Nanobionic products include vests and T-shirts that retail for 298 euros ($366). The company claims on its website that each product “offers relief, increases strength and stamina, reduces fatigue, and offers a sense of well-being. Suit­able for better recovery.” Vaxevanis and Gogos claim to have information indicating that over 20,000 vests have been sold, estimating the company’s revenues at over 6,000,000 euros ($7,426,000).

The products are frequently featured on the television show of well-known Greek journalist Makis Tri­anta­fyllopoulos. The Vaxevanis/Gogos investigation of Nanobionic was published in the July 19, 2012, issue of the Greek magazine HOT DOC.

As reported on Vaxevanis’s news website on August 6, 2012, the GCS issued an announcement asking Vio­tech Ltd. to withdraw all claims of beneficial health effects since all available data about the claims lack scientific documentation. As for the the claim about reflecting infrared rays back to the body, the GCS had doubts about whether Nanobionic products could do this to a greater degree than a conventional fabric. In addition, the an­nounce­ment mentions “consumer de­ception” because “the impression is given that the products are distributed by a multi-national company.” The GCS also asked for the removal of the claim that the company’s cited study was conducted “under the supervision of the University of Athens”—this after the HOT DOC investigation and an official denial by the university’s dean.

Viotech Ltd. is based in a suburb of Athens and does not list any domestic distributors or retailers on its site. The company sells directly to consumers and accepts orders via phone and its website. The only other known Greek retailer for Nanobionic is the zougla.gr website, which is the online presence for journalist Triantafyllopoulos. Tri­anta­fyllo­poulos frequently features stories relating to Nanobionic on his late night television talk show, often accompanied by Viotech’s phone number featured prominently so that viewers can place orders.

On June 26, Vaxevanis and his team featured a story on his investigative journalism show on the Greek state television broadcaster on how bad science was used to make misleading claims for marketing purposes. The products in the story were cosmetics, hologram brace­lets, and so-called “nano-vests.” The latter are sold by Nanobionic—but not exclusively. The show made no mention of brands and obfuscated all company logos. None­theless, this led to an immediate response by Triantafyllo­poulos, who devoted an entire show a few days later to questioning Vaxevanis’s claims and reiterating his belief in the efficacy of Nanobionic based on the numerous testimonials by customers—including famous athletes—that he played for his audience.

According to Vaxevanis and Gogos, this is what prompted them to publish an investigation specifically into Nano­bionic and its relationship to Trianta­fyllopoulos. The relationship appears quite close; Nanobionic is based in a building owned by the Triantafyllo­poulos family that also houses his official website zougla.gr. At the time that the HOT DOC article was being written, a sign above the Nano­bionic offices stated “Under the supervision of the National Capodis­trian University of Athens.” The principals for Viotech Ltd. are the Psipsikas brothers. George Psipsikas is a frequent guest on Tri­anta­fyllo­poulos’s show, particularly when Nanobionic products are being discussed. Viotech Ltd. did not respond to a request for a statement regarding the investigation by Vaxe­vanis and Gogos.

According to the company’s official website:

Nanobionic® intelligent clothes re­flect the energy emitted by the human body, which is 80% infrared waves (IR) and transform it into Far Infrared Waves (FIR).

The reflection of our body’s In­fra­red Rays, with the use of Nano­bionic® products, essentially penetrates our body at a depth of ap­proximately 4 cm, creating a sweet warmth, with an effect on the tissues and cells, helping in their faster regeneration.

The result from the use of Nano­bionic® intelligent clothes could be significant improvement in performance. Nanobionic® technology may increase endurance, cardio respiratory stamina, anaerobic capacity, strength and flexibility. It could also reduce lactic acid, heart rates, premature fatigue and sweating. Nanobionic® clothes may be also used for faster recovery.

Vaxevanis and Gogos sent Nano­bionic product literature to Theodoros Samaras, associate professor of physics at Aristotle University and and a specialist in infrared waves and asked him if the company’s claim could be true. His answer: “Infrared waves cannot penetrate the skin at the depth the company claims, since they do not go past the stratum corneum, which is the layer that contains dead skin cells. Given that under normal circumstances over 50 percent of the body’s heat is released through this mechanism (Cameron J.R., Skofronick J.G., Grant R.M.; Physics of the Body; 2nd edition, 1999; Medical Physics Publishing), this does lead to questions about possible negative consequences of wearing these garments, especially by groups with reduced thermoregulatory capabilities.”

Having thus ruled out any known theoretical health benefits in the company’s claims, Vaxevanis and Gogos set out to examine the product itself. Their first step was to purchase an ankle brace for fifty-nine euros ($72) plus a value added tax of 13 percent. This is not the value added tax rate for retail clothing, but rather for medical products. The label designates it as an “orthopedic product” with a composition of “Polyamid 55%, Elasthan 45%, Ceramic Textile.” This indicates a polymer fabric with a ceramic texture, similar to what is used in curtains, hats, and other general-use fabrics. This was further corroborated by Loukas Mar­garitis, professor of cell biology and electronic microscopy at the University of Athens, who examined a fragment from the sample product under both a regular and a scanning transmission electron microscope. According to Margaritis in the Vaxevanis/Gogos article: “One side is smooth and the other side has reticulated fibers ... there are many such types of fabric with a metallic weave and many of them are used to manufacture curtains, mosquito nets, hats, etc. with the purpose of reflecting electromagnetic waves. There is no published peer reviewed study that states that such a product has health benefits.”

As shown in an experiment, the nanobionic product does not reflect far infrared waves back to the body as Viotech Ltd. claims. Arm area: Tmin 31.3°C, Tmax 34.1°C. Nanobionic surface: Tmin 30.9°C, Tmax 33.5°C. T-shirt surface: Tmin 30.4°C, Tmax 34.1°C.

The next step was to go to the Materials Science and Engineering Depart­ment of the School of Chem­ical Engineering at the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) where Professor and Deputy Dean Moro­poulou and her team examined the ankle brace using a thermographic camera. They placed it on the elbow of one of the NTUA researchers. The purpose of the measurements was to investigate whether this particular product reflects far infrared waves back to the body. In order for this claim to be corroborated empirically, the thermographic readings would have to show a substantially lower temperature on the surface of the Nanobionic product than that of the body.

The readings did not support the company’s claim. The minimum surface temperature on the ankle brace was 0.4°C lower and the maximum was 0.6°C lower than on the bare arm. When comparing the arm temperature to that of the T-shirt, the maximum temperature was the same and the minimum was 0.9°C lower. This would indicate that any fabric causes some change in temperature but nothing that shows that the Nanobionic material behaved substantially differently than the fabric of the researcher’s T-shirt. When shown these results, Samaras agreed and also added: “perhaps this is why I was unable to locate any information regarding the physics of how the fabric works (as opposed to biology or medicine)?”

However, the company does cite its own study. As recently as June 23, 2012, Viotech claimed on its website (although as of August 6 this is no longer the case) that:

The study was conducted under the supervision of the University of Athens, in Athens, in September 2011. The object of the study was the effect of the Nanobionic technology on sports performances. The result of the study was that the Nanobionic® fabric and technology positively affect athletic performance. ALL STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES WERE <0.01.

Specifically, by wearing the Nano­bionic T-shirt:

All the parameters of cardiorespiratory endurance significantly in­creased.

All the parameters of anaerobic capacity significantly increased.

The explosive strength and power were significantly better in both legs.

The vertical leap was significantly higher.

The flexibility test was significantly better.

When asked by Vaxevanis and Gogos about Nanobionic’s use of the university name in its advertising, its dean, Theodosis Pelegrinis, stated: “The University Board has no jurisdiction, nor does the University conduct any studies of this kind. The responsibility for any such study falls exclusively on the individual who conducts it.”

The study was presented at the 59th Annual Meeting and Third World Congress on Exercise is Medicine in San Francisco, California, May 29–June 2, 2012. The abstract was included—along with all the other conference presentations—in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, the official journal of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). To date it has not been published in a peer-reviewed publication. ACSM is not an academic institution. According to its website: “We are a world­wide membership organization (like the college of surgeons) for more than 20,000 professionals in the sports medicine and exercise science fields. We don’t have a campus or student body, and you can’t get a degree from ACSM.”

Vaxevanis and Gogos showed the study to Konstantinos Natsis, president of the Sports Medicine Associa­tion of Greece. According to Natsis:

This study has not been conducted by doctors. Someone who has not studied medicine cannot conduct medical studies. Their claims do not hold up scientifically. The sample size (22) is too small and the methodology is not scientifically documented. There is no scientifically documented evidence that would corroborate the properties they assign to this vest. In these cases studies have to be large and need to be proven over a large sample. The study would also have to state the mechanism by which its conclusions are proven. For me to say that I took these some people, did a study, and got these results doesn’t prove anything. There is no other published study on the internet or in a journal abroad that relates to this matter, nor an approval by the FDA.

In their article, Vaxevanis and Gogos conclude: “Makis Trianta­fyllo­poulos chose to become a television salesperson for his own reasons. It is his right to do so. All he has to do is drop the facade of journalism and start a telemarketing show ... it is now the responsibility of the GCS, the National Council for Radio and Television, and of course the District Attorney to intervene.... Makis can do whatever he wants—even invent ‘nano-shoes’ and claim to walk on water like a new Jesus.”

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) will award its 2011 Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Think­ing to psychologist Richard Wiseman for his book Paranormality: Why We See What Isn’t There.

Wiseman holds Britain’s only Chair in the Public Understanding of Psy­chology, at the University of Hertford­shire (UK). He has written several best-selling books, including The Luck Factor, Quirkology, 59 Seconds, and Paranormal­ity. More than two million people have taken part in his mass participation experiments, and his YouTube channel has received more than thirty million views. He is one of the most frequently quoted psychologists in the British media and was recently listed as one of the Inde­pendent on Sunday’s top 100 people who make Britain a better place to live. He is also a Committee for Skep­tical Inquiry fellow and a Skeptical Inquirer consulting editor.

Paranormality is not like a good number of skeptical books looking at paranormal claims. Wiseman is not simply interested in looking at a claim, gathering the evidence, and debunking the claim. He goes a step further. He is interested in showing us how easy it is for us to be deceived and how easily we can be fooled and fool others. He includes do-it-yourself activities that allow you to learn some of the basics and share in the experiences for yourself.

As the book jacket says: “Richard Wise­man is clear about one thing: Para­normal phenomena don’t exist. But in the same way space travel yields technology that transforms our everyday lives, so research into telepathy, fortune-telling, and out-of-body experiences produces remarkable insights into our brains, behaviour and beliefs.” Exactly.

The Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Thinking is a $1,500 award given to the author of the published work that best exemplifies healthy skepticism, logical analysis, or empirical science. Each year, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer, selects the paper, article, book, or other publication that has the greatest potential to create positive reader awareness of important scientific issues.

The prize will be presented to Wiseman during CSICon Nashville, October 25–28, 2012.

This prize has been established through the generosity of Robert P. Balles, an associate member of CSI, and the Robert P. Balles Endowed Memorial Fund, a permanent endowment fund for the benefit of CSI. CSI’s established criteria for the prize include use of the most parsimonious theory to fit data or to explain apparently preternatural phenomena.

This is the seventh year the Robert P. Balles prize has been presented. Previous winners of this award are:

• 2010: Steven Novella for his tre­mendous body of work, including the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, Science-Based Medicine, Neurologica, Skeptical Inquirer column “The Science of Medicine,” and his tireless travel and lecture schedule on behalf of skepticism
• 2009: Michael Specter, New Yorker staff writer and former foreign correspondent for the New York Times, for his book Denialism: How Irra­tional Thinking Hinders Scientific Pro­gress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives
• 2008: Leonard Mlodinow, physicist, author, and professor at Caltech, for his book The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives
• 2007: Natalie Angier, New York Times science writer and author of the book The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science
• 2006: Ben Goldacre for his weekly column, “Bad Science,” published in the Guardian newspaper (U.K.)
• 2005: Shared by Andrew Skolnick, Ray Hyman, and Joe Nickell for their series of articles in the Skeptical Inquirer on “Testing ‘The Girl with X-Ray Eyes’”

The Sixth World Skeptics Congress drew an impressive stable of speakers and attendees.
(Photo by André Sebastiani)

Despite the long weekend dedicated to the congress ahead, there were a num­ber of well-attended tours on Wednes­day and Thursday before the event that allowed attendees to learn more about the history of the underground bunkers and towers around the city. An open-day on Thursday featured magic shows, lectures, and a German session of “Science Slam”—an event similar to the traditional “Café Scientifique” but with a competitive edge.

From left: Kylie Sturgess, Eugenie C. Scott, and Camp Quest’s Samantha Stein. (Photo by André Sebastiani)

Eugenie C. Scott started off the main event on Friday with a brisk but disturbing look at creationism outside the United States, involving the intersection between politics and creationism in Italy, Serbia, Brazil, Great Britain, and Russia. Scott’s message on how “science is not a democracy” was reiterated by Dittmar Graf of the Insti­tute of Biology and Education at the Uni­versity of Dortmund, who outlined comparative studies on the acceptance of evolution in Germany and Turkey and the difficulties in achieving such acceptance. Johan Braeck­man of Ghent University and the Flemish skeptical organization SKEPP presented on creationism in Belgium and the Nether­lands, with an amusing tale about the potentially London-Olympic bound “authentic” Noah’s Ark built by Dutch creationist Johan Huibers.

The high level of acceptance of creationism in the Islamic world was the focus of research conducted by Mc­Gill’s Evolution Education Re­search Center, presented by Anila Asghar. An extensive study involving more than one hundred Muslim scientists and teachers and five thousand student surveys across Turkey, Leba­non, Egypt, Indonesia, and Paki­stan revealed that while the reconciliation of faith and evolution was possible for scientists, exposure to Amer­ican creationist materials and religious messages produced conflicted re­sponses from students.

Gita Sahgal, director of the Cen­tre for Secular Space, began the sessions on pseudoscience in education. Her lecture unveiled the early history and myths of India and Pakistan and the influence they have had on nationalist movements and education in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. My presentation followed; in­spired by a 2006 Austral­ian paper on autism, dyslexia, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), it showed how the “unsinkable rubber ducks” like Dore, the “Mozart effect,” Brain Gym, and Facilitated Com­muni­cation persist even now—despite damning research, court cases, and even company bankruptcy.

Simon Singh. (Photo by André Sebastiani)

Samantha Stein from Camp Quest echoed my overall point on the need for all stakeholders to develop greater responsibility when improving education. Her dynamic presentation on “Engaging Children in Science” critically examined the state of U.K. science education, the need for education reform, and the promotion of science literacy beyond the classroom. Her talk prompted a passionate outburst during the question-and-answer session by audience member Simon Singh, who agreed with Stein’s observation about the sorry state of science education. Stein is currently writing a book, Atheists, Tents, and Unicorns: The Story of Camp Quest in the UK, on her experiences as the founder and director of Camp Quest UK. The day concluded with awards for Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, Luigi Garlaschelli, and Wim Betz, recognizing their ongoing efforts to promote science and reason worldwide.

For the start of Saturday’s proceedings Professor Jürgen Windeler delivered a presentation on evaluating the benefits of conventional and complementary medicine, looking specifically at some misunderstandings of medical evaluation—what is involved in randomization and how simple blinding methods are not always possible. He also presented a case for ignoring the claims of homeopathy rather than giving them any potential therapeutic credibility. The topic of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions was ex­panded upon by Gerd Antes of the University Medical Center in Frei­burg, who interrogated the systematic research into the deficiencies of the research and publication process and how this contributes to what would be otherwise avoidable diseases and deaths: “Don’t fight belief; fight the justification of belief through the abuse of science and knowledge.”

Harriet “Skep-Doc” Hall, MD, a popular science writer for a number of skeptical publications including Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, discussed the bogus and bizarre treatments that are touted as so-called complementary/alternative medicine (or “SCAM”). She presented on the issues that arise from meta-analyses and systematic reviews of pseudoscience in medicine (drawing on a paper by Ioannidis). Hall is the creator of the “tooth fairy science” analogy for the seductive appeal of such claims, and she introduced us to the German translation: Zahnfeewissenschaft! This was her first overseas presentation at a skeptical convention, and considering the ex­tremely positive response to her work from the audience, it should certainly not be her last.

The sessions on alternative medicine concluded with an in-depth and entertaining look at acupuncture by Benedikt Matenaer, who has a background in anesthesiology and palliative care. He critically analyzed the economic influences acupuncture has had on the German health system and the reasons that public health insurances and public health systems should be held accountable for promoting acupuncture (particularly why practitioners are acquiring a “pseudo-education” to “put needles anywhere”). The assumptions made by acupuncturist “professionals” are “stupid” and “disgusting lies”—and he proposed a hilarious quiz on chi for the next time skeptics encounter their claims. One canny audience member inquired about potential cheaper health insurance policies due to hypothetical companies not endorsing pseudoscientific practices.

The end-of-day sessions on “Psy­chology and Pseudoscience,” chaired by James Alcock, brought us the very first public demonstration of Ray Hyman’s PowerPoint skills for a lecture on the history of testing psychic claims, and he included some impressively deft rope tricks. Although Chris French’s original presentation was beset by technical difficulties, his new lecture certainly captured the audience’s attention with a tale of scientists attempting to replicate Daryl Bem’s precognition studies and the frustrating and sometimes bemusing lengths that must be taken to be published in peer-reviewed journals. Polish skeptic Tomasz Witkowski’s talk on pseudoscience in psychology investigated not only how dodgy claims in the field are detrimental for science in general but also how they mislead those who hope to find help with health issues such as brain damage and cancer.

Massimo Polidoro. (Photo by André Sebastiani)

On Sunday, skepticism entered the political sphere when Chris Mooney discussed his recent investigations into cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives—which may help or hinder the development of a civil society—as discussed in his new book, The Republican Brain. Simon Perry’s talk on the advent and application of fill-in-complaint-form website Fishbarrel (adapted by a handful of countries to help target pseudoscientific products online) was well received by the mostly German audience; this may also be due to another innovative example of using similar methods of social media manipulation by Germany’s Piraten­partei (Pirate Party), which has influenced local political change. The last session featured a standing-room-only Houdini Séance with Ray Hyman, James Randi, and Massimo Polidoro delving into some of the lesser-known stories of the great magician. We were then treated to a lengthy question-and-answer session, ranging from the history of the Million Dollar Chal­lenge (lauded by African skeptic Leo Igwe as invaluable to activist efforts worldwide) to the danger of lie detectors to budget spending on paranormal claims worldwide.

The event concluded with the Com­mittee for Skeptical Inquiry, the Euro­pean Council of Skeptical Or­gani­sa­tions (ECSO), and the Ge­sell­­schaft zur wissenschaftlichen Unter­suchung von Para­­wissen schaften (GWUP) releasing a resolution calling for high standards of scientific practice in scientific institutions and in science education—to focus on challenging pseudoscience when it is being established within academic and instructional institutions, particularly when funded by tax-payers. (See below for text.) Considering the scope of the topics and presentations at the congress, a call for international action was a fine way to finish a dynamic and stimulating weekend of skepticism.

The next World Skeptics Congress will be held in Sweden in 2013.

Resolution: Scientific Standards in Academia and Education

On the occasion of the Sixth World Skeptics Congress in Berlin, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), the European Council of Skeptical Organizations (ECSO), and the German skeptical organization Gesellschaft zur wissen­schaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) adopted the following resolution calling for high standards of scientific practice in scientific institutions and in science education.

Scientists and skeptics from around the world are deeply concerned with the growing tolerance, acceptance, and even promotion of pseudoscientific and occult ideas and practices within scientific, academic, and educational institutions. Students worldwide are in danger of being instructed in the unsubstantiated claims of ideologues and purveyors of pseudoscience, rather than learning to base conclusions on dependable, scientific knowledge. Scientists and academics may be reluctant or afraid to speak up, even when scientific principles and criteria are blatantly violated, fearful of antagonizing colleagues or those on whom their own careers may depend.

At the occasion of the Sixth World Skeptics Congress in Berlin, CSI, ECSO, and GWUP call for high standards of scientific practice in scientific institutions and in science education. They call on scientists and academics worldwide to raise their voices when pseudoscience is being established within academic and instructional institutions. When such institutions are publicly funded, it is additionally of crucial importance that taxes not be used to promote pseudoscience or ideologies.

Specifically, we call on all those responsible to:

• Ensure that universities, medical institutions, and colleges teach depend­able, scientific knowledge and resist the temptation to let unproven claims enter professional education; such institutions are obliged to assist students to clearly distinguish between science-based and unscientific methodologies within the context of science and evidence-based medicine; and
• Ensure that scientific standards of evidence-based medicine are applied without compromise, resisting attempts to grant exemptions for ideological or commercial reasons to some forms of therapy that potentially risk patient welfare; and
• Ensure that schools base the science curriculum on accepted science, rejecting attempts to influence the curriculum on ideological, political, or religious grounds, such as has occurred with the teaching of evolution and climate change.

We also call upon our sister skeptical organizations from around the world in the spirit of consumer protection to commit themselves to ensuring good science within academia and schools, in addition to continuing their efforts to promote science and critical thinking to the public.

In the early 1990s, he asked Paul Gross to work with him on combating pseudoscience, and their resulting book, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science, appeared in 1994. He later wrote many articles relating to standards of science, what he curmudgeonly thought of as charlatans pushing pseudoscience and metascience, and public knowledge and understanding of science. His later books included The Flight from Science and Reason (1997) and Prometheus Bedeviled: Science and the Contradictions of Contemporary Culture. He played a major role in working with the NYU physicist Alan Sokal in Sokal's presentation of a gobbledygook paper to the post-modern humanities journal Social Text, which published it in spite of what Levitt and many others thought were flags that indicated that it was a joke. The result was and is widely interpreted, especially in scientific circles, as a black mark on postmodernism.

I first met Norm Levitt when I was in third grade, in around 1951,and he a year behind, so I am honored to have known him for well over fifty years. We lived in the West Bronx during its Golden Age; there have recently been celebrations and museum exhibits on the occasion of the 100th birthday of the Grand Concourse. Norm's mother, Molly, was best friend and Mahjong buddy of the mother of the new boy in my building (and on my floor), Ronnie Saiet, and Norm's parents and Ronnie's socialized. The Levitts lived just a couple of blocks away, on Walton Avenue south of 167th Street, so Norm spent a lot of time with Ronnie, Ira Blumenthal, and me, playing the role of D'Artagnan to our Athos, Porthos, and Aramis. (Wikipedia, which I consulted to checking the Musketeers' names' spelling, informs me that the story of d'Artagnan was continued by Dumas in two more novels, Twenty Years After and The Vicomte de Bragelonne, the set becoming known as the d'Artagnan Romances. So d'Artagnan was the main character, a suitable analogy for this memorial comment.)

In the 1950's in the Bronx, we boys were free and on our own a lot, much less programmed than today's young people. Those of us intellectually inclined were lucky to have the Bronx High School of Science in our lives, where our mathematical abilities especially were fostered. Of course, Harvard wasn't bad in mathematics, either.

One of my high-school influences was Martin Gardner's book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, published by Dover in 1957, when Norm and I were in high school. In 2003, I started teaching a seminar at Williams College on the subject, and one of the dozen weekly topics was the so-called Sokal Hoax. I was delighted to find that Norm was an expert on the topic, and I invited him to lead that week's seminar. Naomi and I have had the pleasure of his visits to us on three such occasions, including one at which we also had the pleasure of the company of Renée. And my students on the three occasions certainly benefited from the readings he supplied and the discussions that he led.

I am honored to have been a friend of Norman Levitt, and I am delighted that our friendship was professionally renewed during the last few years. Naomi and I have sent our deepest condolences to his widow, Renée; to their children, Steven and Oradee, Heather and Jason; and their grandchildren. They have asked that any memorial contributions be made to the National Center for Science Education, 420 40th Street, Suite 2, Oakland, CA 94609.

A memorial service was held in Manhattan on October 31, with a secular rabbi presiding and, by particular request, no mention of god; Norm had been cremated. The half dozen speakers aside from me and from a cousin were mathematicians, and the importance of his research mathematical work was stressed. We learned of his early promise, and of the wall of his report cards that his mother had proudly displayed in their Bronx apartment. We learned of his wide range of knowledge of interests, including visiting art galleries in New York and knowing about battles in the Civil War. We learned about his special love for his grandchildren.

The death of Norm Levitt is a loss for his family, his friends, the world of mathematics, and all those interested in the standards of science.

Leonard Mlodinow received his doctorate in physics from the University of California, Berkeley, was an Alexander von Humboldt fellow at the Max Plank Institute, and now teaches about randomness to future scientists at Caltech. He has written for the television series MacGyver and Star Trek: The Next Generation. His previous books include Euclid’s Window: The Story of Geometry from Parallel Lines to Hyperspace, Feynman’s Rainbow: A Search for Beauty in Physics and in Life, and, with Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

According to Mlodinow, “The Drunkard’s Walk comes from a mathematical term describing random motion, such as the paths molecules follow as they fly through space, incessantly bumping and being bumped by, their sister molecules. ... The surprise is that the tools used to describe the drunkard’s walk can also be employed to help understand the events of everyday life. The goal of this book is to illustrate the role of chance in the world around us and to show how we may recognize it at work in human affairs.”

Mlodinow was to be presented the award at a ceremony June 7, 2009, at the Center for Inquiry/Los Angeles.

The Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Thinking is a $1,300 award given to the author of the published work that best exemplifies healthy skepticism, logical analysis, or empirical science. Each year, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry selects the paper, article, book, or other publication that has the greatest potential to create positive reader awareness of important scientific issues.

CSI established the criteria for the prize, including use of the most parsimonious theory to fit data or to explain apparently preternatural phenomena.

This prize has been established through the generosity of Robert P. Balles, an associate member of CSI, and the Robert P. Balles Endowed Memorial Fund, a permanent endowment fund for the benefit of CSI.

This is the fourth year the Robert P. Balles prize has been presented. Previous winners of this award are:

2007: Natalie Angier, New York Times science writer and author of the book The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science

2006: Ben Goldacre for his weekly column, “Bad Science,” published in The Guardian newspaper (U.K.)

2005: Shared by Andrew Skolnick, Ray Hyman, and Joe Nickell for their series of articles in the Skeptical Inquirer on “Testing ‘The Girl with X-Ray Eyes’”

Nominations are now being accepted for 2009. Please send submissions to:

In recent years, nutrition research and practice have lagged behind many other biological and medical fields.^1-5 In part, this lag is due to many pseudoscientific beliefs and practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific methods.^1-5 By nutrition I mean all the foods, fluids, and “natural” supplements humans ingest.^1,2 By pseudoscience, I mean the use of inappropriate methods that frequently yield wrong or misleading answers for the type of question asked. In nutrition research, such methods also often misuse statistical evaluations.⁴ My purpose here is to definitively (wherever possible) or tentatively (where the data are incomplete or nonexistent) answer a series of key questions about adult human nutrition using relevant rigorous scientific principles and methods. The data clearly show that much current advice about dietary pyramids, food supplements, megavitamins, and weight loss regimens is frequently unproven, erroneous, or even harmful and is often based on pseudoscience or derivative incorrect professorial opinion.^1-7

But before coming to the answers, we should frame the general questions precisely:

1. What do we know about adult human nutrition that meets the standards for truth?
2. Is there an optimum body weight? Is the ancient wisdom of Aristotle correct? He preached a sound mind in a sound body and, most importantly, moderation in all things, including diet. Or are current (immoderate) claims that large amounts of certain nutrients (e.g., vitamins, lycopene, fruits, and vegetables) and avoidance of others (e.g., saturated fats like butter, rapidly absorbed carbohydrates like rice and potatoes) the “way” to prevent bodily harm and promote health?^{1,2,6, 7}
3. Why are there so many confusing or contradictory data and opinions in the literature, news media, and books on the following points?^1-5
• Are food supplements such as megavitamins—defined as greater than five times the recommended daily allowance (RDA)—helpful? Specifically, are megavitamins E, C, and carotene healthful or harmful? That is, will they prevent disease and aging alone or in combination? Is there even one supplemental nutrient (nutraceutical) proven to prevent disease and possibly prolong life?
• Are certain common foods (in moderation) harmful? For example, are dietary saturated fats really harmful? Or are such fats useful fuel burned in the body to harmless carbon dioxide and water to provide energy as described in the biochemistry textbooks? Are processed rice and potatoes really bad for you? Do rice and potatoes really strain insulin production by the pancreas and lead to diabetes as alleged?⁶ Or are rice and potatoes a reasonable source of calories ingested by billions without harm? In other words, are there some nutrients that can cause disease and others that can prevent disease and illness?^1,2,6 Are there “fountain of youth” nutritional approaches or do the body’s homeostatic mechanisms counteract “over-consumption” or “under-consumption” of most nutrients? Obviously, everything can be harmful in excess, even salt and water.
• Are there comparative studies that show that certain classes of foods are better or worse than others for adult human health? Are diets high in saturated fats worse than diets high in rapidly absorbed carbohydrates or animal proteins?
• Which weight-loss diets, if any, work?
4. Why are there so many erroneous or uninterpretable nutritional experiments (pseudoscience) in the literature? Why do so many scientifically contradicted claims persist in the literature?^3-5,7 Why are certain long-term epidemiology/observation studies (EOS) continued in spite of the persistent publication of pseudoscience from these studies?^1-5,7

To answer these four general questions, we need to understand the methods required to prove hypotheses conclusively in human nutrition and human health. We must apprehend the assumptions, methods to establish causality, clinical trial design, hierarchies of evidence, and statistical concepts so we can evaluate nutritional studies correctly,^3-5,8 i.e., to separate pseudoscience from science, falsehood from truth. Also, we need to understand the methods involved in extrapolating data from nutritional studies to inferences about populations. For example, data in children or young adults may not be transferable to the elderly (e.g., milk tolerance and vitamin B-12 absorption are different in children than in the elderly).

Finally, we must understand what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulators require for assessing and approving nutritional claims and drugs.^3-5,8 Within the limits of its jurisdiction (see below), the FDA generally evaluates claims of the type “X causes Y” based on rigorous scientific standards before accepting a causal claim.^1-4,8 This is in contrast to many journal editors, academic and governmental nutritional committees (e.g., the Department of Agriculture), and the media, which often have weak scientific standards.^1,2 I will briefly review the FDA standards below.

With a rigorous scientific approach, we can then distinguish “true” nutritional claims with some certainty—separate facts and reasonable inferences from false claims and unproven hypotheses where there is inadequate, incorrect, or misinterpreted data.

In an accompanying document entitled “Methodological and Statistical Issues in Adult Nutritional Research,” available on the Skeptical Inquirer Web site, I describe in some detail the relevant methodological and statistical issues. This analysis is critical to understanding the results of much nutritional research, and I recommend it to interested readers. For example, many EOS widely used to assess causality (e.g., that megavitamin E decreases cardiovascular risk) are methodologically unable to do so.^4,5,7 Yet they are frequently performed and published. I explain this strange phenomenon and other methodologically important issues in the “Methodological and Statistical Issues . . .” document.

What Do We Know?

In fact, we know a lot about adult human nutrition. As shown in Table 1, there are a number of nutrients and minerals humans must ingest for health and well being throughout life. For most adults, except as noted below, these nutrients and minerals are readily obtained from a balanced diet without the need for supplements.⁹ Lack of these will lead to poor health and even death. However, it is true that in four- to six-week experiments in obese subjects, only water, vitamins, and minerals, especially potassium chloride, were required. In fact, very obese patients can survive in excellent health for many months on only water, vitamins (in RDA doses), and potassium chloride.¹ Potassium is required to make up for its obligatory loss through the kidney. In these starving, obese people, calories are mainly obtained through fat mobilization with attendant weight loss. But over the long term, the nutrients and minerals in Table 1 must be ingested. As noted in Table 1, however, the need for calories (fuel) can mainly come from carbohydrate, fat, protein, or combinations of these three. The need for the essential substances in Table 1 is not controversial.^{1,6, 9}

Table 2 shows three important principles of biochemical and physiological nutrition. First, a healthy person (given RDA intake of the substances in Table 1) can proceed with a normal (see below), stable weight by eating predominantly fat or carbohydrates or protein or various combinations of these because of the body’s ability to interconvert and utilize carbohydrates, fats, and proteins (amino acids) as needed. In other words, fat, carbohydrate, or protein can serve as the principal source of calories.

Second, the body has a remarkable ability to maintain relatively constant blood levels (homeostasis) of many nutrients. Even more remarkable is the ability of the central nervous system, testicles, and ovaries to maintain nutrient homeostasis. For example, in two carefully studied cases, even huge fluctuations in (orally) ingested potassium or vitamin C barely changed the concentrations of these substances in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or the brain.¹⁰ We now understand the biochemical, molecular, and genetic bases for such remarkable homeostasis in the CSF and brain.^10,11 This has profound implications for attempting to prevent cognitive decline with certain nutrients as discussed below.

Finally, with aging, there are large changes in nutritional needs and metabolism. For example, there is approximately a 1 percent decrease per year in energy requirements after age thirty. As we age, there are also major changes in many functions in some individuals, for example, decreases in the enzyme lactase (in the gastrointestinal tract), which splits lactose to easily absorbed galactose and glucose. Also, in some elderly persons, the ability to absorb certain essential substances, such as vitamin B-12, declines. These changes must be understood when talking about diets in the young versus in the elderly.

Is There an Optimum Weight for Adult Humans?

The answer is probably yes.¹² There is a large amount of epidemiological, pathological, and clinical data that suggests a body mass index (BMI) (defined as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) of approximately 20-25 is optimal. A BMI of greater than 30 is termed obese. There is also a large body of controlled evidence showing that animals fed a low-calorie diet (that keeps them “thin”) live longer and are healthier than heavier animals fed an “ad libitum” diet. These human and animal data satisfy Hill’s criteria noted in the “Methodological and Statistical Issues” document.^2-4,12 However, in humans there has never been a randomized controlled trial of food intake to keep BMI at 20-25 versus greater than 30 with morbidity (disease) and mortality the end points.¹² But, for this article, I accept the notion that obese humans, on average, are less healthy and/or die sooner than people with a BMI of 20-25, all other things being equal, although it is formally possible that obese individuals are “doomed” for reasons independent of obesity.

Controversial Questions Answered

Are food supplements helpful? Are there particular nutrients that will prevent illness and disease and possibly prolong life?

The answer, notwithstanding thousands of positive EOS and, in some cases, small inadequate clinical trials, is there is no rigorous scientific evidence for the utility of dietary supplements, including megavitamins in normal-weight (nonpregnant) adults with a stable BMI of 20-25 eating a diet containing adequate amounts of the nutrients in Table 1. See Table 3 for representative examples of false claims based on erroneous EOS.^2-5,9,13-21 As you can see, the EOS have been frequently in error, yielding false-positive results. In general the clinical trials in Table 3 are examples of controlled, randomized studies done with very large numbers of people often versus placebo. (It is true, however, that in certain populations the RDA of a few vitamins might be slightly higher than in normal adults, e.g., vitamin D and possibly calcium for nursing home residents and others who do not go out in the sun, and vitamin B-12 for elderly people or for those on proton pump inhibitor drugs.) In fact, there is some evidence in controlled trials that megavitamins (e.g., E, C, and A) may actually increase mortality.¹⁴ Clear exceptions to the general lack of utility of megavitamins are extremely rare patients with genetic abnormalities, e.g., those with vitamin B6-responsive seizures.^10,11 Yet, notwithstanding the lack of evidence of benefit and potential harm, megavitamins and supplements are still recommended by some nutrition “experts.”9 It is worth noting that the nutraceutical (supplement) industry is a multibillion-dollar enterprise.^9,14 Dan Hurley summarizes the pseudoscience in this area in his excellent book Natural Causes.⁹

Focusing on the lack of scientific rationale for so many nutritional claims, many people ask why and how this sad state of affairs developed. For example, based on what has been known for over thirty years about brain and CSF vitamin homeostasis, how could so many EOS investigators hypothesize and then accept EOS (Table 3) that suggested that megavitamin E, C, and/or B could prevent cognitive decline in adults on diets adequate in the essential substances in Table 1?^10,11 Consumers and the public correctly ask: If you can’t increase brain levels of these vitamins by even large oral doses, how could they “work?” The Hill criterion for biological plausibility is clearly negative.^3-5 In fact, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars on scientific controlled trials, it is now clear that megavitamins do not work (Table 3).

What then is the reason for so many erroneous EOS? Is there a systematic bias? First, as discussed in the “Methodological and Statistical Issues” document, because they are not randomized, EOS are prone to bias and confounding. In many studies, one type of bias is healthy-person bias. In other words, healthier, more health-conscious people tend to take supplements. These people tend to have less disease regardless of the supplements. So, in such EOS it looks like the supplements help. If randomized studies had been conducted, this would not happen (Table 3).

Are certain foods, minerals, or supplements harmful?

Excess amounts of anything can be harmful. Especially noteworthy are vitamins A and D, which can be very toxic in high doses. Aristotle was generally correct—all things should be in “moderation.” He actually took this advice from an inscription on the temple of Apollo in Delphi, Greece. As I noted earlier, even widely used supplements such as vitamins E, C, and carotene in “standard mega-doses” (greater than five times the RDA) may indeed be harmful.¹⁴ The potential for harm for many other types of supplements has not been systematically studied, although there are convincing data that certain supplements may damage the liver, kidney, or heart or alter drug metabolism.⁹ For example, the amino acid tryptophan (used to induce sleep) and ephedrine-containing herbs (for asthma) were removed from the over-the-counter market because of severe toxicity, including deaths in some people.⁹ Unfortunately, the FDA does not generally evaluate supplement claims for safety and efficacy nor does not it regulate the content of most supplements.⁹ Hence, it is difficult to know the true content of these supplements. Moreover, when carefully measured, there are many examples of supplement labels not reflecting the true content, a deplorable situation.⁹

Are certain classes of foods better or worse than others?

In healthy people who ingest the essential nutrients in Table 1 and have a normal stable weight (BMI approximately 20-25), there is no convincing comparative outcome evidence (as I defined above) that common foodstuffs, e.g., saturated fats like butter, rapidly absorbed carbohydrates like white rice and potatoes, or animal proteins, are especially helpful or harmful. The notion that some diets (e.g., low-fat or low-carbohydrate) are better than others is not based on sound science but instead on flawed EOS.¹ The USDA food pyramid of the past (which prescribed what you should eat, how many portions, and disparaged certain nutritious foods like eggs and butter) was unscientific.^1,2,6 That food pyramid was based, in part, on EOS so flawed as to be almost ludicrous.^1,2 Specifically, there are no scientific outcome data (as defined above) that five daily servings of fruits or vegetables as per the original USDA food pyramid are better than two or that apples are better than pears (notwithstanding Ben Franklin) in normal-weight adults who consume the essential nutrients in Table 1. Let the proponents of such dietary advice prove the value of their advice with real outcome data from well-managed randomized controlled trials. Similarly, recent attempts to create new food pyramids are also flawed, for example, those that disparage rapidly absorbed carbohydrates (e.g., processed rice and potatoes) and recommend megavitamin E.⁶ Let the anti-potato and anti-rice proponents scientifically prove to billions of normal-weight adults or millions of older citizens with delayed gastric emptying (on diets adequate in the essential nutrients in Table 1) that potatoes or white rice per se are more harmful than whole wheat in scientific controlled outcome trials.

However, in obese individuals (BMI > 30), there is some evidence that not only do they eat too many calories but they may also be eating a diet (e.g., rapidly absorbed carbohydrates) that does not “satiate” them and leads to more rapid fat deposition.¹ This hypothesis remains to be proven.

Do weight-loss diets in obese people work?

None work well. On average, over the long term, obese humans do not lose much weight on voluntary low-calorie diets of any kind. (There are of course a few obese individuals who have “self discipline” and can lose weight and keep the weight off. Their “secret” is obscure.) There is, however, some evidence that low-carbohydrate diets “work” best at least for periods up to one year,22 but this has not been replicated in a two-year study.^22a Notwithstanding thousands of weight-loss articles and books, there has been very little progress in this area outside of surgical intervention.

Why is so much erroneous and pseudoscientific nutrition research and commentary published? Why do contradicted claims persist in the literature?

While the methodology to approach the truth in nutrition research has been known for decades, it is often either not followed or scientific data are resisted.^1-5,7,9 In attempts to understand why this happens, sociologists often employ a balanced analysis. A useful part of such an analysis is the question: who benefits from a particular event or behavior?^4,5,7 To begin to answer that question, it is necessary first to review past publication policies of leading medical journals.

In 1994, in a revealing editorial, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine (who have published many erroneous EOS), in an Apologia in response to highly critical newspaper articles, attempted to justify publication of many conflicting (EOS) dietary studies on vitamins as chemo-preventive agents and the whole issue of dietary advice (e.g., butter vs. margarine).²³ Unfortunately, the editors did not claim that the goal of research should be the search for truth using the best available methods.^2-5,23 They did not acknowledge the hierarchy of evidence and the great value of well-conceived and executed experiments.^2-5,23 The editors seemed unaware that a few clear, convincing, well-conducted trials, when widely disseminated and followed, can change the practice of nutrition and medicine definitively, unlike hundreds of inconclusive studies, especially EOS.^2-5,7,23

Instead, the editors stated, “Thus, nearly every clinical research study would be seen as preliminary. . . . Doctors know that clinical research rarely advances in one giant leap; instead, it advances incrementally.”23 The editors did not blame themselves (and other editors) for publishing low-quality or uninterpretable papers. Instead, the editors blamed the media, which should “improve the way they interpret science.” Angell and Kassirer then stated that “the public at large needs to become much more sophisticated about clinical research, particularly epidemiology” because “what medical journals publish is not received wisdom but rather working papers.”23

Thus, they as journal editors placed the burden on the student, nutritionist, medical scientist, physician, public, and media to determine what is valid, important, and meaningful, sometimes with the help of editorials.²³ This is not a realistic expectation as can be seen in the chaotic state of nutritional research and practice.^1-5,7,9

Who benefits from such an editorial policy so profoundly dissonant with the scientific and regulatory principles described earlier?^3-5 Table 4 provides a tentative analysis of who benefits from poor-quality nutritional research and why.⁵ Table 5 reveals a similar tentative analysis of who is harmed and how.⁵

As I described earlier, unless proper studies are done (randomized, single variable, hypothesis-driven, with validated instruments and proper statistical analyses), the literature is doomed to potential, often-unknown bias and confounding.⁴ Although it is difficult and expensive to do long-term adequate nutritional studies, it is possible, and scientific studies have been done with megavitamins (e.g., E, C, folate, carotene), certain diets, and supplements9 with definitive results (Tables 1,3).

In view of the nutritional chaos I have described, it is a sad commentary on American regulatory authority that the FDA does not have the authority to regulate nutraceutical content and claims except when egregious safety concerns become apparent.⁹ Thus, the public is at the mercy of the media, journals, and company advertising (Tables 4,5), which is often misleading—from the subtle to the outrageous. This unfortunate state of affairs has recently been expertly reviewed.⁹

Finally, untrue claims that certain nutrients and nutraceuticals reduce cardiovascular risk and prevent cognitive decline or cancer (Table 3) steer patients away from safe, proven treatments that are often cheap and generic.^3-5 For example, generic aspirin, ACE inhibitors, and statins have been unequivocally proven to decrease cardiovascular risk and death in selected populations.^3-5

The issue of why there is such persistence of contradicted nutritional claims is discussed at length by J.P.A. Ioannidis’s group using megavitamin E as an example.⁷ They focus on “wish bias.”7 But the unwillingness of investigators who perform pseudoscientific studies to concede error and the role of commercial profit-driven interests cannot be underestimated.^3-5,9 It is worth noting that Walter Willet of the Harvard School of Public Health was still recommending megavitamin E in 2005 (at ten times the RDA),6 notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence that, if anything, megavitamin E is harmful.^9,14

In summary, the critics of nutritional research and practice suggest that much nutritional research and practice is, to paraphrase Thomas Hardy, science’s laughingstock, for two reasons: much of the research, especially EOS, is pseudoscientific for the reasons I have discussed and second, many practitioners and commercial interests do not readily acknowledge the truth.^1-5,7-9

Conclusions and Recommendations

The value of following the scientific principles noted above is well established.^{1-5; 7}-9

1. Readers of medical reports and journals should focus on studies that employ methods that test a hypothesis definitively. Readers should be skeptical of the results of EOS that test a contributory causal hypothesis and draw causal conclusions unless they satisfy the Hill criteria.^3-5 Such studies must be considered at best hypothesis-generating. Moreover, unless such studies have a clear “upfront” hypothesis and prespecified data analysis plan and are not the result of “data-dredging,” they merit even less credence.^3-5
2. Readers and viewers should encourage journals and the media to reform their publication and reporting standards. Journals should publish only scientifically sound studies and label most EOS as, at best, hypothesis-generating. Journals should have a section where authors who have published incorrect studies or nutritional advice can correct their views—analyze where they erred and discontinue defending erroneous and misleading publications.⁷ Journals should carefully edit opinions on nutritional and therapeutic advice, rather than leaving such advice mainly to authors. The criteria for recommendations should include “substantial evidence” for efficacy and safety (as per the FDA) as well as chemically defined ingredients to avoid disasters like the tryptophan recall described earlier.⁹
3. Readers should encourage journal editors, academicians, and funding agencies to support quality studies (e.g., randomized controlled studies) rather than those unlikely to answer questions definitively (e.g., EOS, case-control studies, or cohort studies). Special recognition should be accorded investigators who do difficult but definitive studies.

In the end, as Socrates pointed out, the big question is: How should one live one’s life? To decide, one needs good data! In terms of nutritional advice:

1. Demand scientific studies.
2. Follow the FDA criterion: only follow nutritional advice if proven to be safe and effective.
3. View the nutritional advice of “experts,” like those who prepared the agriculture department’s original food pyramid1 and the newer food pyramids,6 with a hypercritical eye. Their track record is poor.^1-5,7,9,10
4. Unless there is sound evidence, follow Aristotle’s principles:
• Aim for a sound mind in a sound, stable body with a BMI between 20-25.
• Practice moderation in nutritional matters.
• Observe Table 1—especially elderly people and those on certain drugs (e.g., diuretics that can deplete the body of essential substances) or others (e.g., proton pump inhibitors that can interfere with nutrient absorption).
• Eat what works for you—especially as you age. For example, the elderly should often avoid lactose in milk products and should be careful to ingest enough vitamins and minerals, especially vitamins B-12 and D.
• In life, there are often special situations, such as early pregnancy, where special nutritional needs arise (e.g., folate).

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Michiko Spector for her help in preparation of this manuscript.

Notes

1. Taubes, G. 2007. Good Calories, Bad Calories. New York, Alfred A Knopf.
2. Taubes, G. 2007. “Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?” New York Times Magazine, p. 52, Sept. 16.
3. Spector, R., and E.S. Vesell. 2000. “The Pursuit of Clinical Truth: Role of Epidemiology/Observation Studies.” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 40: 1205-1210.
4. Spector, R., and E.S. Vesell. 2006. “Pharmacology and Statistics: Recommendations to Strengthen a Productive Partnership.” Pharmacology 78: 113-122.
5. Spector, R., and E.S. Vesell. 2002. “Which Studies of Therapy Merit Credence? Vitamin E and Estrogen Therapy as Cautionary Examples.” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 42: 1-8.
6. Willett, W.C. 2005. Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy. New York: Free Press.
7. Tatsioni, A., N.G. Bonitsis, and J.P.A. Ioannidis. 2007. “Persistence of Contradicted Claims in the Literature.” Journal of the American Medical Association 298: 2517-2526.
8. Spector, R., and E.S. Vesell. 2006 “The Power of Pharmacological Sciences: The Examples of Proton Pump Inhibitors.” Pharmacology 76: 148-156.
9. Hurley, D. 2006. Natural Causes. New York: Broadway Books.
10. Spector, R., and C. Johanson. 2006. “Micronutrient and Urate Transport in Choroid Plexus and Kidney: Implications for Drug Therapy.” Pharmaceutical Research 23: 2515-2524.
11. Spector, R., and C. Johanson. 2007. “Vitamin Transport and Homeostasis in Mammalian Brain: Focus on Vitamins B and E.” Journal of Neurochemistry 103: 425-438.
12. Byers, T. 2006. “Overweight and Mortality among Baby Boomers-Now We’re Getting Personal.” New England Journal of Medicine 355: 758-760.
13. Spector, R., and E.S. Vesell. 2006. “The Heart of Drug Discovery and Development: Rational Target Selection.” Pharmacology 77: 85-92.
14. Moloo, J. 2008. “Dietary Supplements Don’t Prevent Cognitive Decline, CVD, or Infections.” Journal Watch 28: 7-8.
15. Yaffe, K. 2007. “Antioxidants and Prevention of Cognitive Decline: Does Duration of Use Matter?” Archives of Internal Medicine 167: 2167-2168.
16. Peters, U., M.F. Leitzmann, N. Chatterjee, et al. 2007. “Serum Lycopene, Other Carotenoids, and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Nested Case-Control Study in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.” Cancer Epidemiological Biomakers and Prevention 16: 962-968.
17. Kang J.H., N. Cook, J. Manson, et al. 2006. “A Randomized Trial of Vitamin E Supplementation and Cognitive Function in Women.” Archives of Internal Medicine 166: 2462-2468.
18. Espeland, M.A., and V.W. Henderson. 2006. “Preventing Cognitive Decline in Usual Aging.” Archives of Internal Medicine 166: 2433-2434.
19. Jamison, R.L., P. Hartigan, J.S. Kaufman, et al. 2007. “Effect of Homocysteine Lowering on Mortality and Vascular Disease in Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease and End-stage Renal Disease.” Journal of the American Medical Association 298: 1163-1170.
20. Cook, N. R., C. M. Albert, M. Gaziano, et al. 2007. “A Randomized Factorial Trial of Vitamins C and E and Beta Carotene in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Women.” Archives of Internal Medicine 167: 1610-1618.
21. Brunner, E. 2006. “Oily Fish and Omega 3 Fat Supplements.” British Medical Journal 332: 739-740.
22. Gardner, C.D., A. Kiazand, S. Alhassan, et al. 2007. “Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors among Overweight Premenopausal Women.” Journal of the American Medical Association 297: 969-977.
23. . Katan, M.B. 2009. “Weight-Loss Diets for the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity.” New England Journal of Medicine 360: 923-925.

Before the gatherings at the Steve Allen Theater, CFI/Los Angeles announced Darwin Aloud, an international project collecting video from around the world of people reading from On the Origin of Species, Darwin’s groundbreaking book outlining evolution by natural selection. This planet-wide gesture honoring the father of evolution will be edited into a short film this spring in Hollywood. See cfiwest.org/darwinaloud for more details.

On Darwin’s birthday (February 12), more than 100 people crowded into a theater-in-the-round for a staged reading from an episode of Meeting of Minds, Steve Allen’s PBS series that brought together famous historical figures. The reading was the companion piece to the episode staged last year involving the same characters.

Five noted television and movie actors played Darwin, Galileo, Emily Dickinson, and Attila the Hun discussing and debating their ideas with moderator Steve Allen. Reprising their characters from last year were Oscar nominee Robert Forster (Jackie Brown) as Galileo; Dan Lauria (The Wonder Years) as Attila, and Wendie Malick (Just Shoot Me) as Emily. Portraying Darwin this year was Charles Shaughnessy (The Nanny), and bringing Steve Allen to life was Gary Cole (The West Wing). Directing the episode again was Frank Megna, and it was again co-produced by Diana Ljungaeus and Bob Ladendorf.

Steve Allen’s son Bill attended the performance. Jayne Meadows, Allen’s widow, could not be present but sent a warm note (read by Cole as Steve) praising last year’s production and wishing us the best for this year’s performance. The reading was followed by a champagne toast led by CFI/Los Angeles Executive Director Jim Underdown and a Darwin birthday cake.

The following Sunday morning, author David Contosta spoke to more than 100 attendees at CFI/Los Angeles and in Orange County about his new book on Darwin and Lincoln (born on the same day as Darwin in 1809). Rebel Giants: The Revolutionary Lives of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin (Prometheus Books) was nominated for the Lincoln Prize for the best book about Abraham Lincoln in 2008.

Rounding out the week’s events on Sunday afternoon was a performance of A Dangerous Descent, playwright/biochemist Colin Cox’s Garden-of-Eden clash between Adam, Eve, and Adam’s first wife Lilith (yes, first wife.) The three find a pocket watch and dive into a scorching argument about whether it was intelligently designed or not. Even the primarily CFI-minded audience had to hang on for dear life as the three (fictional) characters blazed through an array of arguments that spanned both centuries and many branches of learning. More than a hundred attended, including the noted actor Michael York.

It was a truly exhilarating week at CFI/Los Angeles honoring the life and ideas of the scientist whose work has withstood the test of time—and creationists.

According to Editor Alejandro Borgo, though Pensar was well-received during its five-year run, the magazine was unable to achieve the subscription and distribution levels needed to maintain publication. The rising cost of paper, printing, and postage—combined with the global economic recession—finally made Pensar too costly to maintain in its current form. The Pensar editorial staff and writers expressed their appreciation to readers for their support and are looking for ways to keep some of the material in circulation.

The Council for Secular Humanism (a sister organization to our Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) made some headlines in February with a report released to the national media calling into question many of the findings contained in a widely cited Baylor University Religion Survey of 2008. Baylor, a Baptist university, claimed in its survey that America is as religious as it has always been, adding that belief in religion is a universal characteristic displayed by all peoples around the world. Baylor researchers recently published their findings in a book called What Americans Really Believe (Baylor University Press, 2008).

The CSH report, “Is the Baylor Religion Study Reliable?” (PDF), contradicts these claims, suggesting that Baylor and lead researcher Rodney Stark may have improperly evaluated the data and consequently misinformed the public and the media.

The Council’s report points to a growing body of research by academic institutions and major survey organizations that clearly documents a downward shift of religious adherence in the United States. Why does the Baylor study contradict this? Independent scholar Gregory S. Paul, author of the Council’s report and author of a major article on these matters in Free Inquiry (December 2008/January 2009) says that Baylor relied on a flawed methodology.

“The Baylor team has adopted a curious way of treating atheism, forms of unbelief short of atheism, and religious belief. This approach places a disproportionate emphasis on convinced atheism—the confident rejection that a personal God exists—at the expense of more moderate forms of nontheism,” said Paul. The report suggests that Baylor has failed to document large numbers of Americans who reject conventional religious beliefs, such as those who self-define as agnostic or “spiritual but not religious.” The Council’s report declares that “Baylor’s methods largely ignore these doubters, making nonbelief appear less prevalent in society than it truly is. The Baylor team treats almost any deviation from strict atheism as a sign of religiosity. Doing so falsely maximizes the apparent level of faith.”

The United States is still the most religious country in the First World, but the Baylor thesis that “‘faith American style’ is holding its own is clearly false,” states the report. “Religious belief and activity in America are trending downward in so many ways that it is simply untenable to pretend that the nation is growing more religious.”

In 1940 Montreal, Henry was a young man interested in radio repair and Morse code. Zita, Henry’s then-girlfriend and later beautiful assistant in his magic shows, remembers walking down St. Catherine Street. The Royal Canadian Air Force was advertising its need for radio operators. Henry quickly enlisted and was sent to help start an air training camp in western Canada.

“As a relaxation, away from his daily demands, he became interested in the fine art of magic,” says Zita. “That’s where the love of this art and the psychology of it and what it can do for an individual began.” A year later he and Zita were married. A terrific writer, he proposed through the mail.

Henry was honorably discharged from the service in December 1941. With his knowledge of electronics and his entrepreneurial spirit, he built the first recording studio open to the public in Montreal.

In the exciting atmosphere of the 1960s, it seemed appropriate to experiment by opening the first party supply store in the city. “Henry Gordon’s Party Centre” opened to great fanfare, selling “everything for enjoyment under one roof,” as its motto proudly declared. It was a great success. “Henry always said, if you want to try something you’ve got to find the timing and go along with the bumps,” explains Zita.

He opened a school for magic in the store, which thrived for nineteen years. Having always referred to magic as a fine art and to himself as an honest fraud, he became very annoyed by the famous magicians who cashed in on the psychedelic period by calling themselves psychics and destroying the integrity of magic.

One of the earliest debunkers, in the 1970s he (with Zita) performed magic and debunking on cruise ships. “It proved to be very successful, particularly when sailing through the Bermuda Triangle,” Henry joked in his article in the book Skeptical Odysseys, edited by Paul Kurtz. In 1978, Kurtz attended a skeptical symposium in Montreal, and shortly afterward Henry was elected a scientific and technical consultant to CSICOP.

For two years Henry wrote the debunking column “ExtraSensory Deception” for the Toronto Sun, which was the first such column in North America. He went on to write a regular column called “Debunking” for the Toronto Star’s Sunday paper.

Editor Gerry Hall, who wanted to introduce facts and science to counter the generally pro-paranormal tone of many newspapers, was attracted to Henry’s work because of his diligence and care for detail. “He was a skeptic who was willing to do the work to track something down,” says Hall. “There were a coterie of people who made yearly predictions and he would have probably had a complete file on them and he would find the twenty things they predicted that were wrong.” Henry turned his critical eye to everything from UFO sightings to psychic detectives and chiropractors.

His writing and skepticism fed on each other. By now a CSICOP Fellow, he would often report on its activities. Meanwhile, his writings attracted a great many people—especially students—into the movement. Two physics students helped him start the Ontario Skeptics, along with Eric McMillan.

“When I first met him he was writing a column in the Star about debunking,” McMillan recalls. “That was mind opening for me, for me that was what turned me on to skepticism.”

There was a great deal of excitement at the launch of the organization. “It was often said, we light our little candle in the dark and hope to attract people to that light, but still we realize we’re just one little light in the dark.”

There were instances when that light seemed quite a bit brighter. In 1987 Henry Gordon appeared on WBZ-TV Boston along with Uri Geller. Geller attempted to perform his well-known trick of moving a compass needle by waving his hands. After much grunting, Geller had to give up. Henry had strapped a much stronger magnet to his knee.

Another high point occurred when Henry appeared at Montreal’s popular Saidye Bronfman Theatre disguised as psychic Elchonen. He fooled the audience and then later returned on stage as himself. Some asked to have their money refunded, but many returned to hear Henry speak on the paranormal.

These incidents, as well as many of his columns, are described in his book Extrasensory Deception (Prometheus Books 1987). Henry authored magic books for children as well as one focusing almost exclusively on Shirley MacLaine, titled Channeling into the New Age.

A gifted performer before audiences of hundreds, Henry was equally comfortable entertaining small groups. He was a real family man. At his funeral ceremony his granddaughter affectionately referred to him as Zaida, noting that his magic took place both on and off stage. The spotlight didn’t shine on every magical moment Henry gave his family and the world, she added, but at that moment the spotlight was shining on Henry one more time.

Henry was indeed involved in one last bit of magic. A broken wand ceremony was carried out by Ron Guttman, past president of the Sid Lorraine Hat and Rabbit Club, the Toronto branch of the International Brotherhood of Magicians (IBM). The broken wand symbolizes broken hearts at Henry’s absence. It also represents the fact that a wand without its magician is of no use. “We send Henry into the mystery of all mysteries,” said Guttman, concluding the ceremony.

The Club had awarded Henry an Order of Merlin, which recognizes a member’s service of over twenty-five years to IBM. Skepticism was a vital part of Henry’s magic, and in turn, magic informed his skeptical enterprise.

Throughout his life, Henry was a major figure in city life wherever he lived, and he appeared regularly in the media, from Larry King Live to opera. Once on CBC’s Radio Noon he was introduced: “We’re going to talk about ghosts today, and here is Henry Gordon who has come to spoil our day again.” A skeptic is not usually rewarded, but Henry was a hero, and, according to Gerry Hall, he made a difference. “He was one of the great skeptics in Toronto and we are lucky we got him.”

To McMillan, Henry demonstrated that “a skeptical life is not necessarily a life with a narrow focus, that we just focus on paranormal nonsense and science to correct it. A skeptical life is being interested in everything . . . everything that has to do with human beings.”

“He had an intellectual curiosity, whether it was mechanics, whether it was music . . . [he was] self taught. . . . My goodness, he was full of surprises,” said Zita.