative Medicine Use in the United States, 1990-1997: Results of a Follow-up National Survey.” Journal of the American Medical Association 1998; 280:1569–1575.
Equus Os. “Kill the bill from hell: C-51.” Online post. April 28, 2008. www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=98813&sid =2832dc5a9dc620f423307ea78de0b4fa Retrieved May 23, 2008.

GJ's note: This was taken from this week's e-Skeptic, published by Michael Shermer's Skeptic's Society newsletter. All rights reserved (and none are mine!). I hope you find these interesting and thought-provoking, at a minimum.

Marc said about 18 hours later

These TED speeches are always interesting, and for some reason there's lately been a theme of the speakers declaring themselves magicians. David Blaine actually gave one about how he held is breath under water for 17 min, that one was pretty cool too.

GJ said about 20 hours later

Yep, the TED series rocks. Randi is always an amusing guy to watch, unless of course you're a woo-meister.

Geoff said about 2 hours later

Good read..at least half of it. Couldn't convince myself to read further, my eyes hurt.

Marc said about 6 hours later

Good read, and I actually read it all! Wouldn't have done it without the font increase feature in Firefox.

I've never been a fan of Oprah. Anytime there's a cult like following, dangerous things happen and she feeds into it. Everybody is going to have their flaws, believe weird things at times, or just be flat out wrong. She's in a position of power almost nobody has, and she's not careful enough with explaining very clearly that what she is showing or talking about is not a Silver Bullet.

I'm also not a fan because she gets a pretty good rap for how much she contributes to charities, yet people don't look at her enormous wealth. I'm waiting to see one of the Top billionaires drop down to being a measly millionaire and donate all their money to charity.

I just read about a local woman who had cancer, which has recently subsided, who over the course of a couple decades, raised over $4 million for breast cancer charities. That's pretty fricken remarkable. If Oprah used her power and wealth to contribute an equal ratio that this woman did, maybe we could be closer to curing some of these crazy diseases.

GJ said about 13 hours later

I would say the the rich shouldn't wear down their riches by giving it all away at once. Better is the way Bill Gates does it--funding foundations with enough capital such that they can be self-sustaining on interest alone. I may not like MS, nor what Windoze did to the computer world, but I think Gates is easily becoming the next big philanthropist on the scale of Andrew Carnegie.

Still, Oprah seems to think her business savvy means she knows all. That's a fatal flaw among leaders--true great leaders surround themselves with the best and brightest, not the most popular folks. Oprah is embracing that fatal flaw with enthusiasm.

Steve said about 14 hours later

I'm with Geoff, good read, first half anyway. Lost interest after that. I never liked Oprah, so I love to hear that she got bashed by a nationally known good publication. Ha!

I agree with GJ too, Bill Gates is quietly becoming probably the biggest philanthropist since Carnegie. Though, easy to do, when you are one of the richest persons in the world.

Marc said about 14 hours later

I originally mentioned Bill Gates in my comment, but removed it at some point apparently! I fully agree, Bill Gates is doing things right so far.

Marc said 1 day later

Speak of the devil: http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE55253F20090603?rpc=64

GJ said 1 day later

Yeah, maybe he can have the Gates Foundation help smack the anti-vaxer crowd around. He'd be my freaking hero at that point.

Marc said about 2 hours later

Planes typically have a lightning rod no? Seems strange to have received such a strike. But then again, they're a big hunk of metal, so it doesn't surprise me that it may have hit another part. I'm no lightning strike observer either, but this looks like a fire did most of the damage. The burn marks look like they may have been going along with the wind, which would seem to indicate it wasn't just an instantaneous thing.

Geoff said 1 day later

asteroid.

OK, entries are closed.

Here's what actually happened: the plane had a cockpit fire on the ground, prior to takeoff. The plane was evacuated safely.

Now, me being a dude with an electrical engineering degree and a physics degree, I could tell you right away that this wasn't lightning. Planes get hit with lightning all the time--each plane likely gets hit at least once a year, if not more. Because they are made of aluminum, the lightning's electricity simply conducts around the outside of the plane. Now, we have lost a plane due to a strike over 40 years ago--because it caused a spark in the fuel tank, and kaboom. Planes were changed after this incident to ensure that fuel vapor is isolated so that a spark cannot set it off like this today.

So, right away, seeing the penetration of the hull said, nope, not lightning.

But, if you didn't have a background in electrical science, you might have to take this at face value. Marc did a pretty good job here, identifying fire as the agent of damage. Noting the burn marks was a good guess too--but of course, if the plane suffered this kind of intense fire in the cockpit during flight, it never would have landed. My guess is the prevailing wind during that day is responsible for the smoke pattern seen.

Geoff's guess of asteroid is, well, pretty bad--but then again, if you get your science from movies like Armageddon, you might come up with asteroid as the cause. :)

However, given the way this page is written, and the fact that the pictures don't look that different from what a tree looks like after being hit by lightning, I'm betting a majority of people viewing that page took that story as is. Marc's analysis was pretty good, from skeptical point of view. Good jorb!

Steve said 1 day later

I call BS.

"Lightning does hit airplanes and when it does it can damage the electronic equipment needed to fly the plane. Lightning research done during the 1980s by NASA had an F-106B jet fly into1,400 thunderstorms and lightning hit it over 700 times. The lightning did not damage the airplane but scientists found out that it could damage electronic systems on the plane. This led to requirements that all aircraft electrical and electronic systems have built-in lightning protection."

I would bet that if this was really a lightning strike, it happened when the plane was on the ground and was connected to a passenger loading/unloading tunnel.

Ok, and since I waited to read comments until after I responded, there's my logical response. Look it up. And I found some cool lightning strike videos along the way...

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2173.html?theme=light

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=036hpBvjoQw

And my source of information:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/2003FF/lightning/flight.html

You know, you had me worried with link #1...coast to coast AM is a hotbed of aliens and conspiracies.

Abby said 1 day later

I like their spelling of skeptical. Hahaha

Interesting video, though

GJ said 2 days later

The Brits spell a lot of things differently.

Let me guess--this was too long for Geoff to sit through. :)

Geoff said 2 days later

you guessed it! Lost me about 2 minutes in... :)

if he used aliens instead of ghosts, there may have been a chance :P

GJ said 3 days later

Aliens = ghosts. There. Now watch the rest of it.

Geoff said 3 days later

ugh that was painful. We need to do a better job if we are going to convince the world they are close-minded.

Painful in what way? Just curious. It's actually gotten a lot of kudos from skeptics of many varieties, but of course they'd find it appealing.

You're correct, however--folks that argue irrationally aren't likely to be swayed. A cute flash video isn't going to cure them of gullibility, or teach them to work at distinguishing fact and fiction, rather than taking things at face value if they line up with one's belief system.

Marc said 3 days later

One suggestion I have goes for all skeptics. Stop acting like you know everything and don't argue in a mocking fashion. :) It's not all skeptics, but many I have seen. I just recently watched Religilous (well done documentary in many respects) and also this video both share the same quality I've seen in all debates on these types of topics. Sure, when talking about evolution, the people who don't believe in it are absolutely ridiculous, but when you come off as mocking, there's no way it will work. It will simply lead the person on the other end to get into a defensive state.

It's not just the words you use to debate, but the tone of voice as well. If skeptics in general all acted in a more professional manner, their points would come across much better. You could spend all the time in the world coming up with irrefutable evidence, but being condescending about it won't help your cause.

One of the best parts of Religilous was when they described the story of Jesus' life as being written almost exactly the same by several other, older civilizations. That is good proof to show for your point and he did it in a very factual manner, but much of the rest was very mocking, as if people are flat out stupid who don't believe what you do. Now, I'm of the spiritual side, but I still enjoyed the movie because I'm not a nut case and can accept evidence when it's brought to me.

I think if the level of professionalism is brought up in these videos, articles, etc. you'll probably find you could sway more people to "the dark side." :)

Darcy said 3 days later

GJ--it is all a question of "framing". ;)

I think Marc is correct regarding mocking. There are definitely some in the skeptic community out there that come across this way. That is a big reason why I didn't care to see Religilous--what little I saw of it was mocking. It isn't going to win anyone over, but I also feel there is a level of frustration in the skeptical community(of a "how can you not see it" variety)whether it is alternative medicine woo, or vaccines cause autism, or creationism vs evolution. The frustration is there because even when facts are presented, in a calm manner, some are so deep into denial(I am thinking of vaccines=autism folks here) that they dismiss it automatically. What many skeptics forget is that many people are not ruled by their minds. They don't reason everything out, for lack of a better way to put it they are ruled by their heart, their emotions. I don't think you can change that.

Marc, can you point to a specific part of this video as being condescending or mocking? I know what you're referring to, and yes, it's a common complaint I hear, but all too often people read "mocking" and "know-it-all" into situations where they're being told their beliefs are based on fallacious truths. It'd be hard to think anything else of the skeptic if your core values are under attack.

Anyhow, point me to a specific example, so I can look at it from the "other side." I'm honestly curious--even thought I suspect the British accent is enough to make this sound snooty. LOL.

There's various examples throughout, nothing huge in this video, but it's the small things sometimes. Like saying "if you have difficulty accepting that other people don't share your beliefs, than that's unfortunate for you." (Around 5 minutes in) It just seems like a childish way to say what is meant. Maybe that's just me, but it certainly was more predominant in Religilous. You are right, though, the British accent didn't help. ;) But to be honest, I never felt like my beliefs were being attacked, I felt like my maturity was. When a skeptic is arguing for the side of "We just don't know," I think that's a fair honest and honorable opinion, but there's ways to argue for your side without belittling others.

Darcy's point is valid too, I can imagine it sometimes feels like you're trying to teach a child when trying to convince people that things like evolution have irrefutable evidence.

I think there's a fine line between being passionate about a topic and being overly emotional and this point is often a case used by skeptics, which I agree, when you let emotions control you, you'll often ignore what's right in front of you. Skeptics need to watch out for the same problem though. I enjoy the passion and debate it brings up, but I'd hate to see Skepticism be a new "religion" involved in a holy war. We've got enough fundamentalists causing havoc. :)

If you'd like, I could attempt to bare that video looking for the specific examples, but...it's 9 minutes man...this is the 21st century, what kind of time do you think I have? :P

First, sorry, Darcy, you and I were posting simultaneously and I didn't see your post. I'm in agreement with most of what you and Marc are saying. However, I may have to beat you senseless for the framing pun. (Inside joke, folks, nothing to see here).

Second, Marc's point about skeptic "fundamentalists" is quite funny--that's precisely how many religious opponents paint us. However, there ARE skeptic fundamentalists out there--they are the "burn the damn bridges already" type. They are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann. If your political beliefs line up with theirs, you'll probably find them amusing, and find they do occasionally say some really good things, but by and large they are a guilty pleasure. Unless, of course, you're a total nutjob and eat up everything that comes out of their mouth, but in that case you'd be a terrible skeptic. :) They don't do much to educate the opposition, rather, they serve the purpose of revving up the core supporters.

Back to the video. "If you have difficulty". I found that line amusing--but let's face it, it's true. Why should you be offended that other people don't agree with your point of view? Skeptic or believer, it matters not. If you take offense based on this difference of belief, you're a moron. Aw, crap, that's an ad hominem. :) Still, it's just too bad for you in that case. Nothing childish about that--it's simple a no-BS way to say what needs saying, isn't it? How would you go about covering this point? Maybe there is a better way.

Religilous was pretty bad in this sense--they went out of their way to be unfair to believers, and ridicule them. Again, guilty pleasure time for the atheists, but it was unfair and unethical. In fact, it was not so different than how Expelled was made, and atheists went ape-crap over that movie (rightfully so).

In any case, my point behind the video was to try to demonstrate how skeptics view the definition of open-mindedness. And yes, I think they did get a bit childish when referring to others' definition of open-mindedness--it harkens back to the saying, "be open minded, but not so open-minded your brains fall out." All too often we're accused of being closed-minded...when the opposite is usually (but not always) true.

I will say that this video was not really that offensive in the sense that I constantly felt ridiculed, but it just reminded me a couple times and with Religilous recent in my head, this is something the skeptic community needs to keep in check. Overall the way things were phrased weren't all that bad, my example wasn't even that harsh, but it is a common theme I've seen and could make the process even harder for you "heathens." :)

GJ said 4 days later

Yeah, don't judge us by Bill Maher's masterpiece, Bill isn't a true skeptic (he believes some really FAR OUT crapola) and as I said before, Religious was a hatchet job on the faithful. Try reading Dawkins or Sagan to get an idea of how a real skeptic operates.

Anyhow, this was a pretty civil discussion with no name calling. See! It's possible to play nice in this area....sometimes. :)

Geoff said 4 days later

Sorry I'm late to the game...few things.

What I meant by "painful" is the way it was presented. This thing put me to freaking sleep. The quality of the content was good, but the presentation was...painful. I didn't see any explosions, spaceships, or aliens! Seriously though, a little background music would have helped just a little...and perhaps a more dynamic speaker. But that's a whole other topic.

As for the rest of this conversation...I totally agree that we can be condescending, and to tell you the truth, I find it hard not to with some of these folks. I often feel like beating them with a stick they make such nonsensical comments. My favorite part about Religulous was when Jesus described the three aspects of the Christian God...Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...comparing it to the three states of water (gas, liquid, solid). Even Bill was impressed (and how couldn't he...it's a great analogy for something totally bonkers).

In any case, you can't reason with most of these folks and in the end, us skeptics are the Anti-Christ in their mind. Once we've opened the minds of enough people, they will have their Armageddon, and hopefully our Science will trump their God. Boom!

Amen, and merry Easter yo.

Well, we were playing nice....

:) I'm sorry but some of the folks really are morons. There is no way around it. I just don't understand how somebody can honestly believe humans were playing fetch with T-Rex. It's despicable.

It's not despicable. It's sad, and it's why I get so worked up about the creobots trying to manipulate schools to "teach the controversy." But that's a separate topic, covered a few posts ago.

It does bring up a good point, though. Have you been watching anything on Fox News of late? They are selling the idea that Obama will be instituting a form of tyranny, citing various changes he's made and drawing them out to absurd and nonsensical conclusions, and practically coming right out and saying that it might not be a bad idea to stock up on weapons and ammo in order to "defend our freedom." These are, of course, outright lies, but it attracts viewers and that's all that matters. However, a fair number of people take this "news" as the truth--without applying an ounce of healthy skepticism to it--and guess what? It's getting pretty hard to find ammo at Wal-Mart these days...it sells so fast they can't keep it in stock.

Scary, isn't it? And all based on lies and half-truths.

So, I'm not trying to encourage the thought that everything a skeptic believes it (or doesn't believe in) is the absolute truth. Rather, I'm hoping that you can take some things you take for granted (like the existence of aliens) and put a critical eye towards it. Does it stand up to true scrutiny...or is it in the category of "unknown, and highly unlikely." Or perhaps, "unknown, but rather likely."

Aliens are definitely unknown but likely....whether they are intelligent remains to be discovered...but I don't imagine it will take long to find "alien" organisms, if they haven't already done so.

In any case, I don't watch Faux News, or much news on TV in general.

Aliens -- separate post. Do educate me on the aliens unknown but likely. I'm not saying I totally disagree, but I'm interested to see what you base your opinion on. That "if they haven't already done so" bit leads me to think I'll find that source *very* interesting. :)

I'm talking bacteria...found on a remote moon or something. That would be considered alien....and I can almost guarantee they will find some kind of foreign bacteria in the next few decades or so, ***if they haven't already done so***.

As for intelligent aliens, I find it hard not to believe that somewhere in the universe exists some form of creature. And no I don't have proof other than statistics which would indicate that the universe is so vast, that it would be darn near impossible for our planet to be the ONLY one to sustain intelligent life.

They haven't found any bacteria or viruses to date. They were thinking they found hallmarks of that on a Martian meteorite, but that wasn't proven conclusively and even the original researchers aren't quite so convinced of it these days. Will they find something, someday? Maybe--but probably not soon.

The galaxy is very, very big. However, we have but one planet teeming with life that we know about. Any equation (I'm looking at you, Drake equation) that attempts to come up with a figure for the number of intelligent species out there is based solely on guesswork, not science. We don't even know how life came about here on this planet. Not knowing that, how can we begin to approximate the likelihood of it occurring elsewhere? I don't think we can--at least, not in any meaningful way.

Finally, hope that there are no other intelligent species out there. If there are, I can promise you this--neither we nor they will ever "come in peace." Just look back to how humans spread out over this planet. Expansion is always tightly tied to war--because, let's face it, resources in any closed system are finite. To the winner goes the spoils...so if I were you, I'd want to be the ones finding other species first, not the other way around.

It was already bent to begin with...he just slowly rotated it.

GJ said about 3 hours later

Bingo.

Can't tell you how many educated people have fallen for such simple ruses...but of course, they weren't presented as comically as Shermer does here.