Background

It’s an old story—in more ways than one. In 1986 the family of Allen and Carmen Snedeker (respectively a stone-quarry foreman and former bowling alley cocktail waitress) moved into an old residence, known as the Hallahan House, in Southington, Connecticut. The family included three sons, ages thirteen, eleven, and three (the two oldest being Carmen’s by a previous marriage), and a six-year-old daughter; two nieces would later follow.

It is disputed whether the Snedekers knew when they moved in on June 30 that the house had been a funeral home. They maintained they did not; however, some neighbors insisted otherwise, and the previous owners emphatically stated that the Snedekers were informed of the house’s former use prior to their moving in. In any case, the family soon discovered in the basement a box of coffin handles, a chain-and-pulley casket lift, and a blood drainage pit—unmistakable relics of the previous business, the Hallahan Funeral Home.

The creepy setting may well have had a powerful suggestive effect. Spooky phenomena began with the oldest son, Philip, whose basement bedroom was adjacent to the gruesome area. Soon he reported seeing ghosts, although his parents say they first attributed this to cobalt treatments he was receiving for Hodgkin’s disease. Philip’s personality changed drastically: he began wearing leather, developed an interest in demonology, and even reportedly broke into a neighbor’s home, telling his mother he wanted a gun so he could kill his stepfather (Corica and Smith 1988a; Rivard 1988; Carpenter 1988).

The phenomena allegedly continued for two years. A seventeen-year-old niece claimed an unseen hand fondled her on occasion as she lay in bed, and there were many other reported occurrences, including more apparitions, noises, and physical attacks—especially alleged demonic sexual attacks on Carmen Snedeker (Carpenter 1988; Corica and Smith 1988a).

Then the Snedekers brought in notorious “demonologist” Ed Warren and his “clairvoyant” wife Lorraine. The couple made a business—some would say a racket—of spirits. They came to be called many things, ranging from “passionate and religious people” to “scaremongers” and “charlatans” (Duckett 1991). Already having helped promote the Amityville “horror” and a similar West Pittston, Pennsylvania, “nightmare” (Curran 1988), they continued their modus operandi of arriving at a “haunted” house and transforming the case into a “demonic” one, in keeping with their own medieval-style Catholic beliefs. (Like the Lutzes at Amityville and the Smurls at West Pittston, the Snedekers were self-described devout Catholics.)

Bringing with them two “psychic researchers” (the Warrens’ grandson and nephew), Ed and Lorraine Warren moved into the house for nine weeks. While denying there was any book deal in progress, the researchers had in fact made just such an arrangement. Mrs. Snedeker had already told her upstairs neighbor about the deal, saying she and her husband were to receive one-third of the profits (Carpenter 1988; Corica and Smith 1988a, 1988b).

Soon both Al and Carmen Snedeker were publicly claiming to have been raped and sodomized by demons—the same claim made in a previous case involving the Warrens (Nickell 1995, 131). They would repeat these claims on national television shows—notably on Sally Jessy Raphael—to promote their book with the Warrens, In a Dark Place: The Story of a True Haunting (Warren, et al. 1992). It was written with professional horror-tale writer Ray Garton and timed—like the Sally show—for Halloween promotion, 1992.

Investigation

Although I had earlier appeared with Carmen Snedeker on The Maury Povich Show (taped March 2, 1992), my investigation intensified when Sally Jessy Raphael producers sent me an advance copy of the Warrens and Snedekers’ book and invited me on the show. I later visited Southington as a guest of one of the Snedekers’ neighbors.

On the Sally show (taped October 19, aired October 30), I appeared with the Warrens and Snedekers as well as several of the latter’s skeptical Southington neighbors. Ed made veiled threatening asides to me (not aired) and, offstage, swore like a sailor. During the taping, the Snedekers sat on a brass bed while telling their story of demonic sexual attack.

Among their most effective critics was Mrs. Kathy Altemus, who lived across the street from the Snedekers during their entire residence in the Hallahan House. Beginning in mid-July 1988, Mrs. Altemus kept a journal of events relating to 208 Meriden Avenue. As she told Sally, “I discovered that there were usually things going on in the neighborhood that explained the things they put in the newspaper.” The journal—which she generously shared with me to help “expose the truth” (Altemus 1993)—juxtaposes her written records with news clippings arranged chronologically. The result is revealing. For instance, the television program A Current Affair mentioned the sound of clanking chains in the house, presumably from the coffin lift in the basement. But Mrs. Altemus’s journal shows that the noise most likely was from a truck that passed by, making a sound like it was “dragging a chain.” Other events also had credible explanations, some attributable to various passersby mentioned in the journal as “pulling pranks on the ‘haunted house’” (Nickell 1995, 137, 147 n. 98),

The journal also sheds light on another event. As sensationalized in the New Britain Herald, either a “bizarre coincidence or ghost” was indicated by a power outage—caused by a tree limb that fell onto an electrical line outside the Hallahan House just after A Current Affair broadcast “a segment on the Snedeker family of that address.” According to the paper a utility spokesman “was at a loss to explain just why the limb chose that particular time to knock out the power.” In fact, however, the incident did not occur at the time of the television program but approximately two hours later. Besides, as the journal makes clear, such outages have occurred several times on tree-lined Meriden Avenue, when limbs have fallen on the uninsulated line. Such an event, in fact, actually occurred when I was in Southington at the Altemus home in June 1993. It seems unlikely that demonic forces were heralding my arrival or had no better means of attempting to scare me away.

Long before the Sally show, in response to the Warrens’ shameless media exploitation, the Snedekers’ landlady—who had served them with an eviction notice for failing to pay their rent—had responded to the supernatural claims. She and her husband, she said, had owned the property for two and a half years and experienced no problems with it.

“Personally, my husband and I do not believe in ghosts and to us, the whole issue seems ridiculous. I find it ironic that after more than two years as tenants, suddenly we are told about these alleged ghosts and then read in the paper that the Warrens will be conducting a seminar and will be charging the public for it.

“If the ghosts really are there, then why did the Snedekers stay there over two years and why are they staying there now? Are they looking for publicity or profit, or what?” the landlady said (qtd. in DiMauro and Starmack 1989).

The Snedekers’ upstairs neighbor had similar views. Calling the Warrens “con artists,” she said: “I haven’t experienced anything. I definitely know that no one has been raped up here.” She told reporters that the Warrens, who she was convinced were exploiting the situation for personal gain, “have caused a lot of problems here and they are not ghost problems” (Corica and Smith 1988b).

Other revealing information came to light in Southington—about Philip Snedeker’s drug use, vandalism, and other misbehavior. There was even an explanation for the sexual touching that Carmen’s niece had felt “from an unseen hand.” The boy was actually caught fondling his nieces while they slept. “Steven” (as he is called in the book) “was taken away by the police that afternoon. He was questioned, at which time he confessed that he’d been fondling the girls while they slept at night, and that he’d attempted unsuccessfully to have sex with his twelve-year-old cousin.” He was later taken to the juvenile detention center, where a psychiatrist diagnosed him as schizophrenic (Warren et al. 1992, 145–147).

Conclusions

Many people branded the Warren-Snedeker-Garton book fiction. Said the husband of the Snedekers’ landlady: “It’s a fraud. It’s a joke. It’s a hoax. It’s Halloween.” He added, “It’s a scheme to make money.” Those comments appeared in a brilliantly titled newspaper article (Schmidt 1992), “Couple sees ghost; skeptics see through it.” As indicated by the evidence—the publicity-seeking actions in the case and the timing of the book for Halloween promotion—there is reason to doubt the motives of those involved. If the case did not originate as a hoax, I concluded from my original investigation (Nickell 1995, 139), people could scarcely be blamed for thinking it has been transformed into one.

Subsequent developments have only supported that conclusion. Some of the co-authors of the Warrens’ books have reportedly since admitted that Ed Warren (who died in 2006) told them to make up incidents and details to create “scary” stories (Nickell 2006). Ray Garton, the award-winning horror writer who wrote the book about the Southington case—on which The Haunting in Connecticut movie is based—has now effectively repudiated that book. He says he is glad that it went out of print, adding: “The family involved, which was going through some serious problems like alcoholism and drug addiction, could not keep their story straight, and I became very frustrated; it’s hard writing a non-fiction book when all the people involved are telling you different stories” (“Ray Garton” 2009). So much for the movie being “Based on True Events.”

References

• Carpenter, Bryant. 1988. Southington haunting is daunting. Record-Journal (Meriden, Connecticut), August 13.
• Corica, Susan, and Glenn Smith. 1988a. An unworldly being. Herald Extra (New Britain, Connecticut), August 15.
• —. 1988b. Haunted house claim clouded by tenant, landlord dispute. Herald, August 29.
• Curran, Robert, with Jack and Janet Smurl and Ed and Lorraine Warren. 1988. The Haunted: One Family’s Nightmare. New York: St. Martin’s.
• Dimauro, Ken, and Jeanne Starmack. 1989. Demonic presence said to plague family. Observer, August 18.
• Duckett, Jodi. 1991. The Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania), November 5, 1991.
• I was raped by a ghost. 1992. Sally Jessy Raphael show transcript (no. 1084), Multimedia Entertainment, October 30.
• Nickell, Joe. 1995. Entities: Angels, Spirits, Demons, and Other Alien Beings. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
• —.2006. Death of a demonologist: Ed Warren dead at 79. Skeptical Inquirer 30:6 (November/December), 8.
• Rivard, Kathy. 1988. Southington family spooked by house. Bristol Press (Bristol, Connecticut), August 11.
• Schmidt, Karen. 1992. Couple sees ghost; skeptics see through it. Hartford Courant, October 30.
• Warren, Ed, Lorraine Warren, Al Snedeker, and Carmen Snedeker, with Ray Garton. 1992. In a Dark Place: The Story of a True Haunting. New York: Villard Books.
• Wikipedia. 2009. Ray Garton. Accessed February 27, 2009.

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.

Belief in witchcraft is rampant in rural Papua New Guinea, and murder for suspected sorcery is a common practice. In 2008, some fifty people were victims of witchcraft-related murder in the Highlands provinces. While there are no exact figures, many incidents occur in remote areas and remain unreported. When a death occurs, the locals often close ranks and refuse to cooperate with the authorities.

This modern witch craze is worldwide. As Leo Igwe of the Center for Inquiry/Nigeria has noted, ritual killings and witchcraft-related murders are prevalent in many parts of Africa. These crimes are also widespread in South America and Asia, especially in India and Malaysia. There are scattered cases in Europe, especially in the United Kingdom, and even in Australia.

The practice also exists in America. Last year there were two reports of witchcraft-related murder trials in the United States—the cases of Carla Mendez in Los Angeles and Lawrence Douglas Harris Sr. in Sioux City, Iowa. Voodoo, santeria, animal sacrifice, and other forms of “black magic” are still practiced in some parts of the country, particularly in communities in Miami and New Orleans.

Belief in sorcery is strongly rooted in Papua New Guinea. Many believe in the existence of sangumas, witches, sorcerers, or people with magical powers. Sangumas are accused of invoking curses, hexes, and spells to bring misfortune to their villages. These victims are held responsible for occurrences where natural explanations can be offered but aren’t recognized. Sangumas are often blamed for natural disasters and seemingly inexplicable deaths, for example, from cancer or HIV/AIDS.

The legal proceedings that follow the accusation are a sham. The victims are usually tried by church pastors and unqualified officials presiding over a kangaroo court. The inevitable punishment is execution, performed immediately in a public place by a frenzied group of tribespeople. Victims are sometimes hanged, stoned, shot, beheaded, butchered, buried alive, or burned at the stake after being doused with gasoline and set on fire. Others escape death but suffer attempted murder, sexual abuse, and torture, often to extract a confession.

Disturbingly, accusations of witchcraft are not invariably indicative of superstitious belief. Sometimes there are ulterior motives underlying the claims. Some deaths are crimes of vengeance or of an accuser seeking resolution in an ownership dispute. Some murders are drug-related. In a real-life version of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, some victims have violated social taboos and are guilty of socially stigmatized behavior, such as infidelity, unmarried pregnancy, or homosexuality. To shift blame and avoid punishment for real crimes, charges are often laid against innocent individuals or even animals. In Kwara, Nigeria, a goat was held in custody for attempting to steal a vehicle. A literal scapegoat, it is claimed that the human culprit transformed magically into a goat to escape arrest.

Papua New Guinea is in dire need of skepticism, education, and legal reform. It appears that the latter is finally happening. These latest horrific killings, and no doubt the ensuing media outrage, have prompted the country’s Constitutional Review and Law Reform Commission to create new laws to prevent (or at least reduce) witchcraft-related deaths.

Neither of these cases seems particularly surprising. Both patients were already in the hospital and not for trivial reasons. Both must have been anxious. Undoubtedly many patients in such situations express anxiety and fear of death, even when they are not expected to die. When, as expected, they do not die, it’s no big deal and isn’t remembered. But when such a patient does die, it’s a notable event and is remembered.

This type of selective memory is an important cause of belief in many nonexistent phenomena. Another from the medical arena is the belief that more babies are born when the moon is full. This is simply false. There have never been any well-done studies that support such a belief. So from whence did the belief spring? Selective memory on the part of maternity-room personnel. When there happens to be a lot of births during a full moon, it is noted and remembered. Neither slow nights when the moon was full nor busy nights when it wasn’t are taken into account as evidence against the relationship. Selective memory also plays an important role in the belief in such things as astrology, biorhythm theory, prophetic dreams, and the like.

But memory is not only selective, it is constructive. The physician who believes in the prophetic abilities of patients to foretell their own deaths will be very likely to misremember patients’ comments as more prophetic than they actually were. Any claim that is based only on such selective memories should be viewed with great suspicion.

The Nobel foundation obliquely acknowledged that situation by saying the prize went for the discovery of the virus, not for detection of the link between the virus and the AIDS disease (SI News and Comment, January/February 2009).

Biomedical scientists (106 in all) from seventeen countries have published a letter in a prominent scientific journal saying Gallo deserves equal credit. And a major event is planned in May honoring Gallo on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his co-discovery.

In a letter titled “Unsung Hero Robert C. Gallo” (Science, 323: 206, 2009), the international group of scientists say that while Nobel Prize recipients Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier “fully deserve the award, it is equally important to recognize” Gallo’s contributions.

“Gallo definitely proved HIV-1 as the cause of AIDS through the successful isolation and long-term cultivation of HIV-1 and developed a diagnostic kit that prevented new infections and saved thousands of lives. These contributions . . . warrant equal recognition. . . .”

The letter continues: “Barré-Sinoussi and Montagnier isolated a virus but . . . could not establish whether it was the AIDS virus, an achievement accomplished by Gallo and colleagues just one year later. Gallo . . . learned to grow the virus and, furthermore, discovered its role, saved the blood supply, and opened the way for drug and vaccine development. Without Gallo’s contributions, the relevance of the virus to AIDS might not have been recognized and many thousands more lives would have been lost. Given the enormous impact of these developments on the lives of countless thousands globally, Gallo’s contributions should not go unrecognized.”

Gallo also has been outspoken against those who try to deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS (“AIDS: Denialism vs. Science,” September/October 2007).

An endnote to the Science letter says the letter-writing initiative was done independently of Gallo’s influence. The coordinator of the letter effort is Guido Poli, head of the AIDS Immunopathogenesis Unit at San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Milan, Italy.

Poli says he and the letter writers, many of them leaders in the HIV field, felt the Nobel committee had an unfortunate anti-Gallo bias. Poli worked at the National Institutes of Health for seven years and witnessed the development of AIDS research during its first years.

He told the Skeptical Inquirer he hadn’t heard from Gallo directly, “although people in his staff told me that he was happy about the letter.”

May 4, 2009, marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of Gallo’s paper in Science reporting his findings identifying the AIDS virus. To commemorate the discovery, the University of Maryland School of Medicine is hosting a three-day celebratory event in Baltimore May 9–11. It includes a gala honoring Gallo, “Celebrating a Visionary’s Quest for Discovery,” and a symposium, “25 Years After Discovering HIV as the Cause of AIDS.” The National Cancer Institute, where Gallo did his research, is co-sponsor.

Poli told SI he has been invited as a speaker to the celebration. “I interpret that as a way to say ‘thanks!’”

Concerns by some parents have kept alive the idea of some link, which has not been supported by the scientific literature (see “The Anti-Vaccination Movement,” SI November/December 2007).

Jeffrey S. Gerber and Paul A. Offit of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia published a review in the February 15 (2009) Clinical Infectious Diseases (48:456–61) of twenty peer-reviewed scientific studies published between 1999 and 2004. The studies show no connection.

The authors examined three specific claims some have proposed: the combination measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism by damaging the intestinal lining; the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal, formerly in some vaccines, is toxic to the central nervous system; and the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the nervous system.

They reviewed the relevant epidemiological evidence and found no support for these claims. In one study, for instance, researchers in England evaluated 498 autistic children born from 1979 through 1992. No change in the rates of autism diagnoses after the 1987 introduction of the MMR vaccine was observed. A study in Denmark compared the incidence of autism in children who had received two different levels of thimerosal or no thimerosal at all. There was no relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism. On the third claim, they note that vaccines “do not overwhelm the immune system . . . even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously.”

“Twenty epidemiologic studies have shown that neither thimerosal nor MMR vaccine causes autism,” conclude Gerber and Offit. “These studies have been performed in several countries by many different investigators who have employed a multitude of epidemiologic and statistical methods. The large size of the studied populations has afforded a level of statistical power sufficient to detect even rare associations.

“These studies, in concert with the biological implausibility that vaccines overwhelm a child’s immune system, have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism. Further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on more-promising leads.”

The new Italian peer-reviewed study was carried out over a ten-year period and published in the February issue of Pediatrics. Thousands of healthy Italian babies in the early 1990s were given two different amounts of thimerosal as part of their routine vaccinations. Ten years later, 1,403 of those children were identified and given a battery of brain-function tests. Researchers found small differences in only two of twenty-four measurements, and “they might be attributable to chance,” they said. Only one case of autism was found, and that was in the group with the lower thimerosal.

“Put together with the evidence of all the other studies,” said the study’s lead author, Alberto Tozzi of Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome, “this tells us there is no reason to worry about the effect of thimerosal in vaccines.”