It is not difficult to set up experiments that seemingly “prove” that bogus treatments work. Health journalists, in particular, are regularly taken in by such bogus studies, and the misleading results are subsequently reported in the press, perpetuating the public’s belief in these treatments.

I will give several examples from the realm of “alternative” medicine. They are, of course, entirely fictitious. Not that there is a shortage of real ones, but these days one has to be careful not to end up in the hands of libel lawyers (see “Keep Libel Out of Science,” SI, May/June 2010).

Bogus Experiment No. 1

Most clinical trials test whether one treatment is better than another. These studies are called “superiority trials.” Other studies are aimed at testing whether one therapy is as effective as another. They are called “equivalence trials.” My first example is an equivalence trial comparing a highly dilute homeopathic remedy with an accepted and well-known drug, say paracetamol (known in the U.S. as acetaminophen). Take two hundred patients with a sprained ankle and randomize them to take homeopathic arnica (the experimental treatment) or paracetamol (the control treatment). One or two days later, measure the swelling of the injured ankle as an undeniably objective outcome measure. The results will show that the swelling diminished in both groups and that no difference between the two groups emerged. The conclusion, therefore, is that both are equally effective; however, homeopathy (not having any actual active ingredient) caused fewer adverse events. The headline in the papers might read: “Homeopathy Better than Paracetamol.”

The trick here is to select an outcome measure that is not affected by the “accepted and well-known” drug. Paracetamol does not reduce swelling, and few people would claim otherwise. Thus, it acts as a placebo. Comparing two different placebos should always result in equivalence. Yet the illusion can be quite convincing.

Bogus Experiment No. 2

My second fictitious study is also an equivalence trial. It compares homeopathic care against conventional medicine for a serious chronic condition, say Crohn’s disease. Twenty patients are randomized to be treated with either approach. The results demonstrate that the carefully chosen endpoint (e.g., a symptom score) reveals no differences between the groups. The conclusion: homeopathy is as effective as standard treatment of Crohn’s disease. The headline this time? “Homeopathy Scientifically Proven to Work for Life-Threatening Diseases.”

The trick here is to underpower the study dramatically. Underpowered equivalence trials will tend to (falsely) suggest equivalence between the two tested approaches—a safe bet for illusionists.

Bogus Experiment No. 3

Another approach is to conduct a “pragmatic” trial. Such studies are currently very popular because, according to their proponents, they best reflect the “real life” situation of clinical practice. In this trial, chronically ill patients are randomized to receive either standard care (the control group) or standard care plus homeopathy (the experimental group). The primary measure of outcome for that study could be patient satisfaction, well-being, quality of life, or some other subjective endpoint. Due to the regular, lengthy, empathetic encounters received by the latter group, patients are bound to feel better and improve. Illusionists will then interpret this benefit as being caused by the specific effects of the homeopathic remedies. The headline: “Homeopathy Proven to Help Chronically Ill Patients.”

The trick, in this case, is that A (standard care) plus B (homeopathy) is always more than A alone (A<A+B)—unless, of course, B is zero. But an empathetic encounter does, of course, have an impact on many subjective outcome measures. If, in clinical trials, we do not control for nonspecific effects, it is always easy to make a treatment look effective, even in a randomized trial.

Bogus Experiment No. 4

My last illusionists’ stunt is an animal study. Such experiments, it is often (falsely) claimed, are not affected by placebo effects. Ten experimental rats receive a diet to which either a homeopathic product or a placebo is added. The aim here is not to test for therapeutic effects but to find out whether homeopathy can cause a biological effect in principle. All conceivable types of bias and confounding are excluded. The study can be designed to be completely watertight. The rats receive the treatments and are observed for several weeks. At the end of this period, all rats in the homeopathy group have died, but all of the control animals are alive. The conclusion: homeopathy generates biological effects and is thus different from placebo. The headline: “Animal Experiments Prove the Principles of Homeopathy.”

The trick is simple: we need only to select the right “remedy” (and “hide” this in the small print of the experiment). For my fictitious experiment, I chose a “mothertincture” of arsenic. This is pure, undiluted, and very toxic arsenic, yet it is strictly speaking a homeopathic preparation.

The conclusion? Bogus experiments are not difficult to set up, and it is not difficult to fool uncritical people with their results. But they are still only tricks of illusionists who aim to mislead us. It follows that, if we fail to apply our skills of critical assessment or, worse still, we never had such skills, illusionists pretending to be scientists can be a menace.

Born in Cleveland to Turkish immigrants and raised a secular Muslim, Dr. Mehmet Cengiz Oz is vice-chair and professor of surgery at Columbia University. Thanks to his many appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show, and now with his own Oprah-sponsored The Dr. Oz Show, he has suddenly become the nation’s most famous heart surgeon. Each year he performs more than three hundred cardiac operations at New York-Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan. His speaking fee is $100,000. Author of hundreds of technical papers and a series of YOU books—the most recent is YOU: Having a Baby—his admirers are now in the millions.

It is not widely known that Oz has been profoundly influenced by Emanuel Swedenborg, a Swedish Protestant fundamentalist who, late in life, became a spiritualist and Sweden’s most famous trance medium. In the November/December 2007 issue of Spirituality and Health, a glossy bimonthly devoted to New Age topics, Oz coauthored an article titled “Mehmet Oz Finds His Teacher,” about how his wife Lisa introduced him to the theology of Swedenborg. (Lisa, by the way, is a Reiki Master. Reiki is a Japanese form of alternative medicine developed by a Buddhist monk.)

Once greatly admired by thinkers as diverse as Emerson, Goethe, Blake, William James’s father, and John Chapman—better known as Johnny Appleseed—Swedenborg is now almost forgotten except for a small cult following. Here is a thumbnail biography.

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) was a respected Swedish scientist until middle age, when Jesus appeared to him in a vision. The Lord persuaded him to abandon science and devote the rest of his life to theology. After Swedenborg’s death, his followers in England founded The Church of the New Jerusalem based on his fifty or so books. Remnants of this church still flourish in England and in the United States, where Swedenborgians number an estimated 6,000.

Swedenborg never doubted that every verse in the Bible was God inspired. His deviations from orthodoxy resulted from endless trances that today would be called OBEs (out-of-body experiences). Among his many books, the most popular by far was Heaven and Hell. Swedenborg claimed to have visited both regions in his trances, where he supposedly spoke with angels, devils, and spirits of the departed. His book contains detailed descriptions of heaven and hell.

All of Swedenborg’s books were written in Latin. A series titled Heavenly Secrets consists of eight volumes. Although he never married, Conjugal Love was a widely read treatise. Another popular book, Apocalypse Revealed, is a verse-by-verse analysis of the Bible’s Book of Revelation.

Swedenborg’s most worthless book, Life on Other Worlds, contains—fasten your seatbelt!—detailed accounts of his out-of-body travels to the five then-known planets, the Moon, and five planets outside the solar system. On each of these worlds he was able to chat with the human inhabitants and the bodiless spirits of deceased humans who serve the inhabitants. He also visited the heavens and hells of some worlds, where he spoke with humans who became angels and humans evil enough to become demons. Some of these trips “lasted a day,” he writes, “others a week, and yet others for months.”

Swedenborg’s first visit was to Mercury. Its spirits were able to invade his brain, searching for facts and knowledge but having no interest in ideas or opinions. The most notable spirit he meets is none other than Aristotle. We are told he was a wise man in contrast to his many “foolish” Earth followers.

The human inhabitants of Mercury are slimmer than earthlings. Their women have smaller faces. Their clothes are tight fitting. In spite of Mercury’s nearness to the sun, its atmosphere shields the planet from the sun’s heat, producing a climate “not too hot or too cold.”

Swedenborg then visits Jupiter. Its land is called “fertile.” (Swedenborg had no way of knowing that Jupiter has no land.) Its inhabitants’ main concern is bringing up their children, whom they dearly love. They are free of all evil impulses, such as stealing and greater crimes. They know nothing of wars but are a “gentle and sweet” people who live in a state of “blessedness” and “inner happiness.” Their clothing is made of “bluish bark or cork.” When they sit down to eat they do not use chairs or benches but instead sit on piles of fig leaves. Their horses resemble ours, only smaller.

I was further informed by the spirits from that world about various matters concerning its inhabitants, such as their way of moving, and their food and houses. When moving, they do not walk upright like the inhabitants of this and many other worlds; nor do they go on all fours like animals, but when they walk they help themselves with the flat of their hands, at every other pace half rising to their feet. As they move, at every third pace they turn their faces to one side and look behind them, making a slight twist, quickly accomplished, of the body. This is because they think it impolite to be seen by others except face to face.

I spare the reader Swedenborg’s accounts of the inhabitants and spirits on Mars and Saturn. Venus is more interesting because its humans are of two kinds: one “gentle” and “humane,” the other as fierce as wild animals. The two groups, along with their spirits, live on opposite sides of Venus. Their heavens and hells are nearby.

Swedenborg devotes only three pages to the spirits and inhabitants of the Moon. The humans are small as dwarfs, but when they speak, their voices— which come from their abdomens— roar like thunder. Swedenborg assures us that the moons of other solar-system planets are also inhabited by humans and their spirits, but he gives no details. His trip to our moon is followed by visits to five planets in what he calls our “starry sky,” far beyond our sun.

I should add that the humans on our planets all worship Jesus, although he was incarnated only on Earth. Swedenborg devotes a chapter to explaining why Jesus chose our world as a place to live as a man and die for our salvation. In other writings Swedenborg claims that the Lord’s Second Coming, and the judgment of who is to be saved and who is not, actually took place in our heaven in 1757. (He was convinced, by the way, that faith in Jesus is insufficient for escaping hell. That faith must be combined with charity, or good works.)

If you are interested in reading Life on Other Worlds, a paperback translation titled Life on Other Planets was published in 2006 by the Swedenborg Foundation in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and the Swedenborg Society in London. Copies are readily available on the Internet.

The book contains a lengthy introduction by Raymond Moody, author of many books about NDEs (near death experiences) of persons whose hearts momentarily stopped beating and who had visions of entering heaven, sometimes even seeing Jesus. Moody believes NDEs are genuine out-of-body events similar to Swedenborg’s trances. He strives mightily, without success, to find something of lasting merit in Swedenborg’s crazy book.

Now for Dr. Oz’s fascination with Swedenborg’s other, saner writings.

“When Lisa and I got married,” he writes in Spirituality and Health, “there was no ’til death do us part in the ceremony.” Swedenborg had convinced Oz and Lisa that marriages are intended to last forever in paradise.

“After death the veil that separates the spiritual from the material world is lifted,” Oz goes on, “and we continue in our true selves—either as angels or evil spirits, depending on whether we have internally made a heaven or hell for ourselves while living here.” Angels, as described by Swedenborg, “are not a separate species, but people who are regenerate—literally reborn humans.” This, of course, is contrary to what the Bible says about angels and demons.

Swedenborgism, Oz believes, is close to Buddhism. “Zen Master D.T. Sesuki,” Oz writes, “once referred to Swedenborg as ‘the Buddha of the North.’” A devout Christian, Swedenborg would have violently disagreed.

The number of alternative medicines that Oz favors is not known. He believes, contrary to most doctors, that acupuncture really works, that its effect on pain is more than a placebo. Acupuncture should always be supplemented, says Oz, by what he calls the Dr. Oz Diet to lose weight. On an episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show Oz supervised an acupuncture treatment for a pain in Oprah’s shoulder. Oprah said she could hardly feel the needles and that the pain had vanished after the treatment. In the April 2010 issue of O, Oprah’s magazine, Oz’s daughter Daphne authored an article on “The Secrets of Acupuncture.”

It is hard to believe, but Oz also recommends homeopathy! Homeopaths are convinced that the more dilute a drug, the more potent it is. Accordingly, they dilute their medications until only a few or no molecules remain. Somehow, in a way totally unknown to science, the dilutant “remembers” the missing molecules! Mainstream doctors like to tell of the homeopath who forgot to take his daily pill and died of an overdose.

In the November 2009 issue of O, Oz recommended homeopathy for treating migraines. “Acupuncture and homeopathy are worth considering,” he wrote, “as adjunct therapies once you are sure the headache is not a sign of a serious
disorder.”

Ophthalmologists all agree that eye refraction problems, such as near- and far-sightedness and astigmatism, can be relieved only by corrective lenses or eye surgery. Oz thinks otherwise; search Google for “Dr. Oz, eye exercises.” Also search on Oz and acupuncture, homeopathy, remedies, and cancer.

Oz is a fine cardiac surgeon. Unlike the Wizard of Oz, he is not a humbug, but one should be wary of his far-out medical advice.

Nostradamus, history’s most famous prophesier, continues to fascinate. Claims that he foresaw the rise of Napoleon and of Hitler, among other world events, are being supplemented by assertions that he divined the terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001, and the end-times brouhaha over 2012.

I have taken a fresh look at several of his more famous quatrains, translating them from sixteenth-century French into rhymed English verses—no easy task!

Background

Mìchele de Notre-Dame (1503–1566), better known by the Latinized Nostradamus, was a French physician and astrologer who has been variously described as a scholar, a sorcerer, and a fraud. He became wealthy and honored, especially at the French court where Henry II’s queen, Catherine de Medìci (1519–1589), was a patron of astrologers and sorcerers.

Nostradamus’s major work was a collection of quatrains (four-line rhyming verses) numbering one thousand and arranged in groups of a hundred called centuries. The first 353 quatrains were published in 1555 as Les Prophéties de M. Michel Nostradamus, and they were followed by other volumes. The verses’ vague, symbolic language meant that they could be interpreted in different ways in different times, and—by a process known as retrofitting (after-the-fact matching)—an event could in hindsight look as if it had been predicted by the supposed seer.

It is sometimes said that Nostradamus wrote in “Old French” (Stray 2009, 264), but that term is reserved for the French language of the ninth to fourteenth centuries. Nostradamus actually wrote in Middle French, which was used in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. (Modern French has been used from the seventeenth century to the present. See Encyclopedia Britannica 1960, s.v. “French Language.”) Nostradamus’s quatrain lines have ten syllables each and a mid-line pause, or caesura, for rhetorical effect. The lines rhyme ABAB. The constraints of this poetic form caused him to engage in various verbal strategies, such as using compressed language, even abbreviations.

Translating Nostradamus is difficult at best, and one who would translate into verse must—like the original versifier—make things fit. I have tried to follow Nostradamus’s word choice when possible, but out of necessity I have occasionally used synonyms, altered the syntax, and made other modifications—including sometimes settling for near rhyme rather than full rhyme.

The Quatrains

Here are ten of Nostradamus’s most significant quatrains first given in the original Middle French and then recast into modern English verse and discussed.

1. The Death of King Henry II. One of Nostradamus’s most famous prophecies—number I:35—is also “the verse that made his reputation” (LeVert 1979, 67):

Le lyon ieune le vieux surmontera,

En champ bellique par singulier duelle,

Dans caige d’or les yeux luy creuera:

Deux classes vne, puis mourir, mort cruelle.

My translation:

The young lion shall overcome the old,

On field of battle by single duel;

He’ll smash his eyes with a casing of gold:

Two fleets one, then to die, a death cruel.

Published in 1555, this verse is said to predict the accidental death of King Henry II, the quatrain’s “old lion.” Reportedly, during a French jousting tournament in 1559, a splinter of a broken lance went through the visor of the King’s golden helmet (Nostradamus’s “cage of gold”) and thence through his eye into his brain. He subsequently suffered and died “a cruel death” (Roberts 1949, 20).

Alas, the quatrain was clearly not intended to refer to Henry. Just three years after publishing it, in mid-1558, Nostradamus penned a letter to the king, saying that he expected him to live a long life and predicting wonderful things in his future. Moreover, a tournament is not a “field of battle”; the verse refers to “eyes,” plural; and there is no known precedent for a golden helmet (gold is a soft metal), certainly not in the case of Henry (Randi 1993, 175). So Nostradamians are simply retrofitting, attempting to adapt later events to the French seer’s murky statements. The same is true of the word classes—interpreted by some Nostradamians as “wounds” (from Greek klasis).1 (It may mean “classes” or “knells” or—if the word is really the Latin classis—“fleets.”) The sense of the verse is that an old leader is slain by a younger one, thus unifying their forces.

2. The Coming of Napoleon. A rather typical Nostradamus quatrain, number I:60, illustrates how very different interpretations can be drawn from a single cryptic verse. Nostradamus (1555) wrote:

Vn Empereur naistra pres d’Italie,

Qui a l’Empire sera vendu bien cher,

Diront auecques quels gens il se ralie

Qu’on trouuera moins prince que boucher.

I translate the rather plain text of quatrain I:60 as follows:

A ruler will be born near Italy,

Whose cost to the Empire shall be quite dear;

They will say from those whom he shall rally

That he is less a prince than a butcher.

The phrase “near Italy” covers a lot of ground, from Austria and Corsica to France and Switzerland, and Greece and Yugoslavia. The verse is usually held to refer to Napoleon (1769–1821), but other candidates include the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II (1578–1637) and even Adolph Hitler (1889–1945). (See LeVert 1979, 80; Randi 1982, 34.)

(Another quatrain [VIII:1] that is also said to refer to Napoleon begins with the three words Pau, Nay, Oloron, which are interpreted [Robb 1961, 43–44] as an imperfect anagram [“Nay-pau-lon-Roy”] of Napoleon Roi [“King”]. However, Napoleon was not a king, and the words are simply the names of three proximate French towns [Randi 1982, 207–212].)

3. The Rise of Adolph Hitler. Another quatrain, II:24, is said to refer to Adolph Hitler most specifically. Nostradamus (1555) wrote:

Bestes farouches de faim fluues tranner:

Plus part du camp encontre Hister sera,

En caige de fer le grand fera treisner,

Quand Rin enfant Germain obseruera.

I translate the quatrain provisionally as:

They’ll swim the rivers, fiercely famished brutes:

Most of the army shall range the Ister;

In an iron cage will be drawn The Great

When Rhine’s child shall Germany watch over.

Hister is said to denote “Hitler,” and in the late 1930s Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels, whose wife was “an avid Nostradamian,” exploited this and other quatrains that supposedly prophesied France’s fall after a German invasion (Hogue 2003, 313).

Hister, or rather Ister, is actually an old name for the lower Danube River. The last line of the quatrain is rather confusing, and translators have given many different renderings. Some later texts replaced Rin with Rine (“the Rhine”) or rien (“nothing”). And Germain can mean “Germany” or another word of the exact same spelling, i.e., “brother” or “cousin.” And so the verse could read, “When a child [of the] Rhine shall keep watch over his brother” (LeVert 1979, 111), or “When the German child watches the Rhine” (Robb 1961, 47), or “When the German child will observe nothing” (Leoni 1982, 169), or other possibilities. However, because Hister, Rin, and Germain are all capitalized (Nostradamus 1555), thus consistent with proper names, and also because Nostradamus [III:58] uses Rin for “Rhine” elsewhere, I translate the words as “Ister,” “Rhine,” and “Germany.” LeVert (1979, 111) observes that, to Nostradamus’s contemporaries, the “Child of the Rhine” would indicate Charles V (1500–1558).

4. The Great London Fire. This obscure verse—quatrain II:51—has received increasing attention, some believing that it forecast the Great Fire of London in 1666. Nostradamus (1555) wrote:

Le sang du iuste à Londres fera faute

Bruslés par fouldres de vint trois les six.

La dame antique cherra de place haute:

De mesme secte plusieurs seront occis.

I translate the quatrain thusly:

Blood of the just in London shall be scarce,

With twenty three seized, by thunderbolts burned.

The senile lady shall fall from high place:

Of the same sect many more will be slain.

Nostradamus’s verse does specifically mention London and people burned. The falling of the “old lady” (La dame antique) is said to be “the subsequent falling of the statue of the Virgin from St. Paul’s steeple” (Roberts 1949, 6), though there appears to have been no such statue (Randi 1993, 191). The phrase that translates as “twenty three the six” (or “sixes”)—three times twenty plus six—could suggest the year ’66.

However, line two is missing a syllable and may be corrupt. Printers of the era sometimes set type as someone read the text aloud (Gaskell 1972, 49, 112–13), so what sounded like Bruslés par fouldres de vint trois les six might actually have read, Bruslés par fouldres plus de vint trois saisis (“Burned by lightnings, more than twenty-three seized”). In any case, Nostradamian skeptics propose a reasonable explanation of this verse—that it is a contemporaneous reference to Queen Mary Tudor of England (“Bloody Mary” [1516–1558]) and her persecution of Protestants, many of whom were burned at the stake. Her atrocities resulted in her downfall. The word antique in the third line usually means “ancient” but can also mean “eccentric” or “senile.” Mary was considered deranged and at her death was incoherent and apparently insane (LeVert 1979, 123–24; Randi 1993, 191–92).

5. A Mysterious Forecast. Among Nostradamus’s cryptic verses is quatrain III:58, which while historically murky is in another sense quite illuminating. The seer wrote (Nostradamus 1555):

Aupres du Rin des montaignes Noriques

Naistra vn grand de gents trop tard venu,

Qui defendra SAVROME & Pannoniques,

Qu’on ne saura qu’il sera deuenu.

I translate the quatrain this way:

Close by the Rhine from the Noric mountains,

A great one’s born of people come too late.

He’ll defend Saurome and Pannonians;

It shall not be learned what has been his fate.

Nostradamus predicts the birth of a “great one” whose people are late arrivers to a region “near the Rhine from the Noric mountains” (the Noric Alps). This leader will defend “Saurome” (as it should be spelled, a Slavic area, now Lithuania) and the “Pannonians” (apparently Hungarians), though his end will be unknown (LeVert 1979; Roberts 1949, 96; Leoni 1982, 611; Hogue 1997, 265–66). Nostradamians are puzzled by the quatrain, although Leoni (1982, 611) suggests an interpretation such that “the prophecy was fulfilled in reverse” and notes that some others have applied the quatrain to Hitler. Less torturously, Roberts (1949, 96) holds that “it obviously refers to an event and character in his time now lost in the maze of history.”

None of the Nostradamians seems willing to accept the more obvious explanation that Nostradamus was a failed seer. When he says of the “great one” that “it will not be learned what will become of him,” the prognosticator tacitly admits that he, too, is unable to see what the future holds!

6. Failed Prophecy of Persia. Here is one of Nostradamus’s predictions, in quatrain III:77, that gives a specific date of occurrence (Nostradamus 1555):

Le tiers climat soubz Aries comprins

Lan mil sept cens vingt & sept en Octobre,

Le roy de Perse par ceux d’Egypte prins:

Conflict, mort, pte: à la croix grãd opprobe.

I translate quatrain III:77 as follows:

The third climate, under Aries’ listing,

October, seventeen twenty-seven,

Those of Egypt capture the Persian King.

Conflict, death, loss: the Cross disgraced even.

The second line of Nostradamus’s astrological forecast is usually understood to give the date as “1727 in October” (Leoni 1982, 213; Robb 1961, 59). However, LeVert (1979, 181), calling attention to the caesura (the mid-line pause common to quatrains), observes that it could be read “one thousand seven hundred [pause] twenty and seven in October,” i.e., October 27, 1700, but this seems overreaching.2

Whatever date in the eighteenth century is chosen, the prophecy is clearly a failed one. Some Nostradamians attempt to interpret the verse’s “those of Egypt” as Turks who conquered Egypt in 1517, but as Leoni (1982, 614–15) observes, the Turks “did not, by any stretch of the imagination, capture (or even defeat) the Persian ruler.” Neither was any particular shame brought to Christendom. “And if ‘Egypt’ is taken literally, there has been no war between Egypt and Persia since 1555 (or in fact since the 6th century bc), though there may well be one in the future.” Leoni concludes that Nostradamus’s prophecy is therefore “a well-dated failure” (Leoni 1982, 615).3

(Neither is this quatrain the only one with a dated prediction that has failed. Quatrain X:72 forecast, for the seventh month of the year 1999, the coming “from the sky” of a “great King of Terror” from a place called Angoulmois [Nostradamus 1555]. Whether the word is interpreted as the French district Angoumois or as an anagram for Mongolois [Mongols—see Leoni 1982, 434–35, 750], the specified events did not occur.)

7. The Invention and Flight of the Montgolfier Balloon. In quatrain V:57, Nostradamus (1557) wrote:

Istra du mont Gaulfier & Auentine,

Qui par le trou aduertira l’armée:

Entre deux rocz sera prins le butin,

De Sext. mansol faillir la renommee.

I offer the following translation:

Going from Mount Gaussier and Aventine,

Through the hole one notifies the army;

Two rocks the booty is taken between,

For Sext. Mausol. to lose celebrity.

Some Nostradamians (e.g., Ionescu 1987) have interpreted the quatrain as predicting the invention of the Montgolfier balloon, the hot-air craft used for the first successful human flight in 1783. Stuart Robb (1961, 143) views it as “one of the most amazing prophecies of the French seer.” Supposedly, the quatrain specifically cites Montgaulfier [sic]; the word trou or “hole” refers to the balloon’s opening; and so on. Unfortunately, Gaulfier is an obvious printer’s error, a common misreading of the Middle-French long s (it resembles f), coupled with an early version of the name of a hill near Saint-Remy (Gaulsier), actually spelled Gaussier.

There, at the foot of Mount Gaussier, is a celebrated once-supposed “mausoleum” (actually only a monument) of Sextus. (Hence, Nostradamus’s “Sext. mansol” is obviously a reference with another printer’s error: an inverted u having become an n.) Nearby are the deux rocz (“two rocks”) and le trou (“hole”) through the mountain that Nostradamus surely refers to (see Leoni 1982, 266, 649; Randi 1993, 184). Therefore, the quatrain does not represent a prophecy of balloon flight but is instead a murky reference to some obscure incident—real or imagined—from the boyhood of Nostradamus, who was born at Saint-Remy (see also Roberts 1949, 164). Basically, the quatrain states how, once in the region, passage through “the hole” was effected to alert an army and a certain butin (plunder) taken between two rocks, causing the Sext[us] Mausol[eum] to lose its renown.

8–9. The Terrorist Strike on New York City. Some say the following quatrains—VI:97 and X:49 (text from 1557 and 1568 editions, respectively)—predict the attack of September 11, 2001:

Cinq & quarante degrés ciel bruslera,

Feu approucher de la grand cité neusue,4

Instant grand flamme esparse saultera,

Quãt on voudra des normãs faire preuue.

Iardin du monde aupres de cité neufue,

Dans le chemin de montaignes cauees

Sera saisi & plonge dans la Cuue,

Beuuant par force eaux soulfre enuenimees.

Here are my translations of the two quatrains:

At forty-five degrees shall burn the sky,

Fire to approach the new grand city thence;

Instantly great scattered flames will arise,

When one shall seek the Normans’ evidence.

Garden of the world near the new city,

In the pathway of cavernous mountains,

Seized and plunged into a cauldron shall be,

Forced to drink water that’s sulfur-poisoned.

Following the September 11 terrorist strike on New York City, a fake prophecy attributed to Nostradamus told of an attack on the “City of York.” The real Nostradamian prophecies refer only to “the new city” and “the new grand city.” One verse’s “hollow mountains” are interpreted as skyscrapers, and there is no doubt—with references to flames and waters poisoned by sulfur—that Nostradamus is forecasting calamity (Hogue 2003, xii–xiv).

However, before the terrorist attacks Nostradamians were offering non-terrorist explanations. Roberts (1949, 96) interpreted the first quatrain as saying, “A cataclysmic fire shall engulf the greatest and newest of the world’s big cities.” Of the second, he said (1949, 328): “This startling prophecy of a catastrophic event at a pleasure resort not far from the great new city, predicts a tremendous tidal wave of poisoned waters that shall sweep in from the resort and overwhelm the man-made mountain-like skyscrapers of the city.” Neither of these scenarios is compatible with a terrorist attack on New York, whether by nuclear means or not (Hogue 2003, xiii). Indeed, Nostradamus would seem to be speaking of Europe, at least in the first verse with its reference to “the Normans.” (In any case, New York City is not at forty-five degrees latitude but instead well under forty-one.)

10. The ‘2012’ Predictions. Several of Nostradamus’s quatrains supposedly anticipate the year 2012, the last year on the Mayan calendar (Hogue 1997). Twenty-twelvers believe that something portentous will occur then—if not the end of the world, perhaps some New Awakening of Consciousness and blah, blah, blah. Quatrain II:62 has been mentioned in this regard (Nostradamus 1555; see Andrews and Andrews 2008, 265):

Mabus puis tost alors mourra, viendra

De gens & bestes vne horrible defaite:

Puis tout à coup la vengence on verra

Cent, main, soif, faim, quãd courra la comete.

Here is how I translate quatrain II:62:

Mabus then afterwards will die; comes next

A horrible defeat of men and beasts:

All at once vengeance will be seen to vex.

A comet’s pass—bloody hand, hunger, thirst.

The word mabus is unidentified, but some Nostradamians believe it refers to Saddam Hussein, noting (incorrectly) that mabus spells sadam when held before a mirror. (In fact it reads sudam—with the s and a backward [see Andrews and Andrews 2008].) A more likely possibility is that the handwritten word was misread by the typesetter’s reader, that it was actually malus, meaning “the evil one.” Also, the first word of the last line, cent (“one hundred”), is more likely the similar-sounding sang (“blood”) (see LeVert 1979, 129).

Nostradamus predicted many calamities—often heralded by a comet, according to a superstition of his time. However, he did not make a doomsday prophecy, merely stating in a later preface that his forecasts “extend from now to the year 3797” (qtd. in Leoni 1982, 127). Nevertheless, Twenty-twelvers seem to be “desperately trying to find a way of decoding a 2012 prediction from Nostradamus’ quatrains” (Stray 2009, 268).

* * * *

As these examples show, one cannot claim that Nostradamus successfully predicted the future. In his book The Occult Conceit, Owen Rachleff (1971, 138) characterized Nostradamus’s prophecies as “exquisite examples of ambiguity, aided by a keen sense of history.” However, James Randi (1993, 223) did see the future regarding Nostradamus, predicting many years ago that his legend would survive:

An ever-abundant number of interpreters will pop up to renew the shabby exterior of his image, and that gloss will serve to entice more unwary fans into acceptance of the false predictions that have enthralled millions in the centuries since his death. Shameless rationalizations will be made, ugly facts will be ignored and common sense will continue to be submerged in enthusiasm.

Amazing! Every word has come true! Notes

1. Since 1568, the original text’s Deux classes vne has been rewritten as Deux plaies une (“Two wounds, one”) so that it would better fit King Henry’s death in 1559. Actually, Nostradamus’s classes means “fleets” everywhere else in the quatrains (Leoni 1982, 576).

2. Roberts (1949, 102) attempts to convert the date to 2025 using a “special chronology” he divines from Nostradamus.

3. See Robb (1961, 59–61) for a contrary view.

4. Here is another s/f mistake: cité neusue should be cité neufue as in the other of the pair of quatrains (X:49)—in modern French, cité neufve.

References

Andrews, Synthia, and Colin Andrews. 2008. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to 2012: An Ancient Look at a Critical Time. New York: Alpha Books.

Bleiler, E.F. See LeVert 1979.

The Classic French Dictionary. 1944. Chicago: Follett Publishing Co.

Gaskell, Philip. 1972. A New Introduction to Bibliography. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hogue, John. 1997. Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies. Shaftesbury, England: Element Books.

———. 2003. Nostradamus: A Life and Myth: The First Complete Biography of the World’s Famous and Controversial Prophet. London: Element Books.

Ionescu, Vlaicu. 1987. Nostradamus: L’Histoire Secréte du Monde. Paris: Félin; cited in Randi 1993, 177.

Leoni, Edgar. 1982. Nostradamus and His Prophecies. New York: Bell Publishing Co.

LeVert, Liberté (pseud. of E.F. Bleiler). 1979. The Prophecies and Enigmas of Nostradamus. Glen Rock, NJ: Firebell Books.

Nickell, Joe. 1989. The Magic Detectives. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Nostradamus. 1555. Les Propheties de M. Michel Nostradamus. Lyon: Chés Macé Bonhomme.

———. 1557. Les Propheties de M. Michel Nostradamus. Lyon: Chez Antoine du Rosne.

———. 1558. Epistle to Henry II, June 27. Text in Roberts 1949, 231–41.

———. 1568. Les Propheties de M. Michel Nostradamus. Lyon: Benoist Rigaud.

Rachleff, Owen. 1971. The Occult Conceit. Chicago: Cowles.

Randi, James. 1982. Nostradamus: The prophet for all seasons. Skeptical Inquirer 7(1): 30–37.

———. 1993. The Mask of Nostradamus: The Prophecies of the World’s Most Famous Seer. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Robb, Stewart. 1961. Prophecies on World Events by Nostradamus. New York: Ace Books.

Roberts, Henry C. 1949. The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus. New York: Nostradamus, Inc.

Stray, Geoff. 2009. Beyond 2012: Catastrophe or Awakening? A Complete Guide to End-of-Time Predictions. Rochester, VT: Bear and Company.

On March 18, 1993, The Wall Street Journal published a front-page article dealing with chiropractic treatment of children. Labeling chiropractic as a nineteenth-century philosophy wearing the white smock of science, the article castigated chiropractors for treating children for “legions of childhood afflictions” (Smith 1993).

A year later, on February 4, 1994, ABC’s 20/20 aired “Handle with Care,” an episode based on secretly videotaped visits to the offices of seventeen chiropractors who treated ear infections in children. All of the chiropractors offered treatment lasting from several weeks to a lifetime. Treatment methods were based on diagnoses ranging from subluxated vertebrae to nutritional deficiency, weak glands, food sensitivity, and a short leg.

Chiropractic treatment of children has not been curtailed by such bad publicity. Today, building on a program that began in 1993, the International Chiropractic Association offers a postgraduate “Diplomate in Clinical Chiropractic Pediatrics” (DICCP) and publishes the “peer reviewed” Journal of Clinical Chiropractic Pediatrics. The diplomate program is a thirty-module, 360-plus-hour classroom course that takes place during weekends over a three-year period. There is no hospital training and no contact with diseased or injured children—only a “mandatory observational/training weekend at a chiropractic center for special needs children under multi-disciplinary care” (ICA Council 2009).

Both American chiropractic associations endorse chiropractic care for children. In a June 2008 joint press release, for example, the American Chiropractic Association’s (ACA) Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics and the Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics of the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) announced that the DICCP is now recognized by the ACA and its council as the official credential for specialization in chiropractic pediatrics (ACA 2007).

Noting increasing public support for chiropractic treatment of children, a January 2009 press release from the ACA offered this observation: “Survey data indicates that the percentage of chiropractic patients under 17 years of age has increased at least 8.5 percent since 1991. . . . Studies are beginning to show that chiropractic can help children not only with typical back and neck pain complaints, but also with issues as varied as asthma, chronic ear infections, nursing difficulties, colic and bedwetting” (ACA 2009).

A trend toward greater use of chiropractic by children has not gone unnoticed by the medical profession. An article in the January 2007 issue of Pediatrics (the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics) described chiropractic as the most common complementary and alternative medicine practice used by children, who made an estimated thirty million visits to U.S. chiropractors in 1997 (Vohra 2007). In 1998, children and adolescents constituted 11 percent of patient visits to chiropractors (Lee 2000).

Promoting a broad scope of practice for chiropractors who treat children, the ICA Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics offers links to abstracts from chiropractic journals that support chiropractic treatment for a variety of childhood ailments (ICA Pediatrics 2009). Chiropractors commonly claim to have an effective treatment for otitis media, asthma, allergies, infantile colic, and enuresis. While many of the pediatric conditions treated by chiropractors are self-limiting, treatment is offered for such serious conditions as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, myasthenia gravis, uveitis, ADHD, and Tourette’s syndrome. For the most part, treatment for all these conditions is based upon detection and correction of vertebral misalignment (subluxation) or spinal joint dysfunction (vertebral subluxation complex). An article titled “The Child Patient: A Matrix for Chiropractic Care” in the Journal of Clinical Chiropractic Pediatrics, for example, stated that “any alteration in form or function in the child may signal the presence of subluxation, and the subluxation may in turn alter the physiology of the child” (Fallon 2005). For wellness and preventive care, parents are advised that children should be checked for subluxations by a chiropractor six to twelve times per year (Fallon 2005).

A 2009 survey of chiropractors and parents of chiropractic pediatric patients, conducted by the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association, revealed that “the indicated primary reason for chiropractic care of children was ‘wellness care’” (Alcantara 2009). The reasons given for such care would indicate that normal spines of healthy children are being manipulated for “subluxation correction.”

There is no credible evidence to support the contention that subluxation correction will restore or maintain health or that such subluxations even exist (College 1996; Mirtz 2009). Chiropractic journals publish hundreds of subluxation-based studies supporting chiropractic treatment for children but only a few studies disputing such treatment. Most medical researchers feel that claims based on the chiropractic vertebral subluxation theory do not have sufficient basis to warrant investigation. But such claims should not go unchallenged, especially when they involve treatment of children.

Contrary Opinions

To date, legitimate properly controlled studies have failed to support the claims of chiropractors who treat children for organic ailments. In the case of asthma, for example, a randomized, controlled trial of chiropractic spinal manipulation for children with mild or moderate asthma published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that “the addition of chiropractic spinal manipulation to usual medical care provided no benefit” (Balon 1998). A randomized, controlled trial of infantile colic treated with chiropractic spinal manipulation, published in a 2001 issue of Archives of Diseases in Childhood, concluded that “chiropractic spinal manipulation is no more effective than placebo in the treatment of infantile colic” (Olafdottir 2001). A recent systematic review of randomized clinical trials concluded that “there is no good evidence to show that spinal manipulation is effective for [treating] infant colic” (Ernst 2009).

There is evidence to indicate that soft-tissue manipulative techniques applied over the neck area might aid recovery from secretory otitis media (inflammation of the middle ear) by opening the eustachian tube to facilitate drainage of fluids from the middle ear (Mills 2003). Chiropractors who manipulate a child’s neck to correct subluxations might provide some symptomatic relief for otitis media by inadvertently stretching the eustachian tube. But the risk of such treatment would outweigh any possible benefit. (Although otitis media is normally self-limiting, it should be kept under observation by a pediatrician who can prescribe antibiotics, if needed, when there is acute otitis media with bacterial infection. Otitis media commonly occurs in children under three years of age. As the child grows older, an increase in the length and angle of the eustachian tube reduces chances of bacteria or viruses traveling from the throat to the middle ear.)

Considering the implausibility of the chiropractic vertebral subluxation theory, there is good reason to question the ability of chiropractors to diagnose and treat childhood ailments. A correct diagnosis notwithstanding, there is no evidence to support the belief that manipulating the spine of a child to correct vertebral subluxations would be appropriate treatment. A 1993 risk–benefit analysis of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for relief of lumbar or cervical pain, published in Online Neurosurgery, advised neurosurgeons that “potential complications and unknown benefits indicate that SMT should not be used in the pediatric population” (Powell 1993).

Considering the damage that manipulation might do to cartilaginous growth centers, there is no known justification for using spinal manipulation on an infant or a preadolescent child. Yet, many chiropractors recommend that the spine of a newborn baby be adjusted at birth to correct subluxations. According to the ICA Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics, “chiropractic care can never start too early” (ICA Home 2009).

Generally, pediatricians classify a child as being under eighteen years of age—before vertebral end plate growth is complete. In a child under the age of eight to ten years, the cartilaginous growth centers are too immature and too vulnerable to injury to be subjected to spinal manipulation. There is some speculation that injury to growth plates might result in spinal deformity (such as scoliosis or Scheuermann’s kyphosis) as growth progresses (O’Neal 2003). Such injury might not be detectable. “The incidence of subtle growth plate fractures following high-velocity [manipulation] techniques in children is surely under-appreciated because of the occult nature of these injuries” (O’Neal 2003).

The cartilaginous, flexible spine of a child is not as easily injured as an adult’s spine under normal circumstances. Referred pain caused by organic disease is not commonly experienced by children. When back pain in a child does occur, it is potentially more serious than back pain in an adult and should always be brought to the attention of a board-certified pediatrician.

Although spinal manipulation has the potential to injure the spine of a child, few such injuries have been reported in the literature. A systematic review of thirteen studies, published up to June 2004, uncovered fourteen significant manipulation-related injuries in children up to eighteen years of age, nine of which were serious (e.g., subarachnoidal hemorrhage, paraplegia) and two of which were fatal (one child died from a brain hemorrhage and another from dislocation of the atlas following neck manipulation). Ten of the injuries were attributed to manipulation done by chiropractors, one to manipulation by a physiotherapist, and one to manipulation by a medical doctor; two injuries were caused by unspecified providers of manipulation. In twenty cases of harm caused by delayed diagnosis as a result of using manipulation, seven involved a delayed diagnosis of cancer; two children died because of delayed treatment for meningitis (Vohra 2007). The incidence of spinal injuries in children is reported to be 2 to 5 percent of all spine injuries (Hayes 2005).

A Questionable Approach

High-velocity, low-amplitude thrusting, commonly used by chiropractors, is usually the type of manipulation that injures a child’s spine. Most chiropractors who manipulate an infant’s spine may simply use light thumb pressure to “adjust” an allegedly misaligned vertebra, thus reducing possibility of injury. Although such treatment may be harmless, it has no known beneficial effect other than the calming effect of human touch. Some chiropractors may use a spring-loaded stylus or an electrically powered mallet in an attempt to tap vertebrae into alignment. Chiropractors who adjust newborn babies to correct subluxations may concentrate on the upper cervical (neck) area of the spine. The upper neck is more likely to be injured by delivery during birth and is most vulnerable to injury caused by manipulation. Pediatricians have observed that “the most common traumatically injured region of the immature spine is the first and second cervical vertebrae” (O’Neal 2003).

There is no credible evidence that chiropractors are able to find subluxations in the spine of an infant. It seems unlikely that a chiropractor could detect vertebral misalignment by palpating the flexible, cartilaginous spine of an infant through a thick layer of baby fat. I have always suspected that chiropractors who say they can use their fingertips to feel subluxations in a baby’s spine are either deceiving themselves or misinterpreting what they feel.

Some chiropractors use surface electromyography, thermography, leg-length checks, or some other questionable device or approach to locate subluxations. It goes without saying that chiropractors should not expose a child to unnecessary radiation by x-raying his or her spine in a search of elusive or nonexistent subluxations. In Canada, the Alberta Society of Radiology has recommended that radiologists refuse requests from chiropractors who ask for diagnostic imaging of any type involving children aged eighteen years or younger (Editorial 1998).

Of all the claims made by chiropractors, I regard the claims made by those who treat children to be the most problematic. I have always advised against manipulating the spine of a small child or a newborn baby for any reason. Manipulation of the spine of an adolescent child under the age of eighteen should be done in concert with an evaluation and a diagnosis provided by an orthopedist, preferably a pediatric orthopedic specialist. Caring for children is very different from caring for adults and requires a special expertise. Board-certified medical and osteopathic pediatricians are best qualified to provide appropriate care based on a correct diagnosis.

Although spinal manipulation is often recommended as a treatment for back pain, this recommendation does not often apply to children. When the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published guidelines suggesting that spinal manipulation might be helpful in treating low back pain without radiculopathy (sciatic pain) when used within the first month of symptoms, its recommendations did not apply to children younger than eighteen years of age “since diagnostic and treatment considerations for this group are often different than for adults” (Bigos 1994). An adolescent child might benefit from appropriate manipulation designed to relieve symptoms caused by uncomplicated, mechanical-type back problems, but only if a definitive diagnosis has been provided by an orthopedist or a pediatrician. Use of unnecessary spinal manipulation in the treatment of children up to eighteen years of age for subluxation correction may delay appropriate treatment based on a correct diagnosis.

Some chiropractors believe that manipulating a child’s spine will stimulate the immune system and help prevent infection. On September 8, 2009, for example, the Journal of Pediatric, Maternal and Family Health Chiropractic issued a press release titled “Chiropractic Part of Swine Flu Prevention Program in Children.” The editor of the journal recommended that all children should be checked for vertebral subluxations before and during the flu season: “Since the nervous system has a direct effect on the immune system and because the spine houses and protects so much of the nerve system it is important to have your child’s spine checked for any interference” (McCoy 2009).

Such extreme views find support in the basic definition of chiropractic and in official chiropractic publications. The National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, for example, advises that “psychoneuroimmunology has revealed an interrelationship between the central nervous system and immunity (consistent with chiropractic philosophy). . . . By manually manipulating vertebrae into their normal physiological relationship, chiropractic practitioners relieve interference with the nervous system along with accompanying symptoms.” Thus, “chiropractic management of childhood disorders primarily consists of adjusting concomitant spinal subluxations and providing specific nutritional advice and/or support and other palliative measures” (Christensen 2005).

All things considered, it’s an understatement to say that “pediatric chiropractic care is often inconsistent with recommended medical guidelines” (Lee 2000). Recommendation of any complementary alternative medicine (CAM) therapy that has a risk–benefit ratio that is not acceptable and is not supported in medical literature may make a referring physician liable for negligence if the referral causes harm by delaying necessary conventional treatment (Cohen 2005). For this reason, and with the best interest of children in mind, few physicians would consider referring a child to a chiropractor.

References

ACA Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics. 2007. Pediatric diplomate certification recognized by both ICA and ACA. Available online at www.acapeds
council.org/pressrelease.html (accessed September 21, 2009).

ACA. 2009. Increasing numbers of children receive pediatric chiropractic care. January. Available online at www.acatoday.org/press_css.cfm?CID=3247 (accessed September 21, 2009).

Alcantara J., J. Ohm, and D. Kunz. 2009. The safety and effectiveness of pediatric chiropractic: A survey of chiropractors and parents in a practice-based research network. Journal of Science and Healing 5(5): 290–295.

Balon, J., et al. 1998. A comparison of active and simulated chiropractic manipulation as adjunctive treatment for childhood asthma. New England Journal of Medicine 339(15): 1013–1020.

Bigos, S.J., et al. 1994. Acute Low Back Problems in Adults. Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0642.

Christensen, M., et al. 2005. Job Analysis of Chiropractic. Greeley, CO: National Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

Cohen, M.H., and K.J. Kemper. 2005. Complementary therapies in pediatrics: A legal perspective. Pediatrics 115(3): 774–780.

College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Province of Quebec. 1966. A scientific brief against chiropractic. New Physician. September. Available online at www.chirobase.org/05RB/CPSQ/00.html (accessed September 21, 2009).

Editorial. 1998. Alberta radiologists target chiropractors. Canadian Medical Association Journal 159(10): 1237.

Ernst, E. 2009. Chiropractic spinal manipulation for infant colic: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials. International Journal of Clinical Practice 63(9): 1351–1353.

Fallon, J. 2005. The child patient: A matrix for chiropractic care. Journal of Clinical Chiropractic Pediatrics (Supplement) 6(3).

Hayes J., and T. Arriola. 2005. Pediatric spinal injuries. Pediatric Nursing. 31(6): 464–467.

ICA Council. Diplomate in Chiropractic Pediatrics. Available online at www.icapediatrics.com/members-postgrad.php (accessed September 21, 2009).

ICA Pediatrics. Journal Abstracts. Available online at www.icapediatrics.com/reference-journals.php (accessed September 21, 2009).

ICA Home. Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics. Available online at www.icapediatrics.com (accessed September 21, 2009).

Lee, A., D. Li, and K. Kemper. 2000. Chiropractic care for children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 154: 401–407.

McCoy, M. 2009. Chiropractic part of swine flu prevention program in children. McCoy Press Research Update. September 8. Available online at http://researchupdate.mccoypress.net (accessed September 21, 2009).

Mills, V., et al. 2003. The use of osteopathic manipulative treatment as adjuvant therapy in children with recurrent acute otitis media. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 157(9): 861–866.

Mirtz, T., et al. 2009. An epidemiological examination of the subluxation construct using Hill’s criteria of causation. Chiropractic and Osteopathy 17: 13. Available online at www.chiroandosteo.com/content/17/1/13 (accessed April 10, 2010).

Olafdottir E., et al. 2001. Randomised controlled trial of infantile colic treated with chiropractic spinal manipulation. Archives of Disease in Childhood 84(2): 138–141.

O’Neal, M.L. 2003. The pediatric spine: Anatomical and dynamic considerations preceding manipulation. Comprehensive Therapy 29(2): 124–129.

Powell, F.C., et al. 1993. A risk/benefit analysis of spinal manipulation therapy for relief of lumbar or cervical pain. Neurosurgery Online 33(1): 73.

Smith, T. 1993. Chiropractors seeking to expand practice take aim at children. Wall Street Journal. March 18, 4A.

Vohra, S., et al. 2007. Adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation: A systematic review. Pediatrics 119(1): e275–e283.

. . . About Pseudoscience
and Fringe Science

In the Name of Science (1952), republished as Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (1957)

Science: Good, Bad and Bogus (1981, 1983, 1989)

How Not to Test a Psychic

The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher* (1998, 1991)

On the Wild Side* (1992)

Weird Water and Fuzzy Logic* (1996)

Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?* (2000)

The Jinn from Hyperspace* (2008)

When You Were a Tadpole and I Was a Fish* (2009)

*In part, collections of his SI columns,

. . . About Science

Relativity for the Million

The Ambidextrous Universe

The New Ambidextrous Universe

Great Essays in Science (ed.)

. . . On Other Topics

Mathematics, Magic, and Mystery

The Scientific American Book of Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions

The Annotated Alice

The Annotated Ancient Mariner

Aha! Insight

The Sixth Book of Mathematical Games from Scientific American

Mathematical Carnival

Aha! Gotcha

Order and Surprise

The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener

The Magic Numbers of Dr. Matrix

Knotted Doughnuts and Other Mathematical Entertainments

The No-Sided Professor (short stories)

The Wreck of the Titanic Foretold? (ed.)

Time Travel and Other Mathematical Bewilderments

Gardner’s Whys and Wherefores

Penrose Tiles to Trapdoor Ciphers

The Healing Revelations of Mary Baker Eddy

Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery

The Universe in a Handkerchief

It’s hard to believe that we still have so many evolution deniers among us. Understanding evolution is essential to understanding modern biology as well as a host of other subjects. We need to get to young minds before their neurons have a chance to congeal into unscientific ideologies. Now we have just the book to reach them.

Daniel Loxton is the editor of the “Junior Skeptic” section of Skeptic magazine, where he makes skepticism and critical thinking accessible and entertaining to the younger set. He has expanded one of his “Junior Skeptic” subjects into a superb new book on evolution.

The illustrations are colorful, informative, and whimsical. Loxton introduces us to a blue bird that compromises on a tail that is “not too long, not too short,” some cute “Zooks” that move away and eventually lose the interest and ability to mate with the others, a boy overrun with bunnies that have reproduced without anything to limit survival of the offspring, and some really cool dinosaurs. They’re a joy to the eye, and the text is a joy to the mind.

Loxton covers the basics of evolutionary theory; tells the story of Darwin, the Beagle, and the finches; and answers the questions people commonly ask:

“But have we ever actually seen a new species evolve?” Yes, both in the wild and in the lab.

“Where are the transitional fossils?” Everywhere.

“Didn’t they find some human footprints together with dinosaur footprints?” No, they made a mistake.

“How could evolution produce something as complicated as my eyes?” Loxton shows us how complex eyes gradually developed from simple light-sensitive cells.

“How could walking animals turn into flying animals?” Perhaps from gradual alterations in tree-dwelling, gliding animals.

Then the hard questions: “How did life start in the first place?” Evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life, just how it changed over time. We don’t know how life got started, but scientists are working on it.

And “What about religion?” Loxton handles this neatly by saying that this is a question science can’t help with. He refers readers to their “family, friends, and community leaders.” (He avoids mentioning rabbis, imams, priests, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterologists.)

Loxton has a wonderful knack for simplifying without condescending and for challenging young readers to grapple with complicated concepts. The book is aimed at eight–to thirteen-year-olds, but it could be useful to even a sophisticated old coot. Some of his examples might come in handy in your next discussion with an intelligent design believer or a fence sitter. I loved his illustration of how evolutionary change is not a totally random process but builds on patterns that were already there. He describes how hot-rod builders can lift a car, drop it, chop the roof, and slap on new paint, but they are still stuck with the basic pattern of a body and four wheels (not two or seventeen).

If you have children or grandchildren, this book would be a great way to introduce them to the theory of evolution. If you don’t, you still might want to buy a copy, read it yourself, and donate it to the local public or school library.

I hope Loxton will write many more books like this on a wide variety of skeptical subjects. He has a gift, and we are fortunate that he is sharing it with us.

In a chapter on how not to investigate the paranormal in his new book, Scientific Paranormal Investigation, Benjamin Radford jokes that the entire chapter could consist of just two words: watch television. He could have advised the reader to pick up almost any book on ghosts, demons, spirits, aliens, lake monsters, crop circles, the chupacabra, or other “strange and bizarre” things. The bar for paranormal investigation in the popular media has been set very low, as evidenced by the overall poor quality of work produced so far. Radford hopes to raise the bar by clarifying and exemplifying the standards that should guide a scientific investigator.

Fortunately, not all paranormal investigations have been of poor quality. Radford, Joe Nickell—the dean of scientific paranormal investigation—and several others have been exemplars for those who wish to properly investigate paranormal claims. A special feature of Radford’s book is that it consists largely of case studies he has personally investigated. The reader can see how the principles of investigation are applied to actual paranormal claims. But the main value of Radford’s book is that he lays out what should and should not be done in a proper scientific investigation. (Radford regularly reports on his field investigations and other skeptical topics in the Skeptical Inquirer. He is SI’s managing editor and a Committee for Skeptical Inquiry research fellow.)

Radford tells the reader that his book “focuses on the practical aspects of applied skepticism . . . powerful, real-world ideas for critically examining everything from crime scenes to psychic powers to personal decisions.” These ideas have been drawn “largely from the scientific process, psychology, criminal investigation techniques, and logic.” As such, the ideas Radford explores in the first few chapters have valuable applications beyond paranormal investigations. Scientific Paranormal Investigation would be a valuable addition to the library of every journalist and skeptic. But the thousands of people who investigate weird or mysterious things and the millions of readers and viewers who follow their investigations would benefit the most.

I won’t relieve the lazy reader of the obligation to read Radford’s book by summarizing the principles of a proper scientific investigation. Here I will simply note that the goal of a proper investigation of the paranormal is neither to prove nor disprove any particular claim. Radford puts it this way: “Good science is not about advocacy; while all scientists have their biases and pet theories, their ultimate loyalty should be to the truth.” If you set out to prove or disprove the existence of a ghost at a particular location, you are not doing a scientific investigation. If the show you are watching or the book you are reading does not consider alternative hypotheses, it is not conducting scientific investigation. If an author claims that the subject of his attention or investigation is “beyond science,” you’re dealing with mysticism, not mysteries. Paranormal claims may mystify us, but if they are truly beyond science then they are beyond our ability to know or understand them. A book or film on such topics would be very short, unless it contains much speculation and storytelling. Paranormal claims are investigated precisely because they both mystify us and present themselves as mysteries we can hope to solve.

Unfortunately, too many people who try to investigate rather than validate or debunk paranormal claims are unprepared to do a proper investigation. They may have good intentions, but the road to error is paved with good intentions. Having the right tools is essential, but as Radford makes painfully clear, you can’t buy the most important tools you need. You can’t pick them up in a weekend training session. It takes years of hard work to develop the knowledge and skills needed to be a scientific paranormal investigator. Contrary to what you might see on television, an abundance of scientific gadgets is not as important as knowledge of the subject, knowledge of psychology, good logical reasoning skills, and an open mind.

Radford’s book does what a scientific paranormal investigation should do: it helps the reader distinguish the real thing from the fake.

The Center for Inquiry Libraries at CFI’s headquarters in Amherst, New York, have approximately twelve linear feet of papers donated by Martin Gardner. The papers are arranged as created by Gardner himself: three drawers of materials are organized alphabetically by name; the remaining drawers are organized by topic, including all the various fields of skepticism, the paranormal, religious criticism, etc. Approximately 450 books are similarly categorized. No books or papers concerning Gardner’s mathematical interests or his Scientific American columns are located at the Center, unless they relate to the above topics.

Martin Gardner, the polymath writer, critic, and skeptic who is widely regarded as the father of modern skepticism, died May 22, 2010, in Norman, Oklahoma, at the age of ninety-five. He helped found our Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (then CSICOP) and wrote for this magazine since its inception. (His final “Notes of a Fringe Watcher” column appears on page 10.) Throughout his life, Gardner wrote knowledgeably about an astonishing range of topics with a combination of clarity, wit, and critical intelligence that delighted readers worldwide. Those who knew him regarded him as a dear friend, a modest man, and a national intellectual treasure. In a celebration of his life, writings, and mind, we here present invited tributes from a number of noted skeptics and scholars. We begin with two of his closest friends and colleagues, Ray Hyman and James Randi. Like him, they were founding fellows of CSICOP and original and longtime members of its executive council.

—The Editor

Exposing Crackpots and Charlatans

ROBERT CARROLL

Martin Gardner’s writings on the paranormal and pseudoscience profoundly influenced a generation of writers, including me, as can be seen by the many references to his works in The Skeptic’s Dictionary. He introduced us to a bizarre world populated by the likes of L. Ron Hubbard, Rudolf Steiner, Edgar Cayce, Bridey Murphy, and a host of other characters on the fringe. He taught us that crackpots and charlatans are dangerous. They should not be ignored but instead thoroughly exposed for what they are by detailed critical analysis.

My introduction to Gardner was through his Scientific American column on brain teasers and logic puzzles. When he gave up writing that brilliant and much-missed column, Douglas Hofstadter picked up the mantle. My obsession with Gardner’s writings on the paranormal and pseudoscience began after reading a Hofstadter column titled “World Views in Collision: The Skeptical Inquirer versus the National Inquirer.” Hofstadter’s panegyric to CSICOP and SI is one of the seminal essays in the history of scientific skepticism. Every skeptic should keep it at the ready for inspiration and revitalization. (The essay, reprinted in Hofstadter’s Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern, includes an account of Gardner’s split with Marcello Truzzi over how best to deal with Immanuel Velikovsky and other pseudoscientists.)

Hofstadter’s essay inspired many teachers to become followers of SI, which inevitably led us to become followers of Martin Gardner’s many inquiries. In fact, many of us became somewhat fanatical about our inquiries into what Gardner called “wild beliefs.” We can’t stop investigating and writing about them. Thanks to Martin Gardner, James Randi, and others of like spirit, we won’t be quiet until the last bit of bogus science is buried with the last charlatan claiming paranormal or supernatural powers.

Robert Carroll is emeritus professor of philosophy at Sacramento City College and creator of The Skeptic’s Dictionary Web site. He is a CSI fellow.

Visits to Martin

BRYAN FARHA

It was serendipitous that Oklahoma City University (where I teach) brought in James Randi to speak several years ago. While here, Randi asked me to take him to visit his beloved friend, Martin, in nearby Norman, Oklahoma. Martin had been in an assisted living center there since 2002. Randi introduced us, and this began my personal connection to Martin.

Since that day, I periodically visited Martin in his room. Two visits stand out. On one occasion the visit was professionally motivated because an author asked me to interview Martin for his book. About midway through, Martin turned the tables and he became the interviewer. I was surprised at his sudden interest in me. What stood out most was his inquiring about my beliefs and view of religion—just before I was going to ask him similar questions on the same subject. He sensed my frustration in not knowing exactly how to “label” my beliefs. After giving him a lengthy explanation, he said, “I know how to label your beliefs.” He continued, “You’re a philosophical theist, like me.” It was great to finally be able to concretize my position. Until that time, I really didn’t know what to call it. When my interview of Martin concluded, I went home and immediately Googled the term. The first thing I found was
a Wikipedia definition. The end of the entry now states, “Martin Gardner (1914–2010) was a contemporary defender of philosophical theism.” It was obvious Martin knew what he was talking about.

The other visit that stood out was personally motivated; I took my nine-year-old nephew, Cole, to meet this extraordinary man. Martin amazed Cole with visual illusions, which were displayed throughout his room. Particularly eye-catching to Cole was the “Paper Dragon” illusion—designed for a special gathering honoring Martin. He had a very effective way of using entertainment as an educational tool. It certainly worked for Cole. Although Cole may not have had a full appreciation for the magnitude of Martin’s brilliance, one day he will.

As close as my proximity to Martin was, I’m sorry I didn’t visit him more often—my loss. I’ve had many favorite issues of the Skeptical Inquirer over the years. I suspect this issue will climb to the top of my list.

Bryan Farha is a professor at Oklahoma City University, where he coordinates the graduate program in applied behavioral studies, and is editor of Paranormal Claims: A Critical Analysis.

The Connoisseur of Paradox

JOHN ALLEN PAULOS

A connoisseur of paradox, Martin Gardner had a fittingly paradoxical career. Although he majored in philosophy and took no mathematics courses after high school, he probably did more to stimulate an appreciation for, curiosity about, and discussion of mathematical ideas than scores of us mathematics professors.

I remember reading his books on recreational math as an undergraduate and being eager to explain the puzzles in them to whoever would listen. In a couple of cases I even used them to win small bets. Over the years we exchanged a couple of book blurbs, a benign log(arithm)-rolling that was a signal honor for me, and we also corresponded a bit about his novel The Art of Peter Fromm and other topics, jokes in particular. Once he sent me a letter with some quite funny, quite non-G-rated examples. Later, in the Scientific American, he published a very elegant illustration of a religious hoax I proposed based on Kruskal’s theorem.

His interests ranged from Lewis Carroll and the philosophy of mathematics to scientific hoaxes and popular culture. Even in his last essay for the Skeptical Inquirer (March/April 2010) published in his lifetime, he took on Oprah Winfrey’s pseudo-cures. A modest man, a clear-eyed skeptic, and an expositor extraordinaire, he was a cogent beacon of sanity to the end.

John Allen Paulos is professor of mathematics at Temple University and author of such books as Innumeracy, A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper, and Once Upon a Number. He is a CSI fellow.

Characterizing the Hermit Scientist

SCOTT O. LILIENFELD

I had been deeply interested in scientific skepticism for a solid fifteen years before I read Martin Gardner’s classic book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, first published as In the Name of Science in 1952. In fact, for quite some time I had resisted reading it. No book that old, I assumed, could possibly offer much to us today. Moreover, I thought, Gardner’s examples must surely be outdated.

Nothing, I soon discovered, could be further from the truth. Indeed, on finally reading Fads and Fallacies, I was amazed by how fresh and relevant it is to modern skepticism—and to the psychology of pseudoscience. As all dedicated skeptics know, in this book Gardner delineated the core characteristics of the “hermit scientist,” whom we might regard as the prototypical pseudoscientist. For Gardner, the hermit scientist (1) “considers himself as a genius,” (2) “regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads,” (3) “believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against,” (4) “has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best established theories,” and (5) “has a tendency to write in complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.”

These psychological attributes ring as true today as they did nearly sixty years ago. Although some of the lyrics of the song may have changed (Hollow Earthers, orgone theorists, and Lyksenkoists are no longer central foci of skeptical inquiry), the music hasn’t. In contemporary psychological lingo, we might say that Gardner hit upon many of the features of pseudoscientists that predispose them to confirmation bias: the tendency to seek out evidence consistent with one’s hypotheses and to deny, dismiss, or distort evidence that isn’t. When one reads Gardner’s twenty-five remarkable case studies of thinking gone haywire, it is not difficult to discern a common thread running through their enormous surface diversity: the persistent refusal of proponents of pseudoscience to allow contrary evidence to penetrate their web of beliefs. More than anything else, Gardner’s first book is a powerful cautionary tale of the perils of intellectual hubris.

I regard Fads and Fallacies as the most significant work in the history of scientific skepticism, as its message remains every bit as pertinent to the vexing problem of pseudoscience today as it was in the 1950s. Gardner’s passing gives all of us an opportunity not only to mourn the loss of one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement but to revisit the wisdom and insights he imparted so many years ago.

Scott O. Lilienfeld is professor of psychology at Emory University, editor in chief of The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, and lead author of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology. He is a CSI fellow and SI consulting editor.

The Friend I Never Met

CHRISTOPHER C. FRENCH

I never had the pleasure of meeting Martin Gardner, but I feel as if I have known him as a friend for decades. Over a long and prolific career, he published over seventy books and countless newspaper and magazine articles. These include his regular column for the Skeptical Inquirer, “Notes of a Fringe Watcher,” which ran for almost twenty years and his “Mathematical Games” column, which ran in Scientific American for some twenty-five years.

I cannot claim to have read everything that this great man ever wrote, of course, but I may well have more books on my bookshelves written by him than by any other author. When I try to think back to the first publication of his that I ever read, I simply cannot remember which one it was. Memory is a funny thing, as Martin Gardner well knew, and it feels to me as if his books have been in my life for as long as I can remember, like those really good friends that we all take for granted.

By a process of deduction, I can work out that I must have read his collections of recreational mathematics columns from Scientific American, published under such titles as Mathematical Circus, many years before I read his skeptical classic Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. The former books entertained and educated me. They made math fun—at least for a self-professed nerd like me!

But Fads and Fallacies had a much more profound impact on me than those stimulating collections of brainteasers. It was one of the first books on skepticism that I read, along with James Randi’s Flim-Flam! and The Truth About Uri Geller and David Marks and Richard Kammann’s The Psychology of the Psychic. The truth is, dear reader, that until well into early adulthood I was . . . well, I guess I have to come clean . . . a believer in the paranormal! The book that actually opened my eyes to the wonderful world of skepticism was James Alcock’s Parapsychology: Science or Magic?, but I quickly followed that excellent volume with the skeptical works of Gardner, Randi, Marks, and Kammann.

One thing is notable about all five of these books: they have all withstood the test of time wonderfully. Indeed, all five are still on reading lists for the course on anomalistic psychology that I teach as part of the BSc Psychology program at Goldsmiths College, University of London (along with lots of more recent texts, of course!). But it should be borne in mind that all of those classics but one were written in the early 1980s. Fads and Fallacies is now well over half a century old and is still well worth reading. It is, of course, somewhat depressing that most of the fads so devastatingly critiqued in this wonderful volume are still going strong today.

Through these works and others (notably, Science: Good, Bad and Bogus and the delightful Annotated Alice books), I felt that I did know Martin Gardner even though I never actually met him. I would like to have met him. I am sure I would have liked him. Like thousands of other fans around the globe, I will miss him.