In the nineteenth century, phrenology was hugely influential despite being totally invalid. Its history shows why we must be skeptical of any belief based solely on experience.

Phrenology. The science of picking the pocket through the scalp.
— Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary, 1911

Today, phrenology (“head reading”) is usually seen as the fossilized stuff of cranks and charlatans. But in the nineteenth century it had a huge influence at all levels of Western society, more than all of its later competitors (such as psychoanalysis) put together. It was in­fluential because of its attractive philosophy and because practitioners and clients saw that it worked. But we now know that it could not possibly work; personal experience had led millions of people astray. Indeed, few beliefs can match phrenology for its extent of influence and certainty of invalidity. So it has valuable lessons about any experience-based belief.

Phrenology’s Influence

In the nineteenth century, phrenology affected all levels of Western life and thought. In Britain, Europe, and Amer­ica, its influence was felt in anthropology, criminology, education, medicine, psychiatry, art, and literature. In France, it eroded established power and led to wide social changes. In Australia, it rationalized the violence against Abo­rigines and explained the criminality of convicts. For ordinary people everywhere a head reading was often required for employment or marriage.¹ But how could this happen if phrenology was totally invalid? For answers, we need to start at the beginning.

First Steps to Delusion

Around 1790, the German-born anatomist Franz Joseph Gall, one of the founders of modern neurology, put together his skull doctrine that later led to phrenology. He held that behavior such as painting or being careful had their own specialized organs in the brain, and that they influenced the shape of the skull. So the skull’s bumps would indicate behavior and abilities that were innate. Gall spent eleven years examining hundreds of heads to test his ideas: “If ... he observed any mechanician, musician, sculptor, draughtsman, mathematician, endowed with such or such faculty from birth, he examined their heads to see whether he might point out a particular development of some cerebral part.... He also called together in his house common people, as coachmen and poor boys, and excited them to make him ac­quainted with their characters” (Spurz­heim 1815, 271).

Gall’s seemingly logical approach had two fatal defects. First, his claims were often based on a single striking case, for example “Cautiousness” was placed above the ears because an extremely cautious priest had a large bump there. Second, Gall looked only for confirming cases and ignored disconfirming cases, a flaw not lost on his critics. Thus David Skae (1847), a physician at the Royal Edinburgh Asylum, noted that once the truth is “fixed upon our minds,” looking for confirmation is “the most perfect recipe for making a phrenologist that could well be devised.” But to Gall and the thousands of phrenologists who came later, personal experience mattered more than procedural defects. Phren­ology had taken its first giant step on the road to delusion.² Note that the delusion of experience is not limited to artifacts of reasoning such as the Barnum effect.

How to read heads. For each “brain organ” (whose number and location depends on which book you read) you guess its development (no yardsticks here) and thus its meaning (based on speculation), which you juggle (more speculation) against all the other speculative meanings and the all-important temperament based on external signs such as build and vulgarity (i.e., on even more speculation) to obtain a final assessment of character and destiny. If unsatisfactory, try again. This was phrenology’s secret weapon—it was based on an experience that could never be wrong.

Spurzheim Nails the Coffin Shut

The next step was due to Johann Spurz­heim, Gall’s coworker. Gall had linked brain organs to behavior, but Spurzheim held that organs cannot relate to behavior, only to traits. Gall disagreed (the origin of traits was then a complete mystery), arguing that every person has imagination whereas not every person can paint. So in 1813, Spurzheim broke away. He renamed organs after the traits said to underlie behavior, invented organs to cover apparent gaps, and in due course adopted the name phrenology (a name suggested in 1815 by the naturalist Thomas Forster from the Greek words for mind and discourse). The focus was now on speculative divisions of the mind. Since behavior was now related more or less vaguely to several traits, and therefore more or less vaguely to several brain organs, everything was now open to interpretation. In one hit, Spurzheim had moved the system from a biological science to a mental philosophy; from observation to nonfalsifiability. It was the classic pseudoscientific move. Grand delusions were now inevitable.

Feel the Bumps, Know the Man

In those days, the workings of the brain were largely unknown. The idea of the four humors was still popular, as was bloodletting. Traits of ability and of character were held to be equal in all men at birth and were wholly determined by upbringing. To claim otherwise was a crime against morality and God.

But phrenology did claim otherwise. It said traits were innate, localized in the brain, and measurable by head shape. What was once a mystery was now widely seen as an exact science. If true, it promised to revolutionize just about everything.

But it was not true. Phrenology was partly right about brain functions being localized but wrong about the actual functions. Not slightly wrong; totally wrong. The brain involves processes such as moving, touching, hearing, and seeing, not phrenological traits such as neatness, curiosity, love of children, at­tachment to home, and relish for food.³ As shown by modern imaging techniques, some of these processes are localized in distinct regions, while others are distributed and interactive. But all are sufficiently diversified that brain damage or cell loss may have no noticeable effect. The same techniques have shown that the claimed phrenological organs do not exist.

Nor is brain size a measure of power to the extent claimed by phrenologists. So we can look at phrenology knowing that a certain head shape cannot possibly mean what it is supposed to mean. Few beliefs about man can match phrenology for such certainty of invalidity.⁴

Unsurprisingly, phrenology copped unceasing parody. A modern example appeared in the U.K.’s Independent Long Weekend of January 11, 1997, suggesting how “to improve people’s personalities by rearranging their head bumps. With a mallet. Do not try this at home” (p. 2).

Influence Revisited

What attracted millions of converts and made phrenology historically important was the appeal of its philosophy. By offering a recipe for living and self-improvement based not on metaphysics but on claims testable by ex­perience, phrenology was a dream come true. And in the 1810s it took off like a rocket; first in Europe, then Britain, then America.

The average life expectancy in Britain (adjusted for high infant mortality) at that time was forty years, a quarter of the population was illiterate, few homes had running water or even a clock, and a phrenology book cost a quarter of the average weekly wage. Yet in less than twenty years about thirty phrenological societies were formed, and roughly one person in 3,000 was “moderately well instructed in phrenology, [more] than there are of persons equally advanced in geology, entomology, botany, astronomy, or similar sciences” (Watson 1836, 223).

But by implying that man rather than God was in charge, phrenology created an unceasing storm of religious and moral protest. Critics said it reduced the soul to anatomy and gave too much power to ordinary people. Never­theless, it attracted people of in­telligence and a vast responsive literature wherein every criticism was furiously attacked.⁵

When critics said (in tracts of paralyzing wordiness) “there is no evidence favoring phrenology but much favoring Christianity, so we prefer the latter,” the reply was “if there is no God, what is the organ of Veneration for?” When critics said “phrenology is without intellectual challenge and suits only the coarsest taste,” the reply was “it is so simple and natural that ordinary people can put it to immediate use.”

Soon there was a runaway demand for character readings, and by the 1840s phrenology had divided into two camps: one a fortune-telling scam where a travelling phrenologist could earn more in a week than in a whole year of farm laboring; the other a serious study whose journals were filled with alarms against the impostors. (The later parallel with newspaper astrology is unmistakable here.) Both camps promoted phrenology as a matter not of belief but of demonstration. Test-it-and-see was an essential part of the message. So how could an actually invalid phrenology survive such a process? First, a look at replies to stock objections.

Pioneers of phrenology. From left: Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828), Johann Spurzheim (1776–1832), George Combe (1788–1858), Orson Fowler (1809–1887), Lorenzo Fowler (1811–1896). Pictures are from Severn (1929, 244, 256, 257) and Davies (1955, 48, 49).

Stock Objections

Phrenologists felt they had convincing replies to every stock objection: The skull varies in thickness. Not enough to matter. Everything relates to size not quality. Experience shows that phrenology works. Stomachs digest different foods, so why can’t brain organs do different things? Stomachs may be versatile but their function is the same. Parts of the brain can be destroyed without apparent effect, so how can traits be localized? The investigators were ignorant of phrenology and missed the relevant behavior.

But other objections were ignored. Organs could be in layers (so head shape could be meaningless?), the same organ appears on both sides of the head (so we believe with one and disbelieve with the other?), important traits such as sympathy and love of truth are missing, and worst of all any head can be made to fit any behavior so nobody could know if phrenology was wrong. For example, a small Combativeness could still be combative due to a large Firmness, a large Destructiveness, or a large Approbation (fights to gain admiration). Spurzheim’s nonfalsifiability was working well. But phrenologists were not interested. Why worry when there were testimonials?

Two heads typical of those in the above New Illustrated Self-Instructor. Arrowed is Parental Love large (left) and small (right), with spikes and dashed lines added by me to indicate Fowler’s organ boundaries and average contour. The largeness or smallness extends beyond the boundaries on either side, which is contrary to the independence required by phrenology.

Testimonials

Critics of New Age beliefs “typically encounter anecdotes and testimonials where there ought to be rigorous pre- and post-treatment comparisons” (Beyer­stein 1990, 33). Phrenology provides a definitive test of testimonials because it had lots of them, even from the very top:

“I never knew I had an inventive talent until phrenology told me. I was a stranger to myself until then” (Thomas Edison). “The phrenologist has shown that he is able to read character like an open book ... with an accuracy that the most intimate friends cannot approach” (Alfred Russel Wallace, cofounder of the theory of evolution). “I declare that the phrenological system of mental philosophy is as much better than all other systems as the electric light is better than the tallow dip” (William Gladstone, four times prime minister of England). All are from Severn (1913, 6).

There were also countless testimonials from ordinary people. “Scarcely a day passes that the editor of the Phren­ological Journal does not receive some outburst of thankfulness from a grateful recipient of needed counsel” (Sizer and Drayton 1899). “35,000 testimonials” said a sign in the window of a London phrenologist (see picture in Parker and Parker 1988, 34). How could 35,000 clients be wrong, to say nothing of Edison, Wallace, and Glad­stone? The answer boils down to experience. And wishful thinking.

In 1929, the British Phrenological Society published thirty testimonials entitled The Revival of Phrenology: The Phrenological Principles and Localisations Confirmed by Modern Scientists. None mentioned the results of actual tests, yet they supposedly showed that “the main principles of phrenology can no longer be disputed.”

Plainly Demonstrated

Yes, phrenology seemed to work. It was the apparent accuracy of readings that was so convincing to practitioners and clients. It was “so plainly demonstrated that the non-acceptance of Phrenology is next to impossible” (British Phren­ological Association 1896, 64).

For example, Severn (1929, 84) cites a reading of himself, made when he was twenty-five, that “was a remarkably true description ... probably the best I have ever had.” Here are some excerpts: “Great firmness and reality of purpose. The mind is sensitive and active. The judgement is keen, and logical in its conclusions. He is not very original, but may be in his habits. Fond of reform and improvements of all kinds [note the contradiction]. He loves truth, and will have it at any price. The mind is sceptical and too honest to believe without reasonable evidence. A lover of moral and personal liberty. Is warm-hearted.” More on this later.

The phrenologist Stackpool O’Dell (1925, 12) explains how “in his daily experience, when he says that a child has unusual talent for drawing, he finds that it is so, or when he says of another that he has exceptional musical capacity, it proves correct.... He judges these points by the shape of the head, and a due consideration of temperament. And ... his conclusions, in most instances, will be recognised as strikingly correct.”

1895 edition of Lorenzo Fowler’s New Illustrated Self-Instructor in Phrenology and Physiology. It cost two shillings post free (then about one-fifteenth of the average weekly wage) and had 182 pages with over one hundred engravings of heads showing large and small organs. You felt your head, ticked fifty-one boxes on a seven-point scale, and looked up the details, some worthy of today’s newspaper horoscopes as in “Expect next to nothing, and undertake less” (p.122). Including other editions, sales reached 100,000 in the United Kingdom and 150,000 in the United States.

George Combe

The experience of George Combe, the most famous British practitioner of his time, seems even more convincing. In 1829, he visited a Dublin asylum to demonstrate phrenology to its doctors who, when his readings of selected in­mates were over, compared them with their own diagnoses. For a male aged thirty-seven Combe found “predisposed to melancholy” versus the diagnosis “melancholy, great timidity of disposition.” For a female aged forty-eight Combe found “self-esteem is predominant” versus “monomania, pride.” There were sixteen hits as good as these, two nearly as good, one miss, and four passes with “no grounds for inference.” In general, the outcome was “completely in harmony with what was anticipated.” Combe’s many visits to prisons and other asylums were just as successful (Williams 1894).

In short, people saw how phrenology seemed to work and were convinced. Experience was the only game in town. But how could people be convinced if phrenology was totally invalid?

Encouraging Delusion

The problem in the above cases is that there are no controls to guard against delusion. In Severn’s case, the reading is either very general (so anyone would agree with it) or is guessable from personal contact. In O’Dell’s case, we cannot tell if his hits are genuine or are due to circumstances, including not wanting to be seen disagreeing with a renowned phrenologist.

This is similarly true in Combe’s case, which allowed cueing by the subject’s appearance and by sensing the attitudes of those present. Given a timid, fearful subject, or a proud disdainful one, together with reciting aloud the often opposing indications, and no doubt a practiced skill in reading human nature and onlookers, Combe could hardly go wrong. Indeed, he almost never mentions unobservable phenomena such as abilities, preferring things like melancholy (a term then applied to any personal distress) and propensity to thieving, both consistent with a dependence on cues. If this failed, the result could always be ex­plained by an opposing organ, by up­bringing, or by declaring that criticism comes from men and not Nature—and only Nature had the authority to say whether phrenology was true or not.

Alternatively, failures could simply be ignored, as when Severn (1929, 83) visited O’Dell and asked if he could be a phrenologist. “He examined my head and pointed out so many mental faculties detrimental to my acquiring proficiency that I gave up further thought of qualifying professionally.” Yet he became a top British phrenologist! Notice how easily the obviously wrong reading was ignored.

Frontispiece to a seventy-two-page booklet provided with each reading by J. Millott Severn, the last major British phrenologist, c. 1920. The booklet included interpretations on a seven-point scale for each of forty-nine brain organs. For five shillings (then about one-eighth of the average weekly wage) Severn (pictured) would tick the ones applying to you.

Rare U-Turns

To their credit, not every believer remained a believer. American psychologist Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) practiced phrenology and invented a device to improve the measurement of cranial features, but he later abandoned phrenology as unscientific.

The British botanist Hewett Wat­son, author of the 1836 survey Statistics of Phrenology, was convinced of phrenology’s validity. But after three years as editor of the Phrenological Journal, which “obliged him to make more close scrutiny into various points,” he saw that much “is doubtful, if not erroneous.” Given a choice between upsetting be­lievers and promoting nonsense, he preferred to resign (Watson 1840).

Uncovering Delusion

The following study, the only one of its kind that I could find, shows how a simple control uncovers the delusion. A female patient aged twenty-two of Morgenthaler (1930), a Swiss psychiatrist, was amazed at the penetrating accuracy of her phrenological reading. It had twenty-six statements such as: “You are a blend of natural feelings and much stronger emotions. You are a definite female, which explains your weaknesses. You are not sharply focused. Critical judgments give way to warm-hearted feelings.” So Morgenthaler asked ten female subjects to judge how well each statement applied to them. An average of 70 percent said the statements were definitely or probably correct, 13 percent were uncertain, and 17 percent said they were definitely or probably wrong. It was the classic Barnum approach to instant delusion. The subjects knew the reading was not theirs; otherwise their acceptance might have been even higher.

Bird Brains Tell All

In the 1840s, the eminent French physiologist Pierre Flourens introduced the experimental approach that phrenologists had steadfastly rejected. He found that the intellect in pigeons and chickens gradually weakened as the brain was cut away, but still remained even when very little brain was left, which effectively demolished the claims of phrenology. A similar point had been made earlier by the American anatomy professor Thomas Sewall. So the need to test actual people disappeared, ironically just at the time when the rise of experimental psychology would have made such tests possible. But enough tests were made to confirm the expected negative results.

The cumulative growth of populations over their lifetime, whether of cathedrals or phrenology books, traces an S-curve that shows when the end is near. For phrenology this was around 1900. In the 1960s, historians became aware of phrenology’s importance in nineteenth-century life, and historical studies duly increased. Of course some people said phrenology would last forever. Thus in his 1898 book The Wonderful Century, Alfred Russel Wallace held that “in the coming century phrenology will assuredly attain general acceptance” (p.192). It was all part of the delusion inspired by experience.

Experimental Tests

Some tests were obvious. When a phrenologist was given the supposed head cast of an eminent professor (it was actually the cast of a large turnip), the reading emphasized wisdom and intelligence (U.K.’s Times newspaper, Febru­ary 2, 1824). When the humorist Mark Twain visited Lorenzo Fowler (under a fictitious name) he was told he had no sense of humor, but on a repeat visit under his own name he had “the loftiest bump of humor” ever encountered (Twain 1959; Lopez 2002).

Skae (1847), mentioned earlier, made a test that today would seem just as obvious. He went to the Phren­ological Society’s collection of head casts, picked ten famous cases “whose character was well known,” measured the elevation of each organ by calipers, and corrected it by the cube root of head size shown by immersion in water. “I assumed that the measurements of the crania thus calculated would correspond with the known characters of the individuals, if phrenology was true.” But the results were “generally speaking at variance with phren­ology, and in many instances so utterly irreconcilable with its truth, as to appear altogether subversive of it.” The ten casts had not shown the bumps that phrenology said they should.

The response by phrenologists to Skae’s results was polemic, lengthy, and largely irrelevant. To them, the principles of phrenology were absolute; therefore, negative results were sure proof of incompetence. They said the correction for head size was inappropriate, and that the phrenologist’s eye and hand were sensitive to nuances missed by calipers.⁶ Skae then challenged them to get positive results from his data but they declined, arguing that the unsoundness of his measurements “entirely vitiates every conclusion to which they have been supposed to lead.”⁷

Nearly eighty years later, Cleeton and Knight (1924) read physiognomy and phrenology books to find out what each cranial feature meant, but they found “great disagreement.” So they selected ten traits such as IQ, sociability, and willpower for which the disagreement was least. They then re­cruited twenty-eight adults, measured their cranial features, and had their traits rated by twenty close associates who knew all twenty-eight subjects. The results showed no link between cranial features and traits. Of 201 correlations, four were significant (p=0.04) versus six expected by chance. The mean correlation was a negligible 0.004.

Phrenology heads still provide an appealing and appropriate image for the covers of modern psychology books, here in 2001 and 2010.

Slow to Die

The above tests confirmed that phren­ology cannot deliver benefits beyond those due to non-phrenological factors. But phrenology was slow to die. In the 1950s, phrenologists still existed in Britain and in the larger American cities (Dallenbach 1955). Today there is at least one pro-phrenology website, so supporters are not yet extinct.⁸ But in practice, phrenology “lasted only long enough to become one of the most thoroughly discredited theories in the history of physiological psychology” (Uttal 2001, 102). It “was the most popular of all the doctrines of psychology in the whole history of the science, and at the same time the most erroneous. It affords a striking example of the danger of erecting a vast superstructure on inadequate observation and inexact methods” (Flugel 1964, 36–37). “Eventu­ally phrenology lost out to science and to public indignation, and degenerated into a sect of zealous extremists unable to pass on discredited knowledge to a new more enlightened generation” (Van Wyhe 2002).

Neglect of Scientific Caution

It is easy to see why the scientifically invalid phrenology could have been so popular. To millions of people it was so fashionable and so satisfying, and its invalidity was so invisible, that it could not fail to work. Their experience of phrenology could not fail to be convincing. But it was a delusion. And all due to a neglect of scientific caution.^{9, 10}

We might hope that such neglect is less likely today. But the literature of any experience-based belief shows it to be raging out of control on every page. As with phrenology, believers refuse to accept that experience is unreliable; they brush aside contrary evidence and dismiss critics as bigoted and closed-minded. They don’t want to know. Neglect of scientific caution is much more fun.

For believers, the lesson is that experience means nothing without controlled tests. In the Encyclopedia Britannica, phrenology now occupies one paragraph whereas it once occupied many pages.

For skeptics, the lesson is that the delusion of experience should never be underestimated. It dies only when believers die. Reformers should forget the present generation and target the next.¹¹

Notes

1. The historical importance of phrenology was not widely documented until after the 1960s, when science historians became sensitive to social considerations. Today it has been minutely examined in scholarly books, articles, at least twenty PhD theses, and various websites, of which easily the most comprehensive is John van Wyhe’s www.historyofphrenology.org.uk/. But these sources are invariably concerned with social issues and not the role of experience in the acceptance of phrenology. Indeed, the literature of phrenology is so clogged with side issues (of philosophy, of politics, of religion, of morality, of society in general), so often tedious to read (wordiness being the style of the day), and so hard to find (notwithstanding the many early publications now available online via the above website), that the role of experience has been largely unexamined. The source material for this article includes books and journals previously in the library of the British Phrenological Society and now held by the University of London.

2. Jerison (1977) argues that Gall went wrong in the same way that others went right. Gall happened to pick the wrong hypothesis and spent the rest of his life trying to prove it. Ironically, Gall failed not because he was reductionist but because he was not reductionist enough. Had he reduced brain organs to simple things like toe-twitches and thumb-tingles, he would have found success because only such simple functions are localizable in the brain.

3. The record for odd traits, albeit in physiognomy rather than phrenology, must go to Joseph Simms who, in a 600-page book running to at least ten editions by 1891, proposed Aqua­sorbitiveness (love of water), Mnemoni­conominality (ability to remember names, presumably the author had it), Morival­orosity (moral courage), Philomonotopicalness (love of one particular place), Temporinaturalitiveness (appreciation of time passing), and many others.

4. We have a certainty here well beyond that presently possible in, say, psychoanalysis. But we should not go overboard. Phrenology for all its faults led to the discovery that brain and mind were associated and that localization existed. Along the way it established function as a psychological term, popularized the expression of traits on scales such as one to five, and confirmed the futility of purely metaphysical speculations about the nature of man. Which is why phrenology appears in every history of psychology, unlike unproductive beliefs such as astrology.

5. During 1801–1889, The Index to the English Catalogue of Books recorded a total of eighty-five phrenology titles versus sixteen astrology, fifteen physiognomy, and six palmistry (graphology did not appear until the 1870s in France). In 1928, after forty years of searching through libraries in America, Britain, France, and Germany, the phrenologist John Melville estimated that about 4,000 books and pamphlets had been published on phrenology (Severn 1929, 438, 442). Best sellers included George Combe’s Constitution of Man (500,000 in sixty years), Fowler’s Phren­ological Self-Instructor (250,000), and Sizer and Drayton’s Heads and Faces (150,000). For comparison, works by popular novelists such as Dickens typically sold 50,000 copies. Today the British Library has about 300 phrenology books and pamphlets, the New York Public Library about 400.

6. That the supposed sensitivity of the phrenologist’s eye and hand led to delusion is shown by phrenology’s golden rule, namely size=power. Other things being equal, the bigger the head the better. What could be more reasonable? Thus Severn (1913, 20), who in thirty years as a practicing phrenologist had examined more than 100,000 heads, or roughly fifteen each working day, says, “Persons of commanding mentality invariably have heads above the average size.” But ten scientific studies of IQ versus head size involving a total of more than 11,000 adults found a mean correlation of only 0.13 (based on data in Wickett et al. 1994), which is too small to be observable by phrenologists—indeed their observations should have denied it. So their claim was a case of believing is seeing. Nevertheless their claim was not entirely wrong, for the correlation between IQ and actual brain size (as opposed to head size) measured by magnetic resonance imaging is about 0.4 (Rushton 1997).

7. Phrenology had one disadvantage seldom admitted by phrenologists, especially in their re­sponse to critics, because “In numberless in­stances, [plaster] casts form our only source of phrenological observation” (Hytche 1844). Most enthusiasts had a collection, in rare cases exceeding one or two thousand casts. But applying plaster of Paris to a thickly lathered and oiled head was quite unpleasant for the subject. The setting plaster prevented free respiration and generated much heat, whereupon some subjects “become so nervous, that the features are distorted, and ... the very character of the head becomes changed.” Due to bunched-up hair, or to expansion of the setting plaster, “the cast is always larger than the head [in diameter by an inch or more] ... when we consider the additional energy conferred by every extra inch of healthy brain, we shall perceive how different will be our estimate of cerebral power.” So when using casts, “in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred our judgement is likely to be incorrect” (Hytche 1844).

8. The largest (and very user-friendly) pro-phrenology website is www.phrenology.org operated out of Belgium. It proclaims “Phrenology is a true science.... Today, much of the criticism against Phrenology can be easily dismissed. Extensive experimental verification of the Phren­ological localisations have proved their practical value.” No experimental verifications are cited. Nearly 700 images, mostly of heads, can be found by Googling phrenology > images.

9. Whether the price paid for such neglect is worth whatever satisfaction it brings, including keeping people off the streets, is a topic that skeptics might like to ponder. The problem of course is that a belief may be a crutch, but hearts are not won by kicking away crutches.

10. The satisfaction brought to clients by a warm and sympathetic phrenologist should be self-evident. The satisfaction brought to phrenologists may be less evident but is beautifully ex­pressed by Severn (1929, 504): “It is a great career, and a splendid and glorious mission to be a phrenologist. There is life and vitality in the work, and though it may not yield big financial gains, in a thousand ways it will amply repay such as are adapted to the calling, and are desirous of doing great good in the world, and of being of immense service to their fellow creatures. I have frequently said that notwithstanding all the adverse circumstances I have experienced, if I had a hundred lives, I would devote them all ab­solutely and wholly to phrenology.”

11. Among the exhibits at the Minneapolis Museum of Questionable Medical Devices are machines with a headpiece of thirty-two mechanical probes, each with five contact points to measure size on a five-point scale. In ninety seconds it will print out for each of thirty-two phrenological organs a brief reading with moral overtones. “Secretiveness – Average – You are fairly secretive but can improve. You tell things to your friends. Don’t do it.” The readings are popular (fifty a day) and are billed as entertainment, but many people see them as accurate and are unwilling to accept that phrenology is invalid. The delusion of experience is alive and well. From McCoy (1985; 1996).

References

Beyerstein, B.L. 1990. Brainscams: Neuromyth­ologies of the new age. International Journal of Mental Health 19(3): 27–36.

British Phrenological Association. 1896. The British Phrenological Year Book 1896. London: British Phrenological Association. There were then 123 practicing phrenologists in the United Kingdom. In 1967, after eighty years of existence, the Association went into voluntary liquidation.

Cleeton, G.U., and F.B. Knight. 1924. Validity of character judgements based on external criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology 8: 215–231.

Dallenbach, K.M. 1955. Phrenology versus psychoanalysis. American Journal of Psychology 68: 511–525.

Davies, J.D. 1955. Phrenology Fad and Science: A 19th-Century American Crusade. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Flugel, J.C. 1964. A Hundred Years of Psychology. 3rd edition. London: Duckworth.

Fowler, L.N. 1895. Fowler’s New Illustrated Self-Instructor in Phrenology and Physiology. 20th edition. London: Fowler.

Hytche, E.J. 1844. A glance at the imperfections of phrenological casts. Phrenological Journal 17: 246–253.

Jerison, H.J. 1977. Should phrenology be rediscovered? Current Anthropology 18: 744–746. Title refers to accepting the place of phrenology in the history of anthropology.

Lopez, D.J. 2002. Snaring the Fowler: Mark Twain debunks phrenology. Skeptical Inquirer 26(1): 33–36

McCoy, R.W. 1985. Phrenology and popular gullibility. Skeptical Inquirer 9(3): 261–268.

———. 1996. Phrenology. In G. Stein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Morgenthaler, W. 1930. Über populäre Charak­terdiagnostik. Schweizerische Medi­zinische Wochenschrift 39: 912–914.

O’Dell, S.E. 1925. Phrenology: Essays and Studies. 2nd edition. London: London Phrenological Institution.

Parker, D., and J. Parker. 1988. The Future Now: How to Use Prediction in Your Life. London: Mitchell Beazley.

Rushton, J.P. 1997. Race, intelligence, and the brain: The errors and omissions of the revised edition of S.J.Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man (1996). Personality and Individual Differences 23: 169–180.

Severn, J.M. 1913. Popular Phrenology. London: Rider.

———. 1929. Life Story and Experiences of a Phrenologist. Brighton: Severn. An endearing account of forty years of experience including how he married his wife on the basis of phrenology two months after meeting her, since when “we have neither of us had the slightest reason to regret the step we had seemingly so hastily taken” (p. 157).

Sizer, N., and H.S. Drayton. 1899. Heads and Faces and How to Study Them: A Manual of Phrenology and Physiognomy for the People. New York: Fowler and Wells.

Skae, D. 1847. Letter. Phrenological Journal 20: 273–283. Responses by phrenologists appear on pp. 43–48 and 283–290.

Spurzheim, J.G. 1815. The Physiognomical System of Drs Gall and Spurzheim Founded on an Anatomical and Physiological Examination of the Nervous System in General and the Brain in Particular and Indicating the Dispositions and Manifestations of the Mind. London: Baldwin, Cradock and Joy.

Twain, M. 1959. Autobiography of Mark Twain Including Chapters Now Published for the First Time. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Uttal, W.R. 2001. The New Phrenology: The Limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes in the Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Van Wyhe, J. 2002. The History of Phrenology. Online at www.historyofphrenology.org.uk/.

Watson, H.C. 1836. Statistics of Phrenology, Being a Sketch of the Progress and Present State of that Science in the British Isles. London: Long­mans.

———. 1840. Editorial. Phrenological Journal 13: 386–387.

Wickett, J.C., P.A. Vernon, and D.H. Lee. 1994. In vivo brain size, head perimeter, and intelligence in a sample of healthy adult females. Personality and Individual Differences 16: 831–838.

Williams, W.M. 1894. A Vindication of Phren­ology. London: Chatto & Windus.

Homeopathy has remained one of the most controversial medical treatments in the world. It is based on the “like cures like” principle and the idea that serial dilution of a substance renders it not less but more potent. Both of these axioms of homeopathy lack biological plausibility (Sehon and Stanley 2010). Nevertheless, homeopathy was recently cited as one of “the most popular and widely used forms of medicine in the world” (Chatfield 2011).

Advocates of homeopathy argue that homeopathy’s “clinical effectiveness cannot be disputed” (Chatfield 2011). To prove their point, they produce evidence that seems to confirm this assumption (Fisher 2011). Critics tend to counter that these data are seriously flawed—so much so that they cannot be relied upon (Bewley et al. 2011).

The aim of this article is to critically evaluate the clinical research of the research group that, in recent years, has published most of the clinical research in homeopathy.

Table 1. Click for full-size PDF.

Methods

Medline searches were conducted to identify the team that, in the period between 2005 and 2010, had published more original, clinical research in home­o­pathy than any other group world­­wide. Subsequently, all their publications were obtained and read in full. Data were extracted according to pre-defined criteria (Table 1). Each article was then critically evaluated.

Results

The most prolific research group in this area was identified to be from Berlin. Within the last five years, this team published a total of eleven clinical studies (Brinkhaus et al. 2006; Keil et al. 2008; Teut et al. 2010; Witt et al. 2005a; Witt et al. 2009a; Witt et al. 2005b; Witt et al. 2008; Witt et al. 2009c; Witt et al. 2009b; Witt et al. 2010; Witt et al. 2011) (Table 1). The articles refer to randomized clinical trials and cohort studies published in both conventional (n=7) and alternative medical journals (n=4). Most of the articles have major limitations, which will be discussed below.

Discussion

Homeopathy is not an area of buoyant research activity; the fact that one center published eleven clinical studies of homeopathy within five years is re­markable. The eleven publications fall in three categories: randomized clinical trials (RCTs); cohort studies without controls; cohort studies with controls. These will be discussed in turn.

Three RCTs of homeopathic arnica were published in one single article (Brinkhaus et al. 2006). They all in­cluded patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery and all used change in knee circumference after surgery as the primary outcome measure. The first study included 227 patients with arthroscopy, the second thirty-five patients with artificial knee joint implants, and the third fifty-seven patients with cruciate ligament reconstructions. No power calculations were provided. The first two RCTs showed no significant effect of peri-operative homeopathic arnica D30 compared to placebo. The third RCT did demonstrate a significant reduction of 1.8 percent. The authors also mention a post-hoc pooled analysis of all three RCTs that revealed a borderline significant effect (p=0.04). They conclude that “patients receiving arnica showed a trend toward less post-operative swell­ing compared to patients receiving placebo” (Brinkhaus et al. 2006) and recommend that the observed effects “seem to justify the use of homeopathic arnica in cruciate ligament reconstruction” (Brinkhaus et al. 2006). The authors did not critically discuss the clinically irrelevant reduction in knee circumference. The stated aims include investigating the safety of homeopathic arnica, yet the sample size is far too small for identifying rare adverse effects. No conflicts of interest were mentioned in the article (Brinkhaus et al. 2006).

This cohort study was submitted to a multitude of analyses that (so far) have been published in a total of seven articles (Teut et al. 2010; Witt et al. 2005b; Witt et al. 2008; Witt et al. 2009c; Witt et al. 2009b; Witt et al. 2010; Witt et al. 2011). The first two of them refer to the results at year two (Witt et al. 2005b), the third at year eight (Witt et al. 2008). The stated aims of the two- and eight-year follow up are, however, remarkably different (Table 1). The authors recruited 103 primary care practices in Germany and Switzerland employing homeopathy. All patients consulting the homeopathic physician for the first time were included regardless of diagnosis. About 68 percent of the patients “believed” in homeopathy. The main outcome measures were patients’ and physicians’ assessment of complaints. The questionnaire used for children had been validated, but the other outcome measures had been developed by the researchers themselves and had not been formally validated. All patients underwent an initial consultation by their homeopathic doctor lasting two hours on average.

Despite the multiple publications, only scant details were provided in the articles about the actual treatments administered. In one article, “recording all treatments” was mentioned in the meth­ods section, but the results did not provide these details (Witt et al. 2011). Half of the patients also consulted non-study physicians who were not necessarily homeopaths (Witt et al. 2005b). In the article reporting the eight-year follow-up (Witt et al. 2008), the authors state that “all physicians were completely free to choose a treatment”; presumably this included conventional therapies as well.

Despite the fact that patients had been recruited regardless of their medical condition, the conclusions of one of the articles refer to “patients with chronic diseases” (Witt et al. 2005b). The authors stress repeatedly that cause and effect cannot be inferred in a study of this nature. Yet, they repeatedly imply causal inferences, for example: “younger patients and those with more severe disease appear to benefit most from homeopathic treatment” (Witt et al. 2005b); “the effect must not be attributed to homeopathic treatment alone” (Witt et al. 2008) (implying that at least part of it can be); “fully cured: 12.2%” (Witt et al. 2011); “under homeopathic treatment the severity of the disease and the quality of life im­proved substantially, which supports the ‘whole person’ approach prevailing in contemporary homeopathy”; “homeo­pathic medical therapy may play a beneficial role in the long-term care of older adults with chronic diseases” (Teut et al. 2010).

The subsequent publications of this study relate to subgroups of patients with specific conditions at the two-year follow-up (Teut et al. 2010; Witt et al. 2009c; Witt et al. 2009b; Witt et al. 2010; Witt et al. 2011) (Table 1). The two-year follow-up results were published in two strikingly similar articles (Becker-Witt et al. 2004; Witt et al. 2005b). One of them falls outside the reporting period of the present analysis (Becker-Witt et al. 2004), and it is therefore only mentioned in the discussion of my analysis. In none of these articles was the disease in question diagnosed according to rigorous criteria. Even though sample sizes were often low (Table 1), the authors believe their results are “representative” (Witt et al. 2011).

All of these publications report highly encouraging results for homeo­pathy. The possibility that these findings might not be due to the treatment but caused by the natural history of the disease, regression toward the mean, placebo effects, the therapeutic relationship, other context effects, or a mixture of any of these factors is repeatedly mentioned but then either dismissed or deemed unlikely. In some instances, even the stated aim of the article seems to imply causality: “evaluate ... effects of homeopathic treatment” (Witt et al. 2011), “our study was designed to evaluate homeopathic treatments” (Witt et al. 2011), “evaluating homeopathic treatment” (Witt et al. 2009b), “to evaluate ... effects of an individualized homeopathic treatment” (Witt et al. 2010). Conflicts of interest were often not mentioned, but if they were, none were declared. Some of the articles in this series stated that the research was funded by the Carstens Foundation, an organization well-known for its pro-homeopathic stance.

The third category of articles (Keil et al. 2008; Witt et al. 2005a) is based on comparative cohort studies. For the first of these investigations, 493 patients with five selected chronic conditions were recruited by 101 homeopathic and fifty-nine conventional study physicians. These patients had chosen homeopathic and conventional healthcare according to their own be­liefs and preferences. Therefore, the two groups yielded numerous significant differences at baseline, e.g., conventional patients were seven years older, had used more medical services in the past, and were more likely to be male. Half of the homeopathic cohort used conventional treatments in addition to homeopathy. Only scant details were provided about the treatments ad­ministered in each group.

The main outcome measures in­cluded a non-validated symptom score, quality of life, and overall costs. The latter was only available for 38 percent of patients, which seems to invalidate any conclusions regarding cost. Yet the authors fail to discuss this point critically and present these data as valid. The results seem to indicate that homeo­pathy “had a better overall outcome compared to ... conventional treatment” (Witt et al. 2005a). The obvious fact that this could be due to a range of factors, including the lower age of these patients or the additional attention by homeo­paths, is not critically discussed.

The data of the same study were submitted to a subgroup analysis of 118 children suffering from eczema (Witt et al. 2005a). In this paper, the authors again imply causal inferences that, due to the study design, are not warranted, e.g., “the extent of the improvement was significantly different, in favour of homoeopathically treated patients” or “... it is noteworthy that the outcome was at least similar (by patients’ assessment) or significantly superior (by physicians’ assessment) to conventional treatment” (Keil et al. 2008). Again, the study is presented as though it was a comparison of homeo­pathy with conventional care, while it was, in fact, a comparison of homeopathy plus conventional care versus conventional care alone.

Witt et al. also published a separate but similar comparative cohort study with children suffering from eczema (Witt et al. 2009a). Again, the parents had selected either homeopathic or conventional based on their beliefs. Consequently, there were multiple baseline differences between the relatively small groups (n=48 and 87). Only scant details were provided about the treatments used in both groups. In particular, it is unclear to what extent the homeopathic physicians also employed conventional treatments. Neither was it clear on what basis the physicians decided to include some patients and exclude others. The primary outcome measure was a validated symptom score administered by blinded evaluators. The results showed no inter-group differences at six or twelve months, but a graph provided in the article depicts a steeper decline of the symptom score in the homeopathy group. The costs for homeopathic patients were about twice of those of the control group. Closer inspection of the results reveals that, because the homeopathic group was more severely ill at baseline, the apparent improvement in this group might have been due to a more pronounced regression toward the mean. Yet this possibility was not discussed by the authors of this paper.

This critical analysis is, of course, limited by the fact that only the publications of one research group were scrutinized. Thus, generalizations across the field of homeopathy are not permissible. Nevertheless, my evaluation suggests numerous flaws in the design, conduct, and reporting of clinical research in homeopathy recently published by the most prolific research unit in this area. It also reveals multiple publications of similar data, which might be regarded as ethically debateable. Most important, it points to a phenomenon that, according to my experience, seems to be common in this line of investigation (Ernst 2010): relatively weak data tend to be over- or misinterpreted to such an extent that the casual reader of such publications can be seriously misled. Consequently, homeopathy appears to have clinical effects which, with critical analysis, can be attributed to bias or confounding.

Future research in this area should be more rigorous and readers of biased research papers should apply appropriately critical assessments.n

References

Becker-Witt, C., R. Ludtke, T. E. Weisshuhn, et al. 2004. Diagnoses and treatment in homeopathic medical practice. Forsch Komple­mentarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 11: 98–103.

Bewley, S., E. Ernst, J. Garrow, et al. 2011. The evidence for homeopathy is not positive: A rapid response to Bewley, S., On behalf of N. Ross, A. Braillon, E. Ernst, et al. Letter: Advice on homoeopathic products: Clothing naked quackery and legitimising pseudoscience BMJ 2011; 343:doi:10.1136/bmj.d5960.

Brinkhaus, B., J.M. Wilkens, R. Lüdtke, et al. 2006. Homeopathic arnica therapy in patients receiving knee surgery: Results of three randomised double-blind trials. Com­ple­mentary Therapies in Medicine 14(4): 237–246.

Chatfield, K. 2011. Progress in the placebo debate for homeopathy? Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 17(8):663–664.

Ernst, E. 2010. Classic flaws in clinical CAM research. Focus on Alternative and Comple­mentary Therapies 15(3):207–209.

Fisher, P. 2011. Homeopathy: A rapid response to Bewley, S., On behalf of N. Ross, A. Braillon, E. Ernst, et al. Letter: Advice on homoeopathic products: Clothing naked quackery and legitimising pseudoscience BMJ 2011;343:doi:10.1136/bmj.d5960.

Keil, T., C.M. Witt, S. Roll, et al. 2008. Homoeopathic versus conventional treatment of children with eczema: A comparative co­hort study. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 16(1): 15–21.

Sehon, S. and D. Stanley. 2010. Applying the simplicity principle to homeopathy: What remains? Focus on Alternative and Comple­mentary Therapies 15(1): 8–12.

Teut, M., R. Lüdtke, K. Schnabel, et al. 2010. Homeopathic treatment of elderly patients—a prospective observational study with follow-up over a two year period. BMC Geriatrics 10: 10.

Witt, C., T. Keil, D. Selim, et al. 2005a. Outcome and costs of homoeopathic and conventional treatment strategies: A comparative cohort study in patients with chronic disorders. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 13(2): 79–86.

Witt, C.M., B. Brinkhaus, D. Pach, et al. 2009a. Homoeopathic versus conventional therapy for atopic eczema in children: Medical and economic results. Dermatology 219: 329–340.

Witt, C.M., R. Lüdtke, R. Baur, et al. 2005b. Homeopathic medical practice: Long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. BMC Public Health 5: 115.

Witt, C.M., R. Lüdtke, N. Mengler, et al. 2008. How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment? Results from a long term observational study. BMC Public Health 8: 413.

Witt, C.M., R. Lüdtke, and S.N. Willich. 2009b. Homeopathic treatment of patients with dysmenorrhea: A prospective observational study with 2 years follow-up. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 280(4): 603–611.

———. 2010. Homeopathic treatment of patients with migraine: A prospective observational study with a 2-year follow-up period. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 16(4): 347–355.

———. 2011. Homeopathic treatment of patients with psoriasis—a prospective observational study with 2 years follow-up. European Journal Acta Dermatologica Venereological 23(5): 538–543.

———. 2009c. Homeopathic treatment of children with atopic eczema: A prospective observational study with two years follow-up. Acta Dermatologica Venereologica 89(2): 182–183.

Take a simple scientific fact or term, build an elaborate fantasy on top of it, promote it, and you have pseudoscience. Live blood cell analysis by darkfield microscopy is an example. It sounds like a legitimate and valuable evidence-based diagnostic procedure; it is not.

Darkfield microscopy is a microscopic technique in which light strikes the observed material from the side rather than from underneath and through the material. The background is dark with the observed material highlighted by the lateral light source. In normal brightfield microscopy, the background is white or very light and the material is usually darkly stained to bring out fine details and colors not normally visible.

In medicine, the most common use of brightfield microscopy is in diagnostic applications. The commonly or­dered complete blood count (CBC) is often partly done with stained smears of the patient’s blood observed under brightfield microscopy. With this technique, the clinical laboratory scientist can observe very fine details about the size and shape of the red blood cells; the shape, size, and relative numbers of the white blood cells; and the presence or absence of platelets, those small cell fragments that cause blood to clot.

Darkfield microscopy is useful in the medical laboratory for identifying living spirochetes collected from an infected patient. These are corkscrew-shaped bacteria that can be seen wiggling and corkscrewing their way through the liquid or material in which they are suspended. However, the use of darkfield microscopy as part of a CBC or analysis of live blood is questionable. Because darkfield is by definition dark, most of the detail that is apparent in brightfield examination is invisible. The use of darkfield techniques in examining live blood for cellular shape and detail is suspect and is not offered by most reputable medical laboratories because it has little diagnostic value.

That fact has not deterred some alternative medicine practitioners from providing live blood cell analysis (darkfield blood analysis) to the unsuspecting public. In a typical scenario, the alternative medicine practitioner will have the darkfield microscope set up at a health fair or in his or her office. A video camera is connected to the microscope and feeds a video monitor so that the enlarged image is visible on the screen. For a fee, the practitioner will offer the test to a patient or attendee at a health fair.

The customers may be asked to prick their own fingers with a sterile lancet to obtain blood. It is illegal in some states for an alternative medicine practitioner to perform any invasive procedure on the public. In these states, the customers must perform the invasive procedure by collecting their own blood samples.

After a drop of blood oozes to the surface of the skin, the practitioner will dab it onto a glass cover slip and place the slip on a glass slide for observation under the darkfield microscope. The practitioner will then scan the slide and point out various features of the sample as the customer observes the screen in confused wonderment.

The problem is that most of these practitioners are not trained medical professionals and are not qualified to examine a blood sample. Microscopes and video set-ups are available for purchase by anyone for $3,500 to $6,000. With the purchase of the set-up, a two- or three-day training course is offered. No one can be adequately trained in a couple of days to properly evaluate a blood sample. Laboratory professionals and pathologists must take years of training through accredited educational programs before they can competently perform a microscopic examination of blood cells.

Businesses that provide these microscope/video set-ups are careful in de­scribing the purpose of their product. Most will say that their equipment is to be used for educational purposes only. Customers will supposedly be motivated to improve their lifestyles after seeing their blood on the video screen. The product is not to be used to diagnose, evaluate, or treat any disease or disorder. Undoubtedly, the purpose of this disclaimer is to prevent legal entanglements. Providing an unlicensed, nonvalidated test to diagnose disease or illness is unprofessional if not illegal.

However, in actual practice, most alternative practitioners will come close to a diagnosis as they review the blood sample. While reviewing the sample with the customer the practitioner will often observe “rouleau” formations of the red cells. Rouleaux occur when the red cells stack on top of one another and appear like stacks of coins. True rouleaux can be seen in patients with plasma protein abnormalities like multiple mye­loma, but this is rare. Myeloma is a life threatening condition and requires medical attention.

The rouleaux observed by alternative medicine practitioners are almost always artifacts due to the slight drying of the blood sample around the edges of the coverslip or due to clumping in areas of the slide where there is a large concentration of red cells. In micro­scopy, an artifact is something that looks abnormal or odd but is actually insignificant and is ignored by a trained professional. Blood cells will normally start to clot and stack upon coming in contact with glass. Observa­tion of red cell rouleaux on a darkfield microscope from a finger-stick sample obtained from a customer or patient is diagnostic of nothing.

If the slide is observed near the center of the coverslip, rouleaux are rarely seen. The red cells are free floating and are not attached to each other. The practitioner will often identify these red cells as “healthy.” The customer can be misled by the practitioner moving the slide near the edge of the coverslip where false rouleaux are common or showing the field near the center where rouleaux are rarely seen. The practitioner can show the customer whatever he or she wants the customer to see by selecting a specific area of the slide.

According to some alternative practitioners, rouleaux are indicative of acid in the blood. Anyone who has taken a real anatomy and physiology course knows that blood is not acidic unless the person is acutely ill with respiratory or metabolic acidosis, conditions that are life-threatening. The kidneys will normally excrete excess metabolic acid into the urine while the lungs continually rid the body of excess carbon dioxide to keep the blood at the normal level of slight alkalinity; blood is never acidic unless the person is very ill.

Rouleaux are not caused by acidic blood, and people who are actually in severe acidosis would certainly not be well enough to be wandering around an alternative medicine health fair. Curiously, other practitioners will state that rouleaux are actually caused by a sluggish or weak pancreas that is not digesting protein properly.

Alternative medicine practitioners often demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge concerning basic biology—not to mention pathology or medicine. They will comment that the red cells are beginning to bud off bacteria from the edge of the red cell membrane. These small artifacts near the cell membrane are interpreted as bacteria being born. A high school biology student would know that this idea is implausible. One form of life cannot instantly transform into another. It is a biological impossibility for a red blood cell to transform into a bacterium. Each biological organism, from a blue whale to a Vidalia onion to a coliform bacterium, has a completely different genome or set of DNA that makes the organism unique. If the practitioner could actually identify bacteria in the blood, the customer is in danger and should request immediate transfer to the nearest emergency room to be treated for septicemia, a potentially life-threatening infection of the bloodstream.

Some artifacts are mistakenly identified by the practitioner as yeast cells, one of the most common “findings” by alternative practitioners. Yeast cells cannot be seen in the blood of a healthy person for the simple reason that they are not there. An actual fungus (yeast) in the blood is seen in patients who are critically ill with some type of severe immune system deficiency. These individuals also will not be well enough to be wandering about at a health fair.

Often a microscopic shard of glass from the slide will be present in the microscopic field. These tiny shards are present on most slides unless the slide is carefully cleaned before use. The alternative practitioner will usually identify these glass shards as uric acid crystals or cholesterol plaques, which are simply not visible in a blood sample.

Surprisingly, a “parasite” is often found in the blood during live blood cell analysis. Some of these so-called parasites appear to be slightly deformed red cells or microscopic particles of dirt and debris commonly visible on a glass slide. Legitimate medical laboratories never report “parasites” as a laboratory finding. The species of parasite must be identified by carefully observing individual anat­omical features of the parasite’s body or eggs so appropriate treatment can be implemented. The presence of real parasites in the bloodstream indicates a very serious medical condition.

The parasites (actually artifacts) seen by the live blood cell analyst simply cannot be identified because they do not have anatomical features. Addi­tionally, people with real parasitic infections in the bloodstream are ill enough to seek legitimate medical treatment and are treated with antimalarial or antiparasitic drugs, the normal standard of care. Anyone with worms, trypanosomes (sleeping sickness), protozoa (malaria), or other free-living parasites in the bloodstream is in danger and is in need of immediate medical attention, not a nutritional herbal supplement that supposedly rids the body of pesky blood-borne parasites.

Light spots seen on the red cells are often identified as “fermentations” by the practitioner. Supposedly these are areas of the red cell undergoing fermentation due to the high sugar content of the blood. This fermentation interpretation demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic chemistry and physiology. Fermentation occurs when yeast produce enzymes that convert sugar to ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide gas. This causes grape juice to turn into sparkling wine but does not cause red blood cells to develop white spots. Red blood cells do not contain yeast and cannot ferment anything; red cells have also never been observed to be full of alcohol and carbon dioxide gas bubbles. If yeast cells were actually fermenting sugar and forming alcohol in the bloodstream, one could be legitimately charged with driving under the influence after eating a doughnut. The light spots are actually artifacts and are not visible on many of the red cells observed throughout the microscopic field.

Conveniently, most of the serious-sounding conditions discovered by the practitioner can be resolved by waving a special “zero-point energy wand” over the body, eating special alkaline foods, drinking alkalinized water, or by taking a dietary supplement that the practitioner just happens to sell. Although no “diagnoses” are supposedly made, the practitioner will let the customers know that they have one or more of the following: an imbalance in their acids, free radical damage, a weakness in the liver or pancreas, a problem with their alkalophile organs (this mysterious classification of organs cannot be found in any reputable anatomy textbook), blood toxins, stress, poor lymphatic circulation, a tendency toward allergies, yeast in the blood, bacteria in the blood, blood parasites, hormonal imbalances, and a host of other vaguely worded but serious-sounding conditions.

If the customer takes the prescribed supplement or submits to a bizarre zero-point energy wand waving session and returns for a repeat darkfield examination, the original disorder has, more often than not, miraculously disappeared. Or was the practitioner examining the area of the sample near the center of the coverslip where the red cells appear normal, there are no rouleau formations, and few if any artifacts are seen at all?

Live blood cell analysis is not currently recognized by the laboratory profession as a worthwhile laboratory test because it reveals very little diagnostic information. One can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if legitimate laboratory tests had to bear the disclaimer: “This test is for educational purposes only and cannot be used to diagnose, evaluate, or treat any disease or disorder.”

Laboratories that perform evidence-based medical laboratory testing in the United States are regulated by the Clin­ical Laboratory Improvements Amend­ment (CLIA) passed by Con­gress. This legislation requires that all highly complex medical laboratory tests be performed by qualified personnel and that all laboratory tests offered must be continually validated by special programs. Out of ignorance or to avoid these restrictive regulations, live blood cell analysts simply do not register their activity with the federal government and therefore are not inspected. The actual en­forcement of medical laboratory standards in most cases falls under statutes set by each state. Some states have closed down live blood cell analysis when they are aware of such activity. Other states have not investigated the issue or simply allow alternative medicine practitioners to continue their practice.

There are several websites that currently demonstrate live blood cell analysis. These sites have the trappings of real science with the doctor title thrown about as if the procedure is being performed by a medical doctor. Most of these “doctors” have PhDs or medical degrees from schools of nutrition, herbal medicine, natural healing, or naturopathy. They have not published any peer-reviewed research findings in legitimate scholarly journals, have not produced a doctoral-quality dissertation, and have not graduated from any recognized academic university or accredited school of medicine. Many of these sites are interesting to watch. The Internet demonstrations of live blood analysis are sprinkled with quasi-scientific terms that can easily fool an unsuspecting public into thinking there is actual science involved.

The idea that wand waving, dietary supplements, and alkaline diets can cure the host of strange disorders identified during live blood cell analysis is certainly pseudoscience at its worst. The hope is that we are not slowly traveling backward in time toward Sagan’s demon-haunted world through the eyepieces of our darkfield microscopes.

Pakistani skeptics face unique problems with the rise of lawless religious extremism on one hand, and a government that protects Islam on the other. Faith healing is an old tradition that no time period or culture has a monopoly on. Despite differences in religions, faith healers who claim to heal the sick through religious belief exist throughout the world. Some claim to be gods, prophets, or intermediaries between the physical and metaphysical realms. South Asia is no different in that regard.

Whether people follow Islam or Hinduism, the believers who accept faith healing have a wide range of people who will take their money for promises of spiritual healing. While the “rat children” of Pakistan can be seen begging for money on the streets, in recent years faith healers in several parts of Pakistan have disappeared from public view. Since 2008, many have taken their “healing” underground, making their activities more difficult to track. For skeptics, this would at first seem like a cause to celebrate. However, this drop should not imply the change is from public critical thinking and a growth of scientific skepticism. It has to do more with an alarming trend in the other direction, which has to do with the rise of religious violence in Pakistan.

As readers of the Skeptical Inquirer are well aware, faith healing attracts many types of people to its practice. These include outright frauds, people who believe their own unproven statements, and those who mix fraud and belief in their own claims. In North America and Europe, one might witness a pastor giving spiritual advice followed with an incantation where someone is “healed.” Likewise in Paki­stan, it might be a “Pir,” an “elder” who gives his followers spiritual advice and a blessing. One Pir told The News that while there are some frauds “there are many who are serving the public through the verses of the holy Quran” (“Faith Healers” 2009). Official statistics about faith healing in Pakistan are difficult to obtain. Yet in 2005, some official numbers about the “prevalence of fake spiritual healers” were published under Home Minister Rauf Siddiqui. Accord­ing to the Daily Times, the breakdown was: “91 fake faith healers and magicians operating in Sindh thus far, including 44 in Karachi, 31 in Hyder­abad and 16 in Sukkur” (“Practices of Fake Faith Healers ...” 2011).

In Gujrat, Pakistan, faith healing and child exploitation are combined with chuhas (“rats” in Urdu), which are better known as the “rat children” of Pakistan. On any given day at the shrine of Shah Dola (also spelled “Daula”), “hundreds of worshippers come to celebrate the life of one of Pakistan’s most revered Sufi saints” (Galpin 1998). People bring their mentally retarded children to the shrine for a blessing, hoping it will make them better (Bragg 2001). Women also gather at the tomb praying for a cure for infertility. Yet if they then conceive, the myth goes, “the couple can expect their first-born to be handicapped—a rat child with a tiny head. And it must be handed over to the shrine” (Galpin 1998). If the couples do not keep that commitment, God will punish them. Around the shrine are children who are mentally and physically deformed with microcephaly, or small skulls, supposedly with features like rats, and they cannot speak. These children beg for money from morning until night and usually have no problem getting it, since many believe the disabled are closer to God.

Many believe that people hand over healthy babies, which are then de­formed to look like “rats” using crude devices and then sold to criminal organizations. According to Anusheh Hus­sain, head of Sahil—a nongovernment organization against child abuse—the children are sold for as low as 40,000 rupees (about $10). Pirzada Imtiaz Syed, a trade union leader, said: “I have not seen this myself but I have heard from many people that they use iron rings which are placed on the baby’s head to stop it growing. I believe there are about 10,000 rat children in Paki­stan controlled by a mafia of beggars who are all over the country. These children are also physically and sexually abused” (Galpin 1998). While people associated with the shrine deny that, and claim the deformity is genetic, Qasim Mehdi, Pakistan’s top genetic scientist who studied the “rat children,” said that it is “medically impossible” because a genetic disease must be carried in the family and passed through parents to children, but these children are not related. According to the Integrated Regional Information Net­works, which is an independent part of the United Nations, the theory that the children are forced “to wear metal caps which constrain the normal growth of the head” was developed and re­searched “by one of Pakistan’s top scientists, who was then banned from talking about the issue following media exposure several years ago.” (Integrated Regional Information Networks 2002).

This picture, taken on July 17, 2008, shows a Pakistani devotee touching the feet of Nadia, a twenty-five-year-old microcephalic “rat woman” at the shrine of Shah Dola. According to local legend, infertile women who pray at Shah Dola's shrine will be granted children, but the first child will be born microcephalic and must be given to the shrine or else any further children will have the same deformity. AFP PHOTO/Farooq NAEEM

South Asia provides unique problems for skeptics in the region compared with North America and Europe. With centuries of tradition and severe economic inequality throughout the region, superstition is rampant in Bangladesh, Paki­stan, and India. In the case of India, since the 1970s, Indian rationalist groups have grown in number and influence but have also built ties with the international rationalist community. Basava Prema­nand (1930–2009) from Kerala, India, was an early post-independence rationalist speaker and writer, detailing how some Hindu gurus trick believers. In the 1970s, Premanand began criticizing Sathya Sai Baba (1926–2011), an Indian “God man,” eventually founding the Federation of Indian Rationalist Asso­cia­tions, which coordinates the activities of dozens of rationalist associations through­out India. Another prominent figure is Prabir Ghosh who is a more recent Indian skeptic and writer who offers a cash prize similar to that of the James Randi Educational Foundation for demonstration of paranormal abilities in India. Their mission has not been easy. Indian skeptics have faced attacks in a variety of ways, including Premanand surviving four assassination attempts (Datta 2004).

Pakistanis have dealt with the problem differently, and due to political instability as well as blasphemy laws it also faces unique challenges. Moham­med Younus Shaikh is a medical doctor, rationalist, and human rights ac­tivist who started The Enlighten­ment, a rationalist society, in Pakistan in 1992. His organization came to a halt in October 2000, when he was charged with blasphemy for a lecture he supposedly gave at Capital Medical Col­lege. Not only did Shaikh deny committing blasphemy, he denied even giving a lecture there. Nonetheless, he was fined 100,000 rupees and sentenced to death (Price 2001). The law to prevent “derogatory remarks about Prophet Mohammed” was added to the Pakistani Penal Code in 1986, and remains on record despite attempts by President Musharraf to change the law just a year before Shaikh was arrested. For three years, the IHEU, the Sea of Faith, and Amnesty International campaigned for his release. He was finally acquitted of blasphemy in November 2003 and immediately fled to Europe. After his acquittal, he described the event as “Islamic terrorism through the abuse of law and of the state apparatus.” When Shaikh left the country, Pakistan lost a critical voice against superstition and encouraged would-be skeptics to remain silent about religion. Despite the absence of skeptics questioning belief, there has recently been a change in faith healing activity throughout Pakistan.

With the rise of lawlessness in some areas of Pakistan that border Afghan­istan, comes a trend that seems to be only increasing in areas without effective government. Since late 2007, places such as Peshawar, in the Federally Admin­istered Tribal Areas, have seen an in­crease of instability caused by the Pakistani Taliban. From the lack of effective law enforcement, radical Mus­lims have been emboldened to attack and murder those they disagree with or who do not follow their interpretation of the Quran, which includes faith healers. They have attacked and threatened faith healers with claims that the “healers” are fraudsters misusing the Quran and misleading Islamic believers, or that the healers are false prophets.

In 2008 and 2009, many Pirs who practiced faith healing were picked up from around Peshawar and were re­leased only when they promised no longer to engage in those activities. Others have not been so lucky. In Jan­uary 2009, one faith healer was blown up by explosives in Peshawar after he was told to stop his “illegal and un-Islamic” practice, but did not submit to the intimidation. Several others were attacked as well, including one who was beheaded, and a faith healing business was also destroyed. In fact, Phool Badshah, a faith healer, was murdered within the limits of the Yakatoot Police Station jurisdiction. The police, it appears, have been powerless to stop these attacks.

In 2011, some segments of the Pakistani government began listening to critics of faith healing in other parts of the country. In Karachi, which has felt the lower levels of militancy, hundreds of faith healers openly do business. Accord­ing to the Daily Times, “They are indulged in fleecing innocent masses with a sole purpose to extract money from them on the cost of their plights” (“Practices of Fake Faith Healers ...” 2011). Umair Alam, who was taken advantage of, explained his situation: “I don’t believe them any more as I have personally experienced their deceitful skills. I paid 25,000 [rupees] to a faith healer, who ran his business in Surjani Town, when I was trapped in a serious domestic problem. He initially assured me of getting all my problems solved within 45 days. But, subsequently, nothing happened and he refused to return my money, saying it will take more cash for solving the problem” (“Practices of Fake Faith Healers ...” 2011). With stories of fraud and abuse as well as intimidation and murder in other parts of the country, the government has shown some interest in addressing fraud.

In June 2011, Nadia Gabol, Sindh Minister for Human Rights, described spiritual healing as “no more than a matter of money making.” Gabol said that the practice should be banned. In fact, she announced, “It is a matter worth concern. After deliberations with our parliamentary leader, we will take this issue to the provincial assembly” (“Practices of Fake Faith Healers ...” 2011). Likewise, Fayyaz Ahmed Lag­hari, the Inspector General Police in Sindh, said that action will be taken against the fraudsters when the police receive formal complaints. Time will tell whether the Pakistani government can protect its citizens from attacks and whether the authorities can stem the fraudulent activities of faith healers. Yet, it seems that at least government officials speaking about the problem is a move in the right direction.

There is no doubt that faith healers, who make promises to mentally and physically heal sick people, need to be scrutinized and should be held accountable for their claims. But this should be done through laws and courts, not through intimidation. With the rise of Islamic extremism in Paki­stan, the country not only has to protect people from fraudulent healers but also has the challenge of protecting fraudsters from violence. Skeptics en­courage critical thinking. The silencing of opponents through threats is not critical thinking but rather the opposite. Both skeptics and faith healers can agree: the violent intimidation and threats to Pirs is not acceptable. It re­mains to be seen what, if anything, the Pakistani government can do be­cause the government needs to not only protect its citizens’ safety and stop fraud, but it also needs stability.

References

Bragg, Rick. 2001. Seeking miracles in a place of cruelty and beauty. New York Times (October 28). Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/28/world/seeking-miracles-in-a-place-of-cruelty-and-beauty.html.

Datta, Tanya. 2004. Sai Baba: God-man or con man? BBC (17 June). Online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm.

Faith healers: Another casualty of lawlessness in Frontier. 2009. The News (February 23). On­line at http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=164058&Cat=7&dt=2/22/2009.

Galpin, Richard. 1998. The rat children of Paki­stan. BBC (29 June). Online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/122670.stm.

Integrated Regional Information Networks. 2002. Pakistan: Focus on rat-children. United Nations (14 October). Online at http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=18638.

Practices of fake faith healers unnoticed. 2011. Daily Times (June 6). Online at http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\06\06\story_6-6-2011_pg7_4.

Price, Susannah. 2001. Pakistani sentenced to death for blasphemy. BBC (18 August). Online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1498121.stm.

For Further Reading

Dugger, Celia. 2001. Pakistani sentenced to death for blasphemy. New York Times (August 20). Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/20/international/asia/20DOCT.html.

Faith healer killed near Peshawar. 2009. Daily Times (February 18). Online at http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C02%5C18%5Cstory_18-2-2009_pg7_37.

Kemp, Danny. 2008. ‘Rat people’ forced to beg on Pakistan’s streets. Sydney Morning Herald (August 2). Online at http://news.smh.com.au/world/rat-people-forced-to-beg-on-pakistans-streets-20080802-3oqf.html.

International Humanist and Ethical Union. 2004. Campaigning for the release of Dr Shaikh. (1 February). Online at http://www.iheu.org/node/1008.

Rationalist International. 2001. Dr. Shaikh sentenced to death. Online at http://www.rationalistinternational.net/Shaikh/2001.08.26.htm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the company’s official website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, by wearing the Nano­bionic T-shirt:

All the parameters of cardiorespiratory endurance significantly in­creased.

All the parameters of anaerobic capacity significantly increased.

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

The vertical leap was significantly higher.

The flexibility test was significantly better.

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

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

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

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

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

Together, as we shall see, these cases illustrate that UFOlogy continues its long tradition of mystery mongering and the implicit reliance on a logical fallacy called “arguing from ignorance”: “We don’t know what was seen in the sky; therefore, it must have been an extraterrestrial craft.” The cases also reveal that much of what is claimed depends on the states of mind of the alleged eyewitnesses. Following the show I was able to spend more time investigating the cases, and here is a look at each of the three revealing Anderson segments in turn.

UFO: ‘Hovering’ in the Mind’s Eye

First up was Denise Murter, age fifty-two, from Levittown, Pennsylvania. Her encounters began in May 2008, when she and her husband were awakened by their growling dog, Alex. Finding nothing unusual in the apartment, she took the dog outside so he could relieve himself. Thereupon, she “noticed a light in the sky,” which she guessed to be “about 1000 feet in the air.” While it seemed to be “moving very quickly from spot to spot,” nevertheless, she stated, “It was hovering over the trees in the yard.” There was no noise and Alex became “perfectly well behaved.” The light hovered for some twenty minutes, but she does not say what became of it.

The incident was repeated about four weeks later, but the night sky was more overcast, so she said of the UFO that she “could just see parts of it creeping in the clouds.” Depending on how it moved, it appeared circular or boomerang shaped.¹ She saw windows that were “bluish green” and “were all the way around the craft.” A “little pink light” was following it, and “On the bottom there were three giant headlights in a triangle shape.”

After another month, Alex again woke her and she “immediately knew that they were back and I had to go outside again.” The craft appeared closer to the house “but still hovering over the trees.” Then she saw a beam of light and a sparkling powder that “looked like it was dancing in the trees” (Murter 2012a).

Murter stated, “I was paralyzed. I could not move.” She waited until the next day to tell her husband because this particular experience “was just too unbelievable. . . . I didn’t want people to think I went bonkers; it was like it was in a movie.” Her husband advised her not to tell others of her experience, but she “told MUFON”—the Mutual UFO Network—about it and more (Murter 2012a).² Another version of the events, citing a MUFON field investigator, describes “half a dozen sightings” beginning April 20, 2008 (Howe 2008).

The “paralysis”—together with the strange as if “in a movie” experience—provides a clue as to what probably happened on this occasion: Being half asleep (and perhaps having rested on one of the lounge chairs in her back yard to watch the hovering UFO),³ Murter had a hypnagogic experience (or “waking dream”). This occurs in the interface between being fully awake and asleep. It is typically characterized by hallucinations, often with bright lights reported, and sleep paralysis, the body’s inability to move because it is still in the sleep mode (Mavromatis 1987, 14–52). This state probably explains Murter’s perceived beam of light and sparkling powder. I suspect that during at least part of each of her reported events Murter was not fully awake, and that that affected many of her perceptions.

Regarding the UFO itself, I discussed Murter’s sightings with James McGaha, one of our organization’s UFO experts and director of the Grass­lands Observatory in Tucson. He suggested that the UFO might have a ready explanation, given the direction in which Murter was looking at the approximate times and place reported: that is, a celestial object, some twenty-five times brighter than the stars in her field of vision—namely, the planet Jupiter. That it seemed to move was probably due to the autokinetic effect (McGaha 2012). This occurs when one stares at a bright light in the dark, particularly when it is well above the horizon (so there is no frame of reference). Autokinesis is due to “small involuntary jerking movements of the human eye” (Hendry 1979, 26). (In one UFO case, for example, a light that “zigzagged” while remaining in the same basic position for forty minutes proved to be a combination of star and “autokinetic motions” [Hendry 1979, 95].)

As to the shifting colors Murter described, McGaha (2012) noted that that effect would be due to scintillation—that is, the “twinkling,” not only of stars but also of planets like Jupiter when the atmosphere is especially turbulent. Scintillation can occur on the clearest nights, even affecting a single celestial light, and it results in refraction (bending) of the different wavelengths to cause the changing colors. Like autokinesis, scintillation can also produce “an illusion of motion” (Hen­dry 1979, 26). Both probably helped cause the illusion of changing shapes Murter described, aided by her own imagination. After the show’s taping she sent me an angry note in which she said, “I know what I saw” (Murter 2012b). Actually, of course, this no doubt well-meaning lady only “knows” what she thinks she saw.

Anyway, as I told Cooper on his show, it seems farfetched that extraterrestrials would traverse the incredible distances involved—on some secret mission to Earth—then repeatedly hover over Murter’s back yard with their bright lights on!

Aliens and Hypnotic Recall

The next segment on Anderson featured two young women from Law­rence­burg, Kentucky, Brittany Fields and Jennifer Morgan, who encountered UFOs late one night, then, subsequently, under hypnosis, “recalled” alien encounters.

Their story began April 26, 2011, when, about midnight, the two went on a drive with three young male friends. As they turned down one road and looked over farmland, they saw a light above the trees speeding toward them. Jennifer first thought it could be a helicopter: It was “somewhat long” with lights on the front and back. However, when it flew over them it was “huge,” she said, “bigger than a helicopter,” and made a noise that was like no helicopter she knew. It sounded like a loud, high-pitched, thumping rhythm. There was also a high-pitched whining noise.” Soon, she says, there seemed to be lights everywhere, “red, white, and green,” that were “blinking sporadically” (Morgan 2012). Brittany described somewhat similar events, except that she had first thought their initial sighting was of a blimp (Fields 2012).

No doubt the young people saw something, and they categorically deny they were under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. However, the three males’ unwillingness to come forward does suggest that they were less inclined to become caught up in the imaginative possibilities (rather like Murter’s reticent husband in the previous case).

I also discussed this particular case with James McGaha—this time not in his persona of astronomer but as a former special operations and electronic warfare pilot. He stated that the witnesses’ UFO description had “helicopter written all over it.” He pointed out that the area was well within the reach of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, which is where American military helicopter training occurs. Stationed there is the famous “Night Stalkers” special-operations unit. (Indeed, it was out of Fort Campbell that the training for the days-later, successful “Night Stalkers” mission against terrorist Bin Laden took place.) The Night Stalkers unit has an impressive variety of huge and odd-looking helicopters that the public rarely sees. Major McGaha suggests that some nighttime helicopter training operation could explain the young people’s UFO sighting. As to the red, green, and white lights reported, those are the colors of lights on all aircraft—military or civilian.

In any event, Brittany says that later, “no one remembers a period of time after we turned left at a four-way stop towards the end of the night.” Because of this “missing time” and other concerns, she also contacted MUFON and “They proposed the idea of us getting hypnotized” (Fields 2012). Under hypnosis she “remembered” four small humanoid beings, one of whom held her hand, while the others poked at and examined her body. She “locked eyes” with the entity that was holding her hand and she “felt a flood of emotion.” He, too, seemed “overwhelmingly concerned” and “just wanted to make me better.” In a second session she explored the period of “missing time” and reported that she and Jen­nifer had been in a state “like frozen animation” (Fields 2012).

For her part, Jennifer says she “was not as responsive to hypnosis as Brit­tany.” Her session seemed “almost like a dream.” “The only thing I can remember,” she says, “was seeing a bright light, Brittany pulling off the road, and then literally my memory jumped from being in a car to being in a circular white room.” Completely naked, she felt a pain in the back of her head, and later her boyfriend found a scar on the back of her neck that she did not recall having. Did she think she was abducted by aliens? “There’s no other explanation. It’s the only logical explanation,” she concluded (Morgan 2012).

Actually, there is quite another, much more rational explanation for such en­counters. They have their origins in a now-ubiquitous UFO myth­ology. Brit­tany said, on describing their first sighting, “Listen, I’ve always believed in this kind of thing” (Fields 2012). The willingness to presume that an un­known object is an extraterrestrial craft (an exercise in illogic called “arguing from ignorance”) sets the stage for other expectations. The familiar humanoid likeness, the “missing time,” the unremembered scar—these are common motifs of UFO lore.

In fact, there is nothing remarkable about a scar going unremembered, especially in an out-of-sight location. As well, “missing time” may result from nothing more than the percipient having been lost in thought. As to the supposed recall under hypnosis, that is simply mistaking imagination for memory. Hypnosis is merely an invitation to fantasize (Baker and Nickell 1992, 216–31). (Being easily hypnotized is even one of the indicators, though not diagnostic in itself, of a personality type that is characterized by proneness to fantasy [Wilson and Barber 1983]—discussed more fully later.) For these reasons, on Anderson I called for MUFON and others to immediately stop using hypnosis to elicit “memories” in UFO cases.

The Star People

The final guest on Anderson was a professed psychic named Cassandra Van­zant. She claimed to be in telepathic communication with extraterrestrials, whose messages she “translates.” At Cooper’s request, she told him he had a star family—the “Lamarians”—who live in “the fourth dimension” (Vanzant 2012). Cooper struggled to keep a straight face, and when he asked the audience how many believed Vanzant could indeed communicate with aliens, just one person raised her hand.

The audience was right to be skeptical. Vanzant is only the most recent “contactee”—one who purports to be in repeated communication with alien beings. (Contactees emerged in the early 1950s but were eventually supplanted by “abductees” who now also frequently serve as cosmic messengers [Story 2001, 134; Nickell 2007, 255–56].) Like others of this ilk, Van­zant exhibits many of the traits associated with a fantasy-prone personality. This describes an otherwise normal and sane person with a great tendency to fantasize. Vanzant, for in­stance, has what seem for all the world like imaginary friends (“Artoli” and “Madascrat”), believes she receives special messages from higher beings, purports to have psychic powers, has had an out-of-body experience, and exhibits other traits that are indicative of fantasy proneness (Wilson and Barber 1983).

When she “channels” her clients’ star families, she first speaks to them in the “ET language” (“Twinkle” 2012), which sounds suspiciously like she is just “speaking in tongues.” Called glossolalia, it is typically “psychobabble,” which uses nonsense syllables to create pseudolanguage (Nickell 1993, 103–109). Vanzant subsequently provides “translations” that are rife with New Age clichés, such as “on this earthly plane” and references to people having “their own truths” (“Twinkle” 2012). Revealing, I think, is the fact that Vanzant also talks like this.⁴ The evidence suggests that she is herself the source of the “messages.” She seems to first fool herself, then other imaginative, credulous folk.

* * *

Like UFOlogical cases generally, these examples from Anderson are telling. They illustrate how distorting the eye of the beholder can be, and how—through credulity, pro-UFO bias, illusions and misperceptions, altered states of consciousness, personality traits, and other factors, including a UFO-mythmaking culture—it can transform mundane phenomena into perceived alien encounters.

Following the show, Anderson Cooper received flak from flying saucer proponents (like the Herald-Tribune’s embarrassingly gullible blogger Billy Cox [2012]) and even a bit from praise­worthy rationalists (like Ed Stockly [2012], who blogs for the Los Angeles Times and suggested I did a “fine job” while being “outnumbered”). In my view, Cooper did a very good job, from identifying himself as a skeptic at the outset to giving me the opportunity to respond throughout. As Stockly noted: “Perhaps the best measure of Nickell’s effectiveness was shown when Cooper polled the studio audience. Only a few hands were raised when asked how many believed that UFOs were alien visitors, and all but a few hands went up when asked how many didn’t believe. Mark that one for the skeptics. It seems that Cooper’s audience is on the ball.” I would add that Cooper himself led the way.

Acknowledgments

I received considerable help with this project from Major James McGaha (USAF Retired) and my trusty assistant Ed Beck, to both of whom I am very grateful.

Notes

1. A photo Murter snapped (see Howe 2008) shows a non-aerodynamic, banana-shaped effect, very grainy or pixelated, probably a photo artifact caused by a point of light photographed by a camera in motion while the shutter is still open (McGaha 2012).

2. MUFON obtained samples from the tree and soil where Murter says the glittering substance fell. Unfortunately, “Three independent laboratories checked the samples with different results” (emphasis added); one unidentified lab re­ported traces of magnesium and boron (Mattar 2008). However, these could potentially be found in some fireworks residues (magnesium being a common ingredient and boron compounds producing a green flame); Pennsylvania is a state where fireworks are legal. Importantly, not one speck of the “glitter” or “little squares of light” was found, either at the site or in the samples (Howe 2008).

3. See photograph in Howe 2008.

4. Of course the “messages” sometimes are in a heightened form compared to her ordinary speech, just as Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” has a more elevated diction than his routine letters.

References

Baker, Robert A., and Joe Nickell. 1992. Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, & Other Mysteries. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Cox, Billy. 2012. Memo to AC: Ditch this gig. Online at devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/12997/memo-to-ac-ditch-this-gig/; accessed May 1, 2012.

Fields, Brittany. 2012. In “I Was Abducted” 2012.

Hendry, Allan. 1979. The UFO Handbook: A Guide to Investigating, Evaluating, and Re­port­ing UFO Sightings. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Howe, Linda Moulton. 2008. Morphing UFO Over Levittown, PA. Online at http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/armageddon-or-newage/message/71220?var=1; accessed August 28, 2012.

I was abducted by aliens. 2012. Anderson show episode, CBS, aired April 24 (includes aired statements, unused portions, online clips, personal communications, etc.).

Mattar, George. 2008. Fallswoman stars in UFO documentary. Bucks County, PA, Courier Times, November 25.

Mavromatis, Andreas. 1987. Hypnagogia: The Unique State of Consciousness Between Wake­fulness and Sleep. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

McGaha, James. 2012. Personal communications to Joe Nickell, April 9 and 11, May 18.

Morgan, Jennifer. 2012. In “I Was Abducted” 2012.

Murter, Denise. 2012a. In “I Was Abducted” 2012.

———. 2012b. Facebook communication to Joe Nickell, April 16.

Nickell, Joe. 1993. Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

———. 2007. Adventures in Paranormal Investi­ga­tions. Lexington: University Press of Ken­tucky.

Stockly, Ed. 2012. TV skeptic: A ‘balanced’ discussion of UFOs on ‘Anderson.’ Online at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2012/04/tv-skeptic-a-balanced-discussion-of-ufos-on-anderson.html; accessed April 26, 2012.

Story, Ronald D., ed. 2001. The Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters. New York: New American Library.

Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star—a Channeled Message by Cassandra Vanzant. 2012. On­line at lightworkersworld.com/2012/03/twinkle-twinkle-little-star-a-channeled-message-by-Cassandra-Vanzant/; accessed May 15, 2012.

Vanzant, Cassandra. 2012. In “I Was Abducted” 2012.

Wilson, Sheryl C., and Theodore X. Barber. 1983. The Fantasy-Prone Personality, in A.A. Sheikh, ed., Imagery: Current Theory, Research and Application. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Certainly great writers, from Oscar Wilde with The Picture of Dorian Gray to Stephen King with Rose Madder, have been able to tell extraordinary stories of scary and unsettling paintings. However, many believe that “haunted” paintings can exist in real life. Coming from a family that has always dealt with paintings—my grandfather is a painter, my father was an art collector, and together with their wives they have run a shop selling paintings for over fifty years—it is easy to understand why this is a subject that particularly fascinates me.

The Hands Resist Him

The Hands Resist Him painting by Bill Stoneham was sold on eBay as “cursed.”

In February 2000, a supposedly cursed painting was auctioned on eBay. It was titled The Hands Resist Him and was painted in 1972 by California artist Bill Stoneham. It depicted a young boy and a female doll standing in front of a glass paneled door against which many hands are pressed. The owners claimed that the characters in it came alive, sometimes leaving the painting and entering the room in which it was being displayed. It was sold for $1,025 to Perception Gallery in Grand Rapids, Mich­igan, which, when contacted some time later, stated that they had not noticed anything strange since buying the painting.

Luckily for Stoneham, the rumor caused by the story made the painting so popular that it was depicted in a short movie by A.D. Calvo (Sitter), as the CD cover art for Carnival Divine’s self-titled album, and was featured in the PC video game “Scratches.” Today, prints of it—and of its sequel, Resistance at the Threshold—are sold in different sizes.

Smiling Portrait

Portrait of Teresa Rovere. On the right, seen through a viewfinder, the face seems to smile; it’s just an illusion created by the shape of the lens.

In November 2005, the Italian TV show Voyager showed a painting owned by self-proclaimed psychic Gustavo Rol from Turin. It depicted a noble lady, Teresa Rovere, wearing nineteenth century garments and a somber frown. However, when the painting was seen through the viewfinder of a camera the mouth seemed to curl upward, forming a smile. Nothing could be seen with the naked eye and the film recorded through the camera did not show anything unusual. On the show, it was claimed that this was an unexplainable phenomenon, maybe an after-life paranormal experiment of the late Rol. In reality, it was a simple optical effect due to the round shape of the viewfinder, the lens of which tends to narrow and make rounder anything seen through it: thus, the coronet on Teresa’s hair seems to bend downward just like the mouth appears to bend upward, creating the illusion of a smile that in reality is not there.

Tears for Fears

One of the many replicas of the Crying Boy painting.

The most bizarre and enduring story of all is certainly the “Curse of the Crying Boy,” a story told in an article by David Clarke published in Fortean Times (July 2008). It all started on September 4, 1985, when British tabloid newspaper The Sun published an article titled “Blazing Curse of the Crying Boy.” It told of a couple who blamed a cheap painting of a child with big tears on his cheek for a fire that destroyed their house in Rotherham, South Yorkshire. The fire broke out from a pan in the kitchen and spread rapidly. However, the framed print of the Crying Boy re­mained on the wall unscathed.

What made this mundane episode national news was the statement of a local firefighter who said that he knew of numerous other cases where prints of the Crying Boy had turned up, undamaged, in the ruins of homes destroyed by fire. The Sun was soon inundated by letters telling of similar episodes and a background story for the painting was soon established. First of all, not all paintings were identical. They all were kitschy prints of crying kids, sold in tens of thousands of copies in branches of British department stores during the 1960s and 1970s.

A very rare image of Bruno Amadio painting a Crying Boy in his studio. (Photo © 2012 Massimo Polidoro)

The original painting that started the whole scare was signed G. Bra­golin, which The Sun claimed was “an Italian artist.” Others stated that Giovanni Bragolin was the pseudonym of a Spanish painter, Bruno Amodio, also known as “Franchot Seville.” Clarke reports that attempts to trace the man floundered as art historians said he did not appear to have a “coherent biography.” Roy Vickery, the secretary of a British Folklore Society, was quoted by The Sun to the effect that the original artist might have mistreated the child model in some way, adding: “All these fires could be the child’s curse, his way of getting revenge.”

The hysteria grew so wide that the South Yorkshire Fire Service issued a statement dismissing the connection between the fires and the prints. It explained that the most recent blaze was started by an electric heater left too close to a bed. “Fires are not started by pictures or coincidence,” stated Chief Divisional Officer Mick Riley, “but by careless acts and omissions. The reason why this picture has not always been destroyed in the fire is because it is printed on high-density hardboard, which is very difficult to ignite.” A bonfire of 2,500 copies of such paintings was even staged by The Sun in an attempt to milk every last drop of sensationalism from the news story. After that, the number of tabloid stories began to fade, but the “curse” transformed itself on the Internet into a modern urban legend.

The Legend of El Diablo

Today many people claim that if you treat the paintings well they bring good luck, while others say that if you hang close together the paintings of a crying boy and of a crying girl the house will be protected by any possible danger.

In the end, “a well respected re­searcher into occult matters, a retired schoolmaster from Devon named George Mallory,” was said in the Clarke article to have discovered the origins of the paintings. Mallory had been able to trace the actual artist who had painted the original, Franchot Seville (it was him, then, who used as pseudonyms both Bruno Amodio and G. Bragolin). Seville ex­plained that in 1969 he had found a little street boy wandering around Madrid. The child never spoke and had very sad eyes. Seville decided to paint him, and a Catholic priest, looking at the painting, identified him as Don Bonillo, a child who had run away after seeing his parents die in a blaze. The priest then warned Seville to stay away from Bonillo for wherever he went mysterious fires would break out: the villagers even called him “El Diablo” because of this. Seville ignored him and adopted the boy, using him as his constant model. The paintings sold well but when the studio was destroyed by a fire, the painter accused the child of arson. Bonillo ran away and was never seen again. Only many years later the victim of a car crash was identified as nineteen-year-old Don Bonillo.

In fact, no one named George Mallory, Franchot Seville, or Don Bonillo ever existed. But it doesn’t matter, the legend of the curse of the Crying Boy is alive and well, just like the paintings that would not die.

The Real Life Painter

In the winter of 2009, I was finally able, by chance, to trace the real artist who had painted the Crying Boy series. He was Italian and his name was Bruno Amadio (not “Amodio”). His neighbor Antonio Casellato of Tre­base­leghe, near Padua, read an article I wrote about this story in an Italian magazine and sent me a letter. “I knew Amadio very well. I lived in the house next to him for ten years and after his death I have bought his home and all that was in it.”

I called Casellato and learned more about Amadio. “He was a marvelous person, always smiling and kind,” Casellato told me.

He was a true artist and taught at the Academy of Venice. His painting style was of very high quality. I own many of his paintings and they are beautiful. That’s why I am sorry that he is remembered just for the Crying Boys. That was something that he painted just because it sold well [today original copies of Crying Boys can reach $3,500]: as good as an artist may be, it is very rare that he can live in affluence. So, since they kept asking him for those paintings from all over the world, he obliged and painted them. But he did so reluctantly, that’s why he used a pseudonym, “Bragolin.” Do you want to know were that name came from? His uncle, who had worked in vaudeville, used it and had given him permission to adopt it.

In 1981, at age seventy-three, Ama­dio died of disease of the esophagus and the legends broke out. “Some time ago,” added Casellato, “a Swedish journalist came here. He was interested in filming a documentary. He was convinced that Amadio had been a poor child and that he always painted the same subject in the hope to save other children from poverty. He went away depressed when I told him the truth. That’s all; I just wanted to say that Bruno Amadio was a real person and not the fictional character of some unlikely urban legend.”

A “non-crying boy” painting by Amadio: Pumpkins. (Photo © 2012: Massimo Polidoro)

A Universe from Nothing. By Lawrence M. Krauss. Free Press (Simon and Schuster), New York, 2012. ISBN-13: 978-1-4516-2445-8. 204 pp. Hardcover, $24.99.

There are two voices in Lawrence Krauss’s new book, A Universe from Nothing. One is that of Krauss the science popularizer, carefully leading his readers through the intricacies of modern cosmology. The other is that of Krauss the antitheistic rhetorician, eager to deflate philosophy and theology by denying their ability to make any contribution to “the truly fundamental questions that perplex us about our existence.” I had quite different reactions to these two personas.

Krauss uses the philosophical question of whether “Something can come from Nothing” as a recurring theme in his voyage to the forefront of cosmology. His explanations of the science are first-rate. They constitute most of the book and make it worth reading. However, I was not convinced by his claim that science gives a positive answer to the question of whether Something can come from Nothing. I also found it hard to discern a coherent viewpoint in the (anti) philosophical rhetoric with which he surrounds the science: there were expansive claims on behalf of science but also expressions of a more modest view of its reach.

To start with the rhetoric, most skeptics will share Krauss’s irritation at theologians who seriously propose that we need God as the “first cause” of the universe. As he notes (173), these arguments can be refuted in short order by pointing out that the God of religion is loaded with far more assumed properties than are required for a first cause. After making this point, I think the antitheist’s best bet is to stop talking. If you try to make it seem as if science can answer the big questions that religion claims to address then you will likely end up offering science-inspired speculations that undermine your own skeptical credentials. Krauss starts by shrugging off such inhibitions, offering science as the answer to “deep questions” (xvi, 182). But later in the book he seems to assign it a more limited role.

If you want to apply science to big questions like “can Something come from Nothing?” then, as Krauss makes clear (144), you need a scientific formulation of the question that allows it to be tested by experiment. However, his efforts to define Nothing seem half-hearted; he mostly defines it as “empty space,” which is not noticeably more precise. He also proposes “equal amounts of matter and antimatter” (177) and “space filled with a constant energy density” (103), both of which sound more like Something than Nothing. There are sharper definitions available: the most obvious would be “all the degrees of freedom are in their lowest-energy state (ground state)”; we will return to this below. A more radical definition would be “no degrees of freedom at all,” in which case it would certainly be impossible to get Some­thing from Nothing.

The bulk of the book (its first eight chapters or so) is dominated by the familiar voice of Krauss the science popularizer. Krauss unveils an ex­tremely understandable introduction to modern cosmology. He starts off with dark matter, the unidentified but now almost indisputable extra ingredient whose presence in galaxy clusters has been revealed by the way its gravitational field bends light passing through the cluster from more distant objects. He spends one chapter on the “flatness” of the universe, which can be inferred from the pattern of microwave brightness that we observe in the sky. An apparent detour into quantum mechanics and the energy of “virtual particles” prepares us for more exotic and speculative aspects of cosmology, starting with “dark energy,” a completely mysterious background of uniformly spread-out energy that is posited to explain the recently noticed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Krauss spends a chapter drawing out the dismal consequences: if the universe continues its accelerating expansion then most of it will disappear from view, leaving future astronomers in a cooling, shrinking prison. More cheerfully, the same ac­celeration process, occurring in a violent burst early in the Big Bang, gives us inflation, an explanation of the flatness of the observed universe. Krauss’s coverage of these topics is both expert and informal. Using a combination of historical anecdotes, down-to-earth examples, and simple diagrams, he manages to communicate both well-established science and cutting-edge research in a way that will be accessible to almost any reader.

In places throughout the book, and in a more sustained way in later chapters, Krauss returns to the question of whether the science that he has de­scribed shows that one can get Some­thing from Nothing. His strongest pronouncement is that theologians and philosophers have “no foundation in science” for their contention that Nothing will always remain Nothing (174). Here Krauss is making an interesting and provocative claim, but I think it is an overstatement. If one uses a natural scientific definition of Nothing, namely “the lowest-energy state of a system,” then it is a simple consequence of Schrödinger’s equation that this state will never evolve into any other state. Krauss suggests that “fluctuations” in the ground state can be the source of Some­thing, but this is really just an artifact of using classical language that obscures the static and unchanging nature of the quantum mechanical ground state. The only way such so-called fluctuations can become real is through the influence of an “environment” consisting of additional degrees of freedom that, through a process called “decoherence,” effectively measure the state of the original system. But decoherence will not occur if the environment is also in its ground state (C. Kiefer and D. Polarski, Advanced Science Letters 2, 164173 [2009]). So, as long as we are in the realm of conventional quantum mechanics, current science supports the theologians: Nothing will always lead to Nothing. Conven­tional quantum mechanics, however, does not include the dynamic flexing of space that we think is an essential aspect of gravity. For that, one would need a theory of quantum gravity. Krauss (as usual being admirably clear about the fact that he is stepping into speculative uncertainty) outlines some ideas that have been suggested about the quantum-gravitational nucleation of “baby universes” and the possible origin of our universe from them.

However, this does not imply that one is getting Something from Noth­ing. As Krauss himself notes (182), theories of quantum gravity may not contain anything corresponding in a straightforward way to our current concepts of Nothing and Something. This leaves one unable to come to any scientific conclusions about questions involving these concepts. At this point, the science of Nothing is overwhelmed by so much ambiguity and speculation that I am not sure how much advantage it has over theology.

It is remarkably enjoyable to read a book and find it full of insightful truths, especially when it is spiced with pro­vocative authorial contentions. I am im­pressed at Krauss’s strong commitment to evidence over prejudice. He always tells the reader how much evidence supports the ideas he is presenting.

His discussion of the anthropic principle is excellent, and it includes the rarely emphasized point that in order for it to be a genuine explanation one needs to know the underlying probability distribution (176). I loved his quotation from Richard Feynman, rejecting the idea that science is a search for ultimate laws of physics (177); I think it shows that Feynman understood that science is not in the business of answering the “big questions.” To quote Krauss himself, “what is really useful is not pondering this question but rather participating in the exciting voyage of discovery ...” (178). In other words, after all the promises of scientific answers to the big questions, the whole question of Something from Nothing turns out to be a nice authorial device for motivating a wide-ranging explanatory tour through modern cosmology. And there’s no question that Krauss is one of the master tour guides, with the rare gift of bringing understanding of science to audiences far beyond the ivory tower of academic research.

Encyclopedia of Urban Legends: Updated and Expanded Edition. By Jan Harold Brunvand. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, 2012. ISBN: 978-1-59884-720-8. 782 pp., $173.

With his new Encyclopedia of Urban Legends: Updated and Expanded Edition, Jan Brun­vand—the professor emeritus of Eng­lish at the University of Utah widely considered to be the world’s foremost expert on urban legends—updates and greatly expands his previous magnum opus of folklore.

Brunvand is author of many books on urban legends that are (or should be) familiar to skeptics, including The Baby Train, The Choking Doberman, and The Vanishing Hitchhiker. Brunvand’s other books provide much more detail, history, and variations of the legends, but for a comprehensive single source, this encyclopedia (which runs nearly 800 pages over two volumes) is the best of its kind. The entries are generally short, ranging from a paragraph to a few pages, and give a concise narrative of the legend and some analysis. Each entry provides references, and many of them are cross-referenced with other entries, Brunvand’s books, other books on urban legends, folklore journals, and even the occasional Snopes.com page.

This book is more than just a collection of urban legends—it also includes interesting entries on important folkloric concepts and topics such as Memorates (“a first-person account of a personal experience with the supernatural”), Bogus Warnings, the Satanic Panic, and my favorite, the Body Parts Legends. Folklore, because it is amorphous and constantly changing, is notoriously difficult to quantify and categorize (for example, the story of the Vanishing Hitchhiker is clearly an urban legend—but is a forwarded email warning about a mall rapist? Or what about a true news story about a woman who microwaved her dog?). To help with this, Brunvand offers a useful Type Index of Urban Legends, categorizing various legends according to theme.

The Encyclopedia of Urban Legends also helps clarify what exactly is meant by “urban legend”; the public often uses the term overly broadly. As Brunvand notes in his introduction, “I am not in­cluding plotless rumors, gossip, bits of misinformation, etc. Although these materials share some of the same features as urban legends they are not technically in the same genre, even though a few such borderline cases do merit mention in some of my entries” (xxvii).

Folklore often informs skeptical in­vestigation, and it has been invaluable in my research into such varied topics as ghosts, djinn (genies), lake monsters, kidney-theft rumors, chupacabra myth­ology, and Halloween poisoned candy scares. Just about every paranormal or “unexplained” subject (whether objectively real or not) has a robust and rich mythology surrounding it; without at least a passing knowledge of its folkloric aspects, an investigation is incomplete at best.

Accessible enough for the casual reader yet scholarly enough for academic researchers, The Encyclopedia of Urban Legends is an invaluable and fascinating book that merits a place on the shelf of any skeptic and student of folklore. The book is currently priced as an academic book but will hopefully be issued in a cheaper edition next year.