Sometimes I wonder if we aren’t skeptical enough. If the study of consciousness is a physical study then we ought to see that it is bogus straight away.

Thank you.

Sandy Acharjee

There's a difference between electing not to second-guess scientists and actively supporting animal experimentation. Individuals, not least politicians, should develop their stance on the basis of informed reason rather than deference to any alleged authority as a default position.

I similarly don't believe there is a practical distinction between "pointlessly cruel" and merely "cruel" experimentation.

A cynical argument would suggest that opposing animal research at Oxford University and the Oxford Primate Research lab would  be at the cost of a considerable number of votes.

I respect a number of Harris' views but on this topic he is wrong.

Thanks for the interest though!
Cheers,
Mark.

Myself and few others have been waiting for the video – has it been published yet?

All the best,

Maya

I think the arch-bishop made some sort of a point after all and you may like to delve deeper in the question whether or not it is celibacy as such which makes this happen and what to think about the big majority of priests that fulfil from their practical needs, or faith or some odd combination of the two a livelong marriage with their idea of God. There are many forms of abstinence from many forms that primary pleasure seeking humans choose to try or are able to apply. One must also bear in mind the economic and state management aspects that have led to the celibacy institution in those far away days of downfall of the Roman empire and the need of some form of institutional power that would not be totally corrupted by family and clan interests… That's were the nascent Catholic church structures came in handy. In a way that church has evolved in the mix of religious nation and economic multinational as we know it now, still playing a role in unstable societies, delivering services that are as essential to human well being, as being exempted for sexual harassments. 

Sexual abuse is much more widespread than you apparently seem to be able to acknowledge bringing yourself in a state of rage, as a person claiming or wanting to be "someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs"you may next time try to sober up first… 

Noted this website on Google that seems yet to be developed. Thought it would be an interesting approach to teaching !!
Darwins Church a science for life a faith for a reason;
http://darwinschurch.com/
Love the ambiguity of the  site quote "I don’t know who discovered water but it certainly wasn’t a fish!"

I am genuinely baffled by some of the statements made on your website. Perhaps you could explain this one to me:

“There are in print many accounts of how brain activity can produce “thoughts, visions, and hallucinations” that are similiar [sic] in content to the NDE.

That may be true, but the experiencer would be unaware of these since he is out-of-body at this time and thoroughly enjoying his new view of the surroundings.”

I really don’t see how the second sentence goes any way to refuting the first.

The linchpin of your argument for the existence of an afterlife, as far as I can tell, is that people who’ve had a NDE know there to be one because the experience felt more overwhelming than anything they had previously known; enough so to have profound influences on the way they live their lives afterwards. You then say that

“I have never read of hallucinations, delusions, or any other kind of misperception that produced such positive changes in large numbers of scattered individuals. What these individuals experienced certainly had to be real. Only Truth is powerful enough to produce this kind of phenomenon.”

That’s just plain wrong. I’ll give you two examples, which you might choose to see as one, depending on your religiosity. Pick two mutually exclusive religions. Neither is true. Certainly both can’t be true, by definition. They are delusions, and yet both have led to equally “positive changes in large numbers”.

Hallucinations and wishful thinking do not an afterlife make.

Since the 1980s it has been noted that fever may briefly alleviate symptoms of autism. (Google [autism fever research] or look out Dr R.M. Cotterill’s paper in Nature in 1985 and work forwards.) Generally autistic spectrum symptoms develop slowly and it is by no means unlikely that some parents will have come to recognise their child’s autism following a fever. Like various other things, the MMR jab can cause mild fever, temporarily reducing the symptoms. Their relatively swift return as the fever abates may well bring them to notice, in some cases, for the first time.

It would hardly be surprising if parents who have first noticed their child’s symptoms following an MMR jab claim that there is an association. And to deny entirely the association between MMR and autism is tantamount to calling them liars, for this would deny the evidence of their own eyes.

There does seem to be a connection between MMR and autism. But it is a correlation rather than causitive.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/24865,news-comment,news-politics,mmr-parents-deserve-an-answer

To be honest, I was unaware that ‘skeptic’ was the proper American spelling of the word. I always thought it more a brand name of sorts, which I think is useful when using Google and the like. I also agree that it is useful to conform to the American spelling in this case, for the sake of unity.

As a Brit I have hitherto used the British spelling, “sceptic”, but as the skeptical movement as a whole is undoubtedly global I’m seriously considering the wholesale adoption of the American spelling (as certain Commonwealth-based publications have already done).

I don’t think that using “critic” means thowing out “sceptic”. I think it can be a bridge to sceptic in the classic A=B, A=C, therefore B=C kind of way. Perhaps your app could focus on how much like a certain person the user is rather than how much of a sceptic they are. People love to compare themselves to other people.

Personally, I’m highly sceptical of any situation in which too many people agree on the same thing. It goes against my sceptical grain. I think the natural state is for people to disagree. It’s only stress and adversity that get people pulling together. In my world view there is really only common thought when there’s a common problem. So I don’t share your enthusiasm for organizing.

I think you may also be surprised by the extent to which many people reject the notion of rational thinking. They believe the world is what it is and no amount of thinking it through will change it. These people believe that life is about action, not thought, that you change the world by acting in it and not by writing about it, or thinking about it.

As you can see, one of the things I am most sceptical about is thinking itself, and it’s cousin, consciousness. We humans are dazzled by our ability to hold thoughts in our heads, to conjure up memories and to learn from them. We love ourselves because of it and use it as an excuse to meddle in all kinds of things. Here’s an example; we recognize that our actions are endangering various species. The rational thought is to take more action to save these species. However, the actions we propose are just more meddling like the meddling that endangered these species in the first place. Who are we to think we know anything at all about these things? Isn’t the MORE rational thought to DO LESS, not more? Wouldn’t doing less have a better chance of success because it leads directly to an environment more like the one that used to support the species in the first place?

Just a couple of things to think about, ironically!

G.

I agree that some users might do that. However, if my quiz idea were to become a reality, I fear that accounting for these criticisms might detract from the extent to which the application is user friendly. To accomodate for Jim’s would, as I see it, mean asking questions such as ‘which of the following is necessary for a fair scientific test?’, which is not the light-hearted kind of quiz people would bother with, and to account for yours would mean asking users to cite their sources, which is ambitious at best. Let me know if you see an easier way around either problem though.

As far as migrating to the term ‘critic’ is concerned, it would be nice, although if I were to change the word I would probably favour ‘rationalist’. However, as I mentioned in the article, I do not believe this to be doable. The ‘sceptic community’ has invested too much in the word. For example, magazines are already in publication with ‘Skeptic’ in the title, and people already know what to google if they want to read up on the latest blog posts and the like. Perhaps most importantly though, I do not believe that we could get everyone to agree on and adopt a new term. Organising atheists has often been likened to herding cats, and the same may be true of sceptics. I believe that in order to get things done and make our voices heard, we need to come together as much as possible, and I worry that a migration to a new term might make this task harder.

Thanks for your (incredibly quick) reply. The point you make is completely correct and in hindsight the quiz idea does need tweaking to accomodate it. The only possible problem I that I can foresee as a result of this is that it might be difficult to retain the pithy feel that makes these kinds of quizzes attractive to Facebook users in the first place.

Wouldn’t actual skeptics be better identified by questions about *how* a person could come to have reliable answers about various kinds of issues? It seems to me that what makes a good skeptic is engaging in skeptical inquiry rather than necessarily reaching the approved skeptical conclusion. What makes some people “deniers” rather than skeptics is that they aren’t consistently engaging in skeptical inquiry and critical thinking–they are directing skepticism against a particular target, but not against the arguments and evidence they themselves are using in the process.

Sorry for the delay in my response. I have been extremely busy lately and I wanted to have read a little around the subject and the literature that you directed me towards before replying to your comment.

Firstly, I would like to reiterate that I have not read ‘The Diet Delusion’, and so I am in no position to attack or defend its claims.

Regarding Bill Lands and his research, at the face of it, it all looks interesting. Having said that, I am always weary of any situation where a person is under the impression that their particular area of expertise is as all-encompassing as Lands seems to think his is. I do not mean to say that his conclusions are incorrect in any way other than perhaps their magnitude, but that is based on nothing other than a gut feeling. Maybe I am being overly cynical. Besides, I am no doctor, and as I’m sure you will appreciate, I have barely begun to scratch the surface of the subject. I promise I will read more into it though.

As a point of interest, Bill Lands’ iteration of the fact that treating secondary biomarkers will not necessarily prevent the related disease reminded me of a discussion between Professor Richard Dawkins and Randolph Nesse that I thought might be of interest to you. The video can be found at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcnCJqDa1us

Consider it a token of my appreciation for your taking the time to comment.

Thank you.

Will

Here are a bunch of facts from the Telegraph but my favourite is that apparently it would take 8 years, 7 months and 6 days of yelling to produce enough sound energy to heat one cup of coffee.

I guess it depends on the size of the cup though.

Love the sound of the book. No pun intended.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article727295.ece

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/12/08/premature-ejaculation-marketing-the-condition-before-the-drug/

“My own approach is to test the more promising and widely accepted claims, such as telephone telepathy, as fairly as possible even though I do not expect to get significant results from such studies. As Rupert is well aware, I have tested many of his claims in the past, either through student projects or in direct collaboration with him, and to date we have never found the results supporting the existence of psi.”

I would like to ask you if you take the sheep-goat effect into account.

http://drkaplan.co.uk/2009/12/homeopathy/breaking-news-government-backs-nhs-homeopathy/

Dear Tom,

Many thanks for your email to Mr Lansley. It is estimated that about half of GPs refer some patients to alternative therapists. There are currently five NHS homeopathic hospitals in the UK and you must be referred to these by your doctor. We are aware that there are differing views on the provision of homeopathic remedies, with some arguing that there is not enough evidence to support their availability via the NHS, while others argue that greater access to complementary therapies in the NHS might lead to widespread benefits.

Conservatives see the most effective method of making decisions about what the NHS provides as the cost-clinical effectiveness criteria, which the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) undertakes in the decision-making process on drug regulation and use. NICE believes that homoeopathic medicines should be treated in exactly the same way as traditional medicines in terms of deciding whether the NHS should provide them to the public.

In the case of the public being free to buy herbal remedies, the Conservatives have always said that, as long as a treatment has been proven to be safe then it should be available to buy. Consumers are then free to assess the effectiveness of the treatments which they purchase.

Consequently, we believe that homeopathy and alternative treatments are a valuable resource for doctors to be able to draw upon when offering treatments. Where a doctor and a patient believe that a homeopathic treatment may be of benefit to the patient, I believe doctors should be free to prescribe that medicine. All therapies should be considered equally, and decisions on whether or not to provide them on the NHS should be evidence-based, as is the case with all other conventional medicines and treatments.
kind regards
Connie

Connie Sturgess
Office of Andrew Lansley CBE MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Health

Yeah, not sure it qualifies for the label ‘philosophy’.

How very odd.

I enjoyed ‘so-called stem cell research’ in the original article too. I have always assumed that it is so called because that’s what it is. I wonder what Wilson thinks it really is ? (I suspect he thinks that it’s “murdering God’s children” or something)

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/organic-myths-and-realities.html

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v61/n4/abs/1602553a.html

I guess the fact that it was part sponsored by the manufacturers shouldn’t weigh against it.

It’s interesting to see that Lactium is actually marketed as a weight loss tool in their promotional material:

http://www.ingredia-nutritional.com/static/download.htm?doc_id=87

I’m only interested in this as I was in Boots at the weekend, saw the POS material claiming it was “scientifically proven” to reduce stress, and thought there was something a tad fishy about it.

We, Ingredia, have not had any email from UK or indeed from you – where or whom did you email ?

Do contact me via the “contact us” link on the Ingredia Nutritional web site – ask for me by name…. Kaare Axelsen

http://www.ingredia-nutritional.com

Many thanks

I do not know what email address this is but you can contact me directly at ingredia and I shall be happy to deal with this immediately. I shall ask our marketing if anything has come in during the last few days but normally this would come to my attention.

Best
Kaare

Many thanks for your comment. I would like to know more about the product and how it works and would very much like to have copies of the studies demonstrating safety and efficacy. I had a look on the website but a lot of it was under construction. I also e-mailed the address given in the contact info over a week ago but have not heard anything back. Would you be able to assist me in this matter, or perhaps give me contact details for whom to get in touch with? It would be much appreciated.

Finally, when speaking to people about HPV and cervical cancer, please be more careful with your choice of words. For example, there is no “supposedly” when it comes to HPV causing cervical cancer. That is an absolute fact. And it is also an absolute fact that the vaccine protects women, at least for a period of 7 years, against contracting the 2 types of HPV (16 & 18) that cause 70% of all cervical cancer. Even Dr. Harper would agree with me on this.

He is a con-man.

It would have been more productive if you had looked in to the product in more detail and understod what it actually is and how it works rather than make comments based on little information but at the same time trying to give a negative spin to this – this is always easy to do !! even on pharmaceutical drugs.

Due to UK/EU regulations companies are not always allowed to give the full information nor does journalist wish to report on this due to limited space in their articles.

As an exampl then the difference in the dosage between EU and USA is again due to regulation. In the USA they have a 90% material hence they need to use 167mg a day which is equal to 150mg of Lactium as used in the 6 studies available. Simple math !

Contact the manufacturer and we will gladly answer questions

I think the argument for organic is less about nutritional value an more about sustainability and the lack of chemical additives.

The main reasons I buy organic (sometimes) is because of possible residues (pesticides, growth hormones in milk etc) and for environmental reasons. The quoted research didn’t study either of these.

And yet the media reported “no health benefits” when the benefits of not consuming pesticides wasn’t even looked at.

Dear Sir,

It seems that you have confused the meaning of skeptic with dogmatic. Sceptic means some one who has doubts about some dogma advertised by an orthodox base of authorization. Some one who is on the side of that authorization is called a dogmatist. A dogmatist uses all of his energies to prove those powerful dominant dogmas and any dogma that is supposed to be asserted by those centre of powers later, ahead of becoming powerful enough. For example genetic bases of some human features is a dogma (perhaps correctly) advertised by scientists who are centre of power. Ahead, you defend that soon a gene manipulation can make interested paying people a talented musician. Sceptical means that one says that he doubts that genes has any role on any human feature at all (Perhaps completely wrongly). That helps the human society to think more and grow with controversy. You are a group of sycophant cudgel bearers of a new royal court called dorky bullies of fossilized academia. Scientists do not like booing protagonist. Not enough, now you are declaring alliance with Wiki-bully-ia. This tools of superficiality and defender of any authorized nonsense and censor of any controversy. Asking boys to go and give a hand to them. I thought at first from triviality of your name as it should mean that you might give my claim a second thought and you stand to research around it. My claim is that that another [human] is reading my mind remotely with all precision that I read my own mind. I am only ahead of [him]. I put these words in brackets in imitation of chemistry for “radicals” I have an X-file that if you can discover then you understand the meaning of sceptical. I am a retired teacher and they have created a panopticon for me by reading my mind. By reading my mind they have taken my freedom. Stand and do some real research. By that I mean a detective research.

So, you are a group of scientists or orthodox scientific minded and want to prove that there is no UFO. It is called prate and carping quibble of learned people with commoners. You do not know that in philosophy of science we do not have such an investigation. You want to prove that a non-existing phenomena does not exist! Those who believe should prove that it exists. They have two ways: either they should use the scientific method and prove it and publish it with the same criteria and then other scientists around the world and in different times can check the validity of the assertion using the scientific method. Or UFO minded people can ignore that method and just use old widows way of story telling or swearing by the stack of holly books that they are righteous then in this case that UFO theory also becomes part of folklore of a group of people. There might occur side discussions related to philosophy, religions and sub-culture, sociology, and also marginal scientific discussions such as whether there is a likeliness of existing aliens in the universe or not. Then, where is your mission of duty among these, just taking memberships from border lines ufo-not-ufo simple hearted (junior ; -> ) people? As Homer Simpson says to Bart, � My son, there is no such things as ghosts and aliens and Mummies and Eskimos.�

PJ

PS: By the way I can prove that some body�s reading my mind.

pj

As a rescuer of animals for 20 years I have met many dogs of all shapes & sizes, & in that time have seen far too many who have suffered at the hands of humans, those dogs have gone on to become trusted friends with time love & understanding.

When they brought out the dangerous dogs act in 1991 there were less pit bull types than there are now & that is not because of the 1997 amendment they added giving a judge the right to add a confiscated dog to the dangerous dog register allowing an owner to keep their dog under strict guidelines…. I’m talking about in general especially in certain area’s where these poor dogs are seen as a status symbol, some are used for intimidation, & some for fighting.

Section 1 of the dangerous dogs act, Breed Specific Legislation does nothing to stop unsuitable people owning a dog & training them to become aggressive or mistreating them which can create a nervous dog who feels he has to protect that very person who hurts him.

Pit bulls when in a loving knowledgeable family are great companion dogs & have been used as search & rescue dogs in certain states or america earning hero status, just like over her with German Shepherds, fantastic dogs but in the hands of an unsuitable handler can become a fierce guarder should anyone approach that person at the end of the lead… that is presuming they have their dog on a lead!

Section 1 of D.D.A. is persecuting many loving wonderful dogs & families who are devastated when their friend is taken from them.

My opinion as an animal rescuer is to license all breeding of dogs whatever breed & anyone not licensed must have their dog neutered. Every dog should be microchipped & registered to an owner, & that owner be held accountable for their dog.

There are thousands of dogs being killed in council dog pounds as there is no where left for them to go, irresponsible people who got a dog on a whim & either chucked it out or refused to pay the fine to get their dog back & not forgetting the stolen dogs who are taken to different areas & then lost or dumped but are not chipped so cannot be returned to a devastated owner who never quite thought through the importance of chipping.

I rescue pound dogs as often as I can but I am a drop in the ocean, something has got to be done to slow down this wanton breeding that is causing suffering to dogs & leading to dog bites through uneducated ownership & the lowest of our society being able to own a dog.

We need our government to change this law & introduce one that works for the good of the human & dog community…

Bruce & his family are being made scapegoats for a massive problem that had nothing to do with them…

Please join us in New York City on July 23rd to support the “Bring Bruce Home” campaign, a peaceful demonstration of protest and enlightenment. We will also be fighting the BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) ordinance that the New York Housing Authority enacted last month, which banned many different breeds from it’s public housing. We want New York City to realize that we will not allow BSL to take the lives of our animals, and we will be armed with educational tools to spread awareness about these ignorant and vicious laws.

Thousands around the world have heard of “Bruce”, a young Staffordshire Bull Terrier rescued from a cardboard box off the streets of Northern Ireland. He once lived in peace with the only family he ever knew – but now lives caged in isolation – abused and neglected for the past 2 years at the hands of Northern Ireland’s government. Bruce’s tragedy is one of many sad tales of an innocent victim falling prey to the horrors of the Dangerous Dog Act and Breed Specific Legislation.

According to the Dangerous Dogs Act in Northern Ireland, if a dog is found by the courts to be of a banned breed then it shall be destroyed.

These dogs are sentenced to die based solely on their physical characteristics, not their deeds. Bruce was not judged on his gentle-loving manner, or for being a family pet and possessing a kind nature and beautiful soul.
Bruce was scheduled to die on July 6th 2009, but was granted a last minute stay of execution. His life still hangs in the balance. After this news went public, there was a massive outpouring of compassionate citizens from all over the world dedicated and united in saving Bruce’s life. His fight has touched thousands and now we are reaching out to touch even more.

Bruce’s family is alone, in terror, in pain, and in devastating silence. Please invite your family, friends and loved ones so that we can be a voice for the voiceless, and speak up for all of the lives lost due to Breed

Specific Legislation and the Dangerous Dog Laws. We will demonstrate against what this law actually is – BREED GENOCIDE LAW.

Be one among hundreds, if not thousands, who are ready and willing to stand up, to be seen, to be heard, and to make a change. We must be united in solidarity to repeal this law of inhumanity.

After the demonstration, we will end the evening by lighting a candle and joining the rest of the world as we pause (paws) shoulder to shoulder, and heart to heart in recognition for all of us fighting to “Bring Bruce Home”. We are uniting to make a change for Bruce and for all dogs – so that no other dog falls victim to senseless animal cruelty, and so that all dogs already victimized by this law did not die in vain.

Meet us on Thursday July 23, 2009 at 6:00pm at the North entrance to Washington Square Park. We will be assembling in front of the arch, at 5th avenue and Waverly Pl. Directions: Take the A, B, C, D, E, F, or Q to the W. 4th St / Washington Square stop. Or take the R, W to the 8th St. stop. Or take the 6 train to the Astor Pl. stop.

Please email Caroline at celtic266@aol.com or Amy at sonicalc727@aol.com or Julie at julie.zigadlo@uconn.edu if you have any questions.

Visit the NYC Pit Bull Group website for additional information – http://www.meetup.com... Thank you! See you on the 23rd!!

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/tips/newstips.html
==============================

Please contact CNN – it’s time to break this story mainstream!!!

==============================

Please, thousands of people around the world are deeply touched and moved by the following story that must now hit mainstream, to expose the shelter, the Mayor, and the laws that may kill this innocent dog – once healthy and loved – now skinny with mange and infections after being taken from his family home.

Bruce the pit bull dog did not bite anyone – it is the laws of Northern Ireland that may lead to his death.
He has been held captive for over 2 years in a shelter now they want to euthanize him, his family is desperate just to get him out of the country to live – PLEASE HELP them and Bruce.

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/3045/eleventh-hour-mercy-plea-to-save-death-row-dog-bruce/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRJYVszJ7tE

There is a way to try to help Bruce. A rescue organisation in Galway, over the border in the Republic of Ireland has offered to take him – BUT we urgently need to campaign in order for the authorities to allow this to happen.

It would help greatly if you could please go to these pages, copying the form letter (adding your own name at the end) and sending it to the people at the bottom of each page – contact addresses are provided. It doesn’t take that long and may just save this poor dog’s life. Thank you so much.

Template Letters for Bruce:

Please go to each one seperately as the contact details will differ – Thank You!

http://ddawatch.webs.com/savingbrucetemplate1.htm

http://ddawatch.webs.com/savingbrucevetdraft.htm

http://ddawatch.webs.com/brucetemplategeneral.htm

(Thank you very much indeed for helping to publicise Bruce’s plight in your blog.)

I didn’t hear the previous show but there’s some conflating of NDE and OBE in what was discussed here. NDE seems to be some kind of dream state, and I wouldn’t have thought there was a question of anything paranormal. OBE is testable – if people claim they leave their bodies and gain a (literally) different perspective, they should be able to see things that are out of view when they’re in bed, for example.

In this one he thanks me fro returning the Wheel of Prayer (which I forgot to mention previously) and that now his personal mission for me can begin in earnest…….

Hmmmmmm……..I DID return the Wheel of Prayer – torn into pieces!

This letter contaoins a exhortation that I consider making a Will – in order to prevent Satan laughing as my estate is divided up by cold-hearted judges and my family weep!

Ha! They’ll have to FIND my estate first, since I’m unlikely to have anything to BE divided up when I die!

I’m waiting now for the suggestion that I leave part of my estate to Popoff’s mission…..

I’m now saving the opening of the letters till my husband and son are at home, so thatI canread them aloud and give some entertainment around the table!

Disturbing image.

One Saturday morning, while reading my newspaper (the prestigious Times)I came across an advert, offering prayer services for those suffering. There was a website address.

I am a Christian – and I was at such a low ebb, I thought it worth trying, even though I’d normally be sceptical about such adverts………….

I went to the website and submitted a request for prayers to be offered that I could find the strength to overcome the pain and depression.

Couple of weeks later, I received a letter from the Reverend Popoff, assuring me that my request had been noted and prayers were being said for my, ‘deliverance.’

The letter made many outlandish claims concerning the reverend’s powers – which I dismissed, of course.

Enclosed in the letter was a, ‘golden’ cross, in the centre of which was a vial holding water – which, the letter claimed, had been taken from a Sacred Spring in the Holy Land.
Also enclosed was a sachet containing a small amount of the same.
With the latter, I was instruted to annoint myself and the door frame of my bedroom before retiring and to repeat the process on the following two nights. In doing this, I was assured, I would begin to be healed…….

At the end of the letter was a request that I make a donation – of £20, or more – toward the ministry of the reverend.

I consigned the whole lot to the bin and thought no more of it.

To cut a long story short,soon afterward, my situation began to improve. Not in any miraculous way, rather that a new drug has helped to ease my pain somewhat, I’ve been awarded a disability allowance and a wheelchair and adpatations around my home have made my life a good deal easier.

However, the Reverend Popoff has become, in effect, a stalker!
Not a week passes that I don’t receive another letter. Each makes a more outrageous claim as to the visions he has received on my behalf.
Enclosed in the letters have been such things as sand from the Holy Land, mustard seeds from the same, a sliver of wood (resembling a blunted toothpick!)which is claimed to be from the Rod of Aaron and lastly, a sachet of the Green Oil of Prosperity!

Each letter claims that I am beset by Satanic forces, intent on dragging me down and causing me to be bereft of love and money…..

Each letter has contained a further request for a, ‘donation,’ the amount suggested increasing each time.
The latest suggestion is for any sum between £35 and £120!

I’ve written twice, asking that the correspondance cease, but to no avail.

Despite my disablement – with which I’ve come to terms – my life is happy.

It troubles me that there will be vulnerable, perhaps gullible, individuals receiving these letters, who will feel compelled to send money to this charlatan.

I shall write to the Times, advising them not to carry any further adverts, but thereafter, I don’t see what we can do to stop this predator.

Delighted to hear that your tumour has shrunk. As good skeptics we will be absolutely thrilled if you can provide any evidence at all, other than personal testimony which has no value whatsoever, that Gary Mannion achieved this ‘miracle’ via his so called ‘psychic surgery’.

While considering your reply you will of course include all the information regarding ongoing treatment by other means.

Thank you,

DD

P.S. Can you please provide you CV regards your background as a Journalist i.e. do you have any scientific or medical expereince that would qualify you to judge the success of the so called ‘psychic surgery’?

On the topic of misleading, I’d pedantically note that it is not a truly “vertical traction kit”. Vertical would be this:
http://www.activeforever.com/p-70-overdoor-home-cervical-neck-traction-kit.aspx

In any case, it would seem that some chiropracters would not endorse the product, instead offering an alternative:
http://www.chisoftnecktraction.com/necktraction/neck-traction.shtml

Thanks for the great tip, I’m downlaoding all of the old episodes as we speak.

-Petey

That’s a shame – unlike most of you who post remarks on this website, who are not qualified to judge him one jot, I am. I am a broadcaster and consumer journalist with many years’ experience dealing with crooks and Gary is not a crook.

I developed an aggressive breast cancer and was not likely to live this Spring. Gary took away the pain and substantially shrunk the tumour in 3 weeks. I did not expect anything when I met him. I did not know what to expect, but went along in the ‘try anything’ spirit. He did not ask for money. He was modest. He was decent. He praised my doctors and my hospital. He is a sincere and talented person. He is also young and sensitive. He is not a financial rip-off merchant – he works by donation only and does not check what you give. I saw people donate £1.50 and he booked another appointment to help them again. I saw desperate people, come away with some pain relief.

Which of you, who scoff and spend your time thinking you are superior and the rest of us are fools, can say that you took away someone’s pain?

I am shocked and appalled that people like those who write on your sites, can think themselves clever and superior when actually they are just unpleasant and come over as highly malicious wreckers. I cannot work out why anyone wastes their time jeering. You do no one any good, you harm yourselves and waste substantial amounts of time which you could use for something more constructive.

A really good night and so pleased to see so many people supporting Simon. Whether he appeals or not, he’s made a strong point, and we need to ensure that the point is heard beyond the science and skeptics communities.