Home Blog Page 71

Exploding Head Syndrome is no joke – and neither is sleep paralysis

0

There is something undeniably Pythonesque about the phrase exploding head syndrome(EHS) – but it is no joke to many of the people who suffer from it. Given my interest in anomalous experiences, especially those related to ostensibly paranormal experiences, I am often sent first-hand accounts of various sleep-related anomalies such as EHS and sleep paralysis. They make for fascinating, and often chilling, reading. One theme that frequently crops up, however, is the lack of understanding and support that people receive when they approach medical professionals for help and advice.

Unfortunately, to date there has been far too little by way of empirical research to systematically evaluate the best strategies that sufferers should employ to help them to cope with these often distressing conditions. But the problem is worse than that. All too frequently, medical professionals, with the exception of sleep specialists, have never even heard of them and simply dismiss sufferers or, even more disastrously, misdiagnose them and prescribe inappropriate medication. This article is a plea to medical professionals, especially general practitioners, to familiarise themselves with what we do know in order to provide the best advice possible given our current level of understanding. (Readers should feel free to forward this article to any medical friends they may have!)

There is, of course, a good chance that you, dear reader, have never heard of EHS before. I confess that it is only within the last couple of years that I myself became familiar with the term via my friendship with the world’s leading expert on the topic, Dr Brian Sharpless. EHS is characterised by the subjective experience of abrupt, loud sounds just as one is drifting off to sleep or emerging from sleep. The noise doesn’t last long but can be jarring to the sufferer. In itself, the condition is quite benign, but it can cause considerable distress. Most sufferers only have occasional episodes, but it can have clinical consequences when occurring on a more chronic basis.

The sounds heard during episodes of EHS may be explosions (hence the name exploding head syndrome) but they may also be other sounds including roars, beeps, doors slamming, waves crashing, shouting, or the clash of cymbals, to name but a few. Furthermore, additional symptoms are commonly reported to occur such as tachycardia (fast heart rate), fear, and muscle jerks, along with less common symptoms such as sweating, seeing a flash of light, breathing difficulties, and a range of other anomalous bodily sensations.

Exact estimates of lifetime prevalence rates are not available but what data there are suggest the condition is not rare, probably affecting around one person in ten in the general population. It is probably associated with stress. Although many sufferers find EHS frightening, only a minority ever seek help from medical professionals, possibly reflecting embarrassment on the part of sufferers at the prospect of describing their odd experiences.

One sufferer, a 59-year-old woman who worked as a tourism officer, contacted my colleague at Goldsmiths, Professor Alice Gregory, seeking advice regarding her own EHS. Her episodes included seeing a flashing blue spark in front of her face as she drifted into sleep. This could occur multiple times in a single night, causing her to wake up experiencing palpitations and frightened to go back to sleep.

Through her own research, this sufferer came to the conclusion that she was suffering from EHS and approached five different GPs for advice and support. None of them had ever heard of the condition. Neither had her ENT consultant who commented, “This sounds like a made-up name.” Fortunately, this woman no longer suffers from EHS, possibly as a result of undergoing hypnotherapy to reduce her anxiety, as well as practicing meditation and improving her sleep hygiene.

During our email exchanges, this sufferer made what struck me as a very insightful comment:

I think its name, ‘exploding head syndrome’, doesn’t help as tends to be regarded as a bit of a joke.  Believe me as a sufferer of it, it is no joke.

As she pointed out, EHS is sometimes referred to as episodic cranial sensory shocks and it may be that using this term instead of the currently more common term would lead medical professionals to take it more seriously.

I suspect that more people have heard of sleep paralysis than EHS, but even so many people, including health professionals, are unfamiliar with the condition. In its most basic form, sleep paralysis is a temporary period of paralysis that occurs just as one is entering or emerging from sleep. It typically lasts for a few seconds and then the sufferer ‘snaps out of it’. Such mild episodes are a little disconcerting but do not usually cause serious distress. However, not only can episodes last for considerably longer but they can also be associated with a range of other symptoms that make the whole experience much more frightening. These include a strong sense of a malign presence and as well other hallucinatory experiences. These may be visual (such as lights or dark shadows moving around the room, as well as demons, old hags, or ‘shadow people’), auditory (for example, voices, footsteps, or mechanical sounds), or tactile (such as feeling someone or something breathing on the back of one’s neck). The sufferer may also experience unusual bodily sensations up to and including full-blown out-of-body experiences. Not surprisingly, throughout history such episodes have often been interpreted as otherworldly encounters.

The underlying cause of sleep paralysis is well understood, at least in broad terms. During a normal night’s sleep, the sleeper initially passes through various stages, each of which is characterised by particular patterns of brain waves, breathing rate, heart rate, and so on. Next, the sleeper enters REM sleep, so called because of the Rapid Eye Movements that occur in this phase. This is the phase of sleep typically associated with vivid dreams and, during this phase, the muscles of the body are actually paralysed, presumably to stop the sleeper acting out the dream. This cycle of non-REM stages followed by the REM phase lasts about 90 minutes and is repeated throughout the night.

The feet of a person sleeping on their back

An episode of sleep paralysis occurs when, to put it simply, the mind wakes up but the body does not. The sufferer can typically see their surroundings (the eyes are typically not affected by the paralysis) but they cannot move and the dream imagery spills over into normal waking consciousness as hallucinations. Sleep paralysis is therefore a unique altered state of consciousness that combines normal waking consciousness and dream consciousness.

Like EHS, with which it is associated, sleep paralysis is relatively common. Although lifetime prevalence estimates vary enormously, the best estimate currently available would suggest that around 8% of the general population experience sleep paralysis at least once in their lives. Of those who do experience sleep paralysis, most will only experience the mild form and they will experience it only a few times at most throughout their lives. Some unfortunate individuals, however, experience the vivid form of sleep paralysis on a regular basis, sometimes over periods lasting many years.

Interestingly, two subgroups appear to have much higher lifetime prevalence rates: psychiatric patients and students. These raised prevalence rates probably arise because sleep paralysis episodes are more likely to occur in people with the underlying susceptibility if sleep patterns are irregular – and both of these groups are likely to have such irregular sleep patterns, albeit for different reasons. In addition to irregular sleep patterns, sleep paralysis is associated with sleeping in unfamiliar surroundings and sleeping in a supine position. There is also evidence of a tendency to run in families.

For that small percentage of the population who experience the vivid form of the condition on a chronic basis, it can seriously damage their quality of life. For many people in this group, they may worry that they are losing their sanity or that they are experiencing some sort of supernatural phenomenon. Even if they eventually learn that in fact they are suffering from a scientifically recognised – and fundamentally harmless – condition, this often does little to reduce the extreme fear experienced during the episodes themselves.

Many sufferers are reluctant to tell even close friends and family about their experience, let alone their GPs, for fear that they will be deemed to be ‘crazy’. It is therefore particularly cruel that when such individuals eventually pluck up the courage to approach a medical professional for help, they are all too often not taken seriously.

I was contacted by one such individual whom I shall refer as Dr Jones (not her real name). Dr Jones is a 36-year-old academic who co-leads and teaches on a Masters programme at an arts university. In her words:

I was around 12 or 13 the first time I experienced what I now understand to be sleep paralysis. In my early years the experience mostly manifested as a sense of being pulled from my bed as I was trying to get to sleep. The pull would be in a spiraling action, as if caught in the strong current of a whirlwind or vortex. I would also feel myself thrown across the room, slammed into the corners of the ceiling or the wall. It was terrifying.

Dr Jones was treated for anxiety and depression in her early teenage years and feels that her poor mental health played a role in triggering her sleep paralysis. She states that, “the stress of feeling afraid of myself, doubting my experiences and not feeling able to share them was also immense”. Neither her psychiatrist nor her psychotherapist appeared interested when she tried to discuss her frightening experiences.

Over the years, the nature of her sleep paralysis changed. As she describes it:

In addition to the spiraling, I would sometimes get stuck paralyzed in a stationary position when I was trying to fall asleep, unable to move my arms or legs. I would force all my effort into one arm, trying to roll myself over and wake my body up.

She would also experience vibrations, ringing in the ears, and dizziness.

Then she began to have strange out-of-body experiences in which she felt as though she could move around her room freely but her actions and sensations were somehow unsynchronised. For example, if she turned on a light, it would come on before she had actually touched the switch. Often, the moment she became consciously aware of this surreal oddness, her consciousness would snap back to being awake, lying on her bed. Understandably, she found this incredibly unsettling, leading her to doubt her sanity. Around about the age of 26, she began to hear voices during her episodes, initially a clear recognisable voice but later multiple voices, all speaking at the same time so that individual words were indistinguishable.

As Dr Jones states:

I spent most of that year extremely agitated as I was scared that I was experiencing psychosis and was perhaps developing schizophrenia. I was afraid to tell anyone about my experiences other than my partner, who was encouraging me to understand them through the lens of out-of-body/spiritual experiences. I felt incredibly confused, isolated and afraid during that period of my life.

Since turning thirty, the frequency of Dr Jones’ experiences has lessened, possibly aided by practising meditation and adopting good sleep hygiene practices. She has learned to cope with the episodes better and finds them more annoying than terrifying these days. But as she goes on to say:

I’m deeply sad and regretful in some ways that I’ve had to deal with this entirely on my own and largely in secret with a lot of shame and embarrassment and confusion along the way. When I was a child I genuinely thought I was cursed, possessed by something bad and evil, and I think it was only by fortune that I grew up in a very atheist household that that belief didn’t take hold deeper and for longer into my adult life – though in other ways the belief that at my core I must probably be insane, has persisted and taken a lot of effort to begin to undo in the last few years.

It strikes me that much of the distress experienced by these two individuals, along with countless others, would have been greatly reduced by the simple recognition on the part of the medical professionals whom they approached that their conditions were real and that their fear was understandable. Sympathetic assurances that both EHS and sleep paralysis are essentially benign conditions would have been much more helpful than the dismissive responses that they actually received.

Dental surgeries need to reassess Covid safety measures as we recover from the pandemic

0

In the dark days of January 2021, I wrote about the measures dentists have been taking to ensure we are safe throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Most surgeries opened their doors, figuratively if not literally, back in June 2020 after months of only being able to give out advice over the phone or hand out prescriptions for painkillers or antibiotics. The news is full of stories of a ‘crisis’ in dentistry, and it appears that Covid has had a severely detrimental effect on the nation’s dental health.

It’s not only patients that are suffering. Dentists, nurses and hygienists are generally tired, emotionally exhausted, and many have left the profession. There’s a particular shortage of dental nurses at the moment. This isn’t that surprising, considering the average nurse earns less than £20,000 for what was often a thankless job, even before Covid.

We’ve been open again for over a year, and ‘Freedom Day’ has allowed the rest of the country to return to some form of normality. But what’s changed in the dental surgery? And how will the profession, and healthcare in general, recover in the future?

Firstly, as I write this in early October, nothing much has changed. From a practical perspective, we still split treatment into Aerosol Generating and Non-Aerosol Generating Procedures. For AGPs, we still wear surgical gowns and face fitted FFP3 masks. The time we have to leave the surgery to fallow before cleaning has reduced, but there are still significant barriers to routine care in many practices. This is despite new evidence showing that, in all probability, dental treatment itself is probably not a great Covid risk.

But if dentistry is ‘safe’, why aren’t we working in the same way we were before the pandemic? To understand this, you need to look at our infection control guidance. The initial pandemic infection prevention and control (IPC) guidance was put in place by the government in the days when we knew little about the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Transmission routes were uncertain, and most of the guidelines and public messaging from the government concentrated on the idea of fomite transmission. That is the transmission of the virus from infected objects or surfaces.

It would appear that the advice to sanitise surfaces, carry out regular deep cleans, and even utilise fogging to prevent the spread of Covid was misguided

We now categorically know this is wrong and that Covid-19 is mainly transmitted via aerosols produced when breathing, talking, coughing or sneezing. It would appear that the early (and in some cases, ongoing) advice to sanitise surfaces, carry out regular deep cleans, and even use fogging to prevent the spread of Covid was misguided. In the early days of the pandemic, it made sense to employ the precautionary principle and cover all bases regarding virus elimination. By now, we should know better. We need to concentrate on those aerosols. The IPC guidance has changed over time, but the dental-specific guidance is very similar to what it was this time last year.

The back of a dentist's chair with dental tools in front.

So, where does this leave dentistry? If the risk of covid transmission via surfaces is low, then our surgical gowns and aprons are theoretically redundant. Getting rid of these would undoubtedly alleviate some of the strain placed on the profession. Working in a non-air-conditioned surgery in full PPE during the height of summer was no fun. And the PPE requirements are often taking their toll on the nurses more than the dentists – certainly in the practice I work in, where most of the nurses are women. This is in large part down to the reusable masks that we wear. They’re the same as the one’s you’d get at your local hardware store (in fact, I got mine from Toolstation and the replacement filters from Screwfix). They are designed with men’s faces in mind, and although they do fit women, extended wear is at best uncomfortable, at worst downright painful.

Similarly, if dentistry doesn’t contribute to covid transmission, the division of procedures into AGPs and non-AGPs is unnecessary. No AGPS; no two-tier PPE system. We should be able to go back to wearing our scrubs for everything that we do.

The sticking point is breathing. As we’ve seen, Covid spreads predominantly by being in close contact with people in an indoor environment over a prolonged period. To me, that sounds a lot like my day-to-day work in the dental surgery. And there’s no easy way around it. We could keep our FFP3 masks and mandate them for all patient interactions. This is ridiculous for several reasons, not least because you’d probably get a lot fewer patients wanting to be seen if they have to try and communicate with someone who both looks and sounds like the lovechild of Darth Vader and Bane.

More realistically, mandatory Covid vaccination for healthcare workers (a step that’s already being looked at) appears to be most likely. While this raises complex ethical questions, there is already a clear precedent, with Hepatitis B vaccination being compulsory in many healthcare roles, including dentistry. It’s also likely that minimum ventilation requirements or mandated use of air scrubbers may come into play, allowing the virus to disappear into thin air. One thing is sure; things won’t be entirely as they are now forever. New draft IPC guidelines are imminent, and everyone in the profession and in the broader healthcare sphere is hoping that we can stop having to worry about Covid and get back to being able to focus on the patients that need us.

How a scientific paper gets published: demystifying peer review

0

Science is an iterative process. The greatest achievements in any scientific field come from generations of investigators building on the works of their intellectual ancestors. In order to achieve maximum potential, progress in science must be shared.

The primary mechanism that has arisen to share scientific scholarship is through journals. Peer review has emerged as a crucial part of the publication process. Peer review is barrier to entry and a quality control measure to improve the reliability of research before it is widely disseminated.

Many visitors at this site have participated in peer review. For others, I suspect peer review is a bit of a black box. As someone who been on both sides of peer review many times, I hope to describe and demystify the process. My interactions with peer review are within a tiny medical subspecialty, but I suspect my general description of peer review applies across disciplines.

Peer review. Why?

Scientific journals have limited space and resource to publish papers. The number of articles submitted for consideration, in most cases, far exceeds these limits. It is in a journal’s best interest to select the most meritorious papers to fill their pages. Journals lack sufficient in-house manpower to critically review every manuscript. There is limited breadth, based on the sheer number of submissions. There is limited depth-based need for highly qualified experts in sometimes quite esoteric fields. Peer review is a method of outsourcing review to colleagues matching the needs for each submission. The editors use these reviews to inform their decisions about which articles to eject and to improve the quality those which they publish.

Peer review from an author’s perspective

I complete my research and am excited to share it with the world. I first need to decide which journal I would like to have publish my article. In most disciplines there are many choices. The decision about where to submit is based on many factors. Journals specialise to some degree about the types of research they publish. If my article is a clinical trial comparing strategies for the management of age related macular degeneration, it would be inappropriate to submit it to a psychiatry journal. It would be nearly as inappropriate to send it to an ophthalmology journal that specialises in pediatric ophthalmology.

There is also a hierarchy of journals based on reputation. In general, authors are motivated to aim for more prestigious journals. Getting published in an elite journal validates the quality of a researcher’s work and ensures broad readership. However, one must be realistic. It is foolish to send a low-impact, preliminary study to a highly-selective, prestigious journal. It is simple supply and demand. Elite journals tend to have very strict standards. They receive lots of quality manuscripts, and most of them are rejected.

Once I choose where to submit my paper, I create and format a manuscript in compliance with the standards of the journal. I complete the required accompanying documents and upload my manuscript. I immediately get a polite acknowledgment from the editorial office, thanking me for my submission. Then, I wait.

The manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial staff, who will usually prescreen the manuscript to make sure the subject matter is appropriate for their journal, and to look for any glaring deficiencies that would make it unfit for publication. Many manuscripts get rejected and returned to the author prior to peer review. Although it is frustrating to have a paper rejected in this way, it serves a valuable purpose: if fatal flaws are discovered prior to peer review, time and peer reviewer resources are not wasted. Equally, I do not have to wait weeks or months for a paper to undergo full peer review only to be rejected – I can go about the business of correcting the deficiencies and resubmitting to an appropriate journal.

If the paper survives preliminary review from the editorial staff, it is sent for formal peer review. The editors will select two or more reviewers with expertise in the subject of the manuscript. Each reviewer independently dissects the manuscript and assesses its strengths and weaknesses, writing comments and suggesting edits.

Once the editorial staff has compiled the reviewers’ assessments and comments, I get a reply from the editor. The reply will include comments from the reviewers, as well as comments from the editor. There are several possibilities:

  1. My paper is rejected. The editor explains the rationale for the rejection, usually referring to reviewers’ comments. It may be that the research is not up to the standards of the journal. The research may be fine, but not high enough impact or priority to justify publication.
  2. My paper is not accepted, but the editor is open to sending the paper for peer review once again if major edits are made. This option may be offered if the editor deems the work meritorious but has significant deficiencies requiring attention. The needed modifications will be explained. I may or may not decide to resubmit the paper to this journal.
  3. My paper is provisionally accepted. The editor will require me to respond to the comments of the reviewers and edit the manuscript where necessary. If the replies and edits are satisfactory, the paper will be published.
  4. My paper is accepted. Unconditional acceptance almost never happens (maybe that’s just me).

If the paper is provisionally accepted, I write a revised manuscript, taking into consideration the comments of the editor and the reviewers. I return the revised manuscript and add a cover letter replete with gratuitous compliments to the editor and to the reviewers for their “thoughtful reviews” and “insightful suggestions.” I respond to the comments and questions from the reviewers and explain how they have been addressed in the revised manuscript. The editor will determine if my responses and edits are appropriate. If so, the paper will be accepted for publication.

Once accepted, copy editors prepare the article for publication. They will usually propose some edits to conform with editorial conventions and improve the grammar and syntax. They may have some questions about ambiguous language in the manuscript. Figures and tables are created and formatted where needed. As the author, I will be given a chance to answer questions and to reject or accept the editor’s modifications.

The article then goes into a queue for publication in print, digitally, or both.

If my paper is rejected, I need to make an assessment. Was the research weak? Was the paper badly written? Did I aim too high in my target journal? The comments for the reviewers should be helpful in sorting out the issues. I may choose to do some additional research or analyses to strengthen the science. Usually I will choose another journal, edit the manuscript, and try again.

Authors’ lament

As a human endeavor there is a spectrum in quality of peer review. Most experienced authors remember manuscripts they feel were rejected based on unfair reviews. They can probably recite a litany of idiotic comments from clueless reviewers. Yes, I have had a few. However, in my experience, most reviewers are diligent, thoughtful, and strive to give a critical but fair review. In most cases, they point out legitimate deficiencies in the manuscript. If an expert peer reviewer has a difficult time understanding something I have tried to communicate, the average reader will have even greater difficulty. The process almost always improves the quality of the ultimate publication.

Peer Review from the reviewer’s point of view.

I’m minding my own business and an email shows up in my inbox. It is an invitation to review a manuscript. The email includes the title of the manuscript, and usually the abstract. I am requested to reply within a couple of days with a decision to accept or decline the invitation.

There are many reasons I might decline an invitation to review a paper. I may be asked to review a paper on a subject I lack sufficient expertise. The invitation may arrive at a time when I lack sufficient time to do a thorough review within the requested timeline. I could have a conflict of interest.

If I accept, there is a deadline (usually a couple of weeks) to complete the review. I will be provided a link to manuscript.

I will be expected to review the paper in great depth and provide a detailed commentary on the strengths and weaknesses. Among the questions I will assess: Is the research question well-defined? Is adequate background information provided? Are the methods adequately described? Are they appropriate for the research? Are the results clearly presented? Are they complete? Are the statistical methods appropriate? Are the results put into the proper context? Are the conclusions justified by the results? Are the weaknesses and limitations of the research acknowledged? Are the references adequate and cited appropriately?

I will be asked to construct a set of comments and questions that will be shared with the authors. This might include requests for clarification or expansion of certain sections of the paper. I might recommend that the authors report additional analyses to further clarify their results. I might suggest that figures or tables be added, omitted, or combined. I might comment that the discussion is too long, too short, or overly speculative.

A person of colour who presents as masculine sits at their laptop while writing in a notebook.

The editor will usually ask me a few specific questions about the quality, originality, and potential impact of the research. There is an opportunity to provide confidential comments to the editor that will not be shared with the authors. This could include sensitive information, such as if some kind of misconduct is suspected.

They will also usually ask for recommendation of whether to accept, provisionally accept, or reject the paper.

The editor considers the opinions of all the peer reviewers before sending a decision letter to the author. The letter will include comments from the reviewers, comments from the editor, and the disposition to accept or reject the paper. Decisions to reject are usually final, but if an author feels that the paper has been unfairly reviewed, they may appeal the decision.

Peer-reviewer’s lament

Quality, conscientious peer-review is very time consuming. Peer-reviewers are not paid. Most of us consider peer review as a valuable service we endure as ’payback’ to keep the wheels turning and promote publication of quality research.

Reading quality original research and providing constructive feedback to help authors to communicate their creation most effectively is a noble and rewarding endeavor. Sometimes, however, we are asked to review really bad papers. The research may be ill-conceived, poorly executed, badly reported, misinterpreted, and unoriginal. Sometimes the grammar and syntax are dreadful. It can be frustrating to spend hours poring over an incoherent unsalvageable manuscript; then crafting diplomatic, constructive comments to the authors, all the while feeling you have put more thought into this project than they did.

Controversies in peer review

Peer review is a time consuming, labour-intensive process. Editors struggle to find sufficient numbers of qualified, willing reviewers. The process slows down the scientific community’s access to contemporary research by weeks, months, or even years. Any given paper might be arbitrarily assigned to a negligent or under-qualified reviewer. Flawed papers get published. Good science gets rejected. So why bother? Despite the flaws and inefficiencies, there is broad consensus that peer review is a valuable, even necessary step in the dissemination of scientific discoveries.

Peer review is only as good as the process a journal exercises and quality of the peer reviewers they select. There are numerous examples of ’peer-reviewed’ journals accepting blatantly unmeritorious papers. Open access journals, in particular, have been singled out as sometimes employing questionable peer review standards. Open access journals have a business model that differs from traditional journals. Traditional journals rely on subscriptions and advertising for revenue. These journals have an incentive to maintain a reputation for publishing top-notch research in order to broaden their subscribers and attract more advertisers. The downside is that these journals are very expensive. Articles may not be easily accessible to those without a subscription or access to a medical library.

Open access journals are open access: no subscription required. They are published online only – anyone with an internet connection can read them. They earn revenue by charging authors for publishing material in their journal. This model provides less incentive for quality and greater incentive for quantity, which is not a motivation for rigorous peer-review standards. Many open access journals have successfully navigated this landscape. Most notably, PLOS ONE (Public Library of Science) is considered a reputable, open access journal. On the other end of the spectrum, there has been a proliferation of open access journals with low standards and low readership that prey on authors who are desperate to get their research published and willing to pay for the privilege. These journals are nominally peer reviewed, but publication practices are often quite promiscuous. These are sometimes known as “predatory journals.” In one of the most extreme (and hilarious) example, an author repeated a profane 7 word request (I encourage you to click the link, but it is NSFW) to be removed from a mailing list in a format that resembled a scientific manuscript. If the manuscript had received even a cursory review by a human, it would have been immediately dismissed. It was accepted for publication.

There are genuine weaknesses and criticism of peer review. Journals are experimenting with modifications. For the most part, reviewers do their work anonymously. This arrangement is intended to enable reviewers to be honest and not fearful of reprisal from angry authors. Some journals are trying open peer review. In this model, peer reviewers are identified by name. This is intended to promote greater transparency in the process and greater accountability on the part of reviewers. On the other end of the spectrum, there are some calls for the abolition of pre-publication peer review as we know it.

I believe there is a purpose and place for the imperfect process we call peer review. I am hopeful that through imagination and innovation the weaknesses and limitations will be improved.

The erroneous assumptions of so-called alternative medicine: Root causes

So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) offers an odd and heterogeneous mix of treatments that have almost nothing in common:

  • Herbal medicine is fundamentally different from acupuncture.
  • homeopathy has nothing to do with chiropractic.
  • Reflexology is different from Tai chi.
  • Etc., etc.

Despite this heterogeneity, there are a few assumptions that underly all, or at least most, of these treatments.

Root causes

Practitioners of SCAM regularly claim – often with great pride – that they treat the root causes of disease. As far as I can see, this assumption has at least four effects:

  • It distracts from (the search for) the true causes of disease, which are often multifactorial.
  • It attracts customers to SCAM.
  • It implies that conventional medicine is at best symptomatic, and thus far inferior to SCAM.
  • It encourages the patients to turn their backs on mainstream healthcare.

The notion that SCAM practitioners treat the root causes is, of course, based on the practitioners’ understanding of aetiology: if a traditional acupuncturist, for instance, becomes convinced that all disease is the expression of an imbalance of life-forces, and that needling acupuncture points will re-balance these forces thus restoring health, they must automatically assume that they are treating the root causes of any condition.

One acupuncturist, for example, claims on their website:

You may be surprised to find out that the root causes of all illness and disease can be summarized in a list less than ten items long.  You may also be surprised to find out that the root causes of illness and disease are the same for every form of health care… From an Oriental Medicine perspective these root or core causes of illness and disease cause disruptions in the energetic communications system of the body as well as imbalances in the vital substances of the body (qi, blood, essence, yin, and yang).  Acupuncture and herbal therapy are the two primary ways of bringing the energetic system and vital substances back into balance and thereby reducing and eliminating illness and disease.

If chiropractors believe in the gospel of their founding father, DD Palmer, that all diseases are due to ‘subluxations’ of the spine, it must seem logical to them to assume that spinal ‘adjustment’ is synonymous with treating the root cause of whatever complaint their patient is suffering from. Again, an example: a chiropractor claims that he “has dedicated his life work to treating the entire person. Stepping away from traditional ‘standard of care’, by focusing on underlying root causes of disease.”

If a homeopath is convinced that all illness stems from a weakness of the ‘vital force’ and that only homeopathic remedies can revitalise it, they are likely to believe that their remedies tackle the root cause of all diseases. One such website, for instance, has an article entitled: “Homeopathic Medicines Aim To Find The Root Cause Of The Disease!”

I could go on.

The SCAM practitioners’ naïve conviction of being able to treat the root causes gets more understandable once we realise that it is a message they were taught from the very beginning of their career. There is not a SCAM course or a SCAM book that does not emphasise it. The root cause claim has long become some sort of mantra for SCAM practitioners.

Considering the ubiquity of the message, one must, of course, ask: are SCAM practitioners correct when they assume to treat the root causes of disease? The short answer to this question is a resounding “No”.

Once the root cause of a disease has been eliminated, the illness has been eradicated by its root and should thus be dead and gone. In other words, treating a root cause means that the disease is permanently cured. The above question can therefore be re-phrased as follows:

Is there any therapy in the realm of SCAM that cures any disease permanently? Again, the short answer is “No”.

In my 30 years of researching SCAM, I have been unable to identify a single therapy that would reliably bring about a permanent cure of any disease. Even demonstrably effective forms of SCAM are effective only in terms of alleviating the symptoms. The one with the best evidence is probably St John’s wort. It works fine for mild-to-moderate depression. Yet, it does not cure depression: if a patient discontinues the treatment, the depression is likely to return.

What is the conclusion from all this?

This short discussion demonstrates, I hope, that the claim of SCAM practitioners to treat the root causes of disease is erroneous. Yet, it does persist. It is hard to find a SCAM practitioner who is not convinced of it.

Why might this be?

There are two reasons, I think. Firstly, SCAM practitioners are not medically educated and thus oblivious of the complexities of the true causes of diseases. Secondly, the claim is excellent for boosting their business. Patients who are unable or unwilling to think critically are easily impressed by the promise that the cause of their suffering will be eliminated once and for all.

This seems to suggest that SCAM practitioners live to a significant extent off the credulity of the public. And, in turn, it implies that our work as sceptics in reliably informing the public about SCAM is a crucial step towards improving public health.

Are young people turning to god in the pandemic? Don’t believe the prayer PR

The issue of religiosity and how it pertains to skepticism has rarely been one I’ve been personally hugely interested in. I’m an atheist, and I think the chances that there’s a god out there are vanishingly small, and the chances that such a being takes any notice of what you do or who you are attracted to are so close to zero that even the homeopaths would consider them a weak proposition. But while other skeptics cut their teeth debating creationists and countering theological arguments, I never really got excited by those conversations. For me, god was kinda the least interesting incorrect belief people had – I wanted to get to the weird stuff.

That said, perhaps my indifference to religiosity in the UK is an error, as a new report has revealed that the country we live in, and it’s generation of young adults, are turning to religion in droves during the pandemic. As the BBC reported, on the 4th October:

Young people in the UK are twice as likely as older people to pray regularly, a new survey has found.

Some 51% of 18 to 34-year-olds polled by Savanta ComRes said they pray at least once a month, compared with 24% of those aged 55 and over.

It also found 49% of the younger age group attend a place of worship every month, compared with 16% of over-55s.

This might seem like a surprising finding, given what we all might have assumed and directly experienced in our day-to-day lives, but Chris Hopkins from the team behind the report has some theories:

“Firstly, as the demography of the UK changes, minority faiths do tend to have a larger proportion of practising young people, and therefore as the population of these groups increases within the UK, so will the prayer habits of the population at large,” he said.

He explained it was important to “factor in the impact the pandemic has had on the ability to engage with one’s faith” with virtual prayers and services being held online.

It is possible that the pandemic opened up more avenues to prayer to young people, and this is reflected in the findings,” he said.

So there’s the claim – that half of 18 to 34 year olds pray on a monthly basis, and roughly the same number attend a place of worship every month. Fortunately, unlike those apparently devout Zoomers, we don’t have to just take this on faith, because Savanta ComRes have published their evidence on this, for us to inspect.

In a report published on 27th September 2021, ComRes explain that they surveyed 2,075 UK adults aged 18 or above, and that their data were weighted to be representative of the UK population by age, gender, region and social grade. The survey comprised 16 questions, and is broken down by all manner of multi-factorial demographics, to really help mine the data for newsworthy nuggets.

The first question asks, assuming there are no Covid-19 restrictions in place, how often the respondents “Attend church and take part in a service. This might be on a Sunday or midweek, and in a traditional church building or another location”. This is the question in which we learn that 49% of people under 34 attend more than once per month, with 6% reporting once per month, 6% saying every two weeks, 12% saying weekly, 13% saying they attend a church and take part in a service a few times per week, and fully 12% saying they do it every single day. This question is specifically about attending a religious service; this isn’t asking about praying alone or in one’s head. According to this survey, one in nine people below the age of 24 attend church (or an equivalent thereof) daily.

While many of us would find so bold a result as a reason to reassess the methodology, ComRes instead explain it as a quirk of demographics, in that some faiths other than Christianity have a larger proportion of young people who actively practice their faith. Helpfully, the report breaks down the data by both age and religion, allowing us to see that 15% of young Muslims attend Mosque daily. However, the survey of 2,075 people included just 149 Muslims, which isn’t an ideal sample size – which is where the weighting comes in, to allow that small number of Muslims to be scaled up to be representative of the overall population.

This may well be the significant flaw in these findings, because when the report breaks down the 18-24 age group by religious affiliation, we can see that 19% of young Christians attend church every single day, compared to 11% of young Muslims. Both groups are dwarfed in devotion by young Hindus, of whom 27% attend services daily, and young Sikhs, 31% of whom attend services daily. Crucially, in absolute numbers, that amounts to one Hindhu respondent, and one Sikh respondent. This seems a lot to extrapolate from just two people’s answers.

Stranger still, the report spoke to 83 people in that age range who professed to follow no religion, four of whom said they physically attend a religious service on a daily basis. Again, anyone looking to validate these findings might have asked whether it could possible be the case that 5% of atheists attend church on a daily basis. A more parsimonious explanation almost certainly exists – such as, for example, that some respondents weren’t giving their answers their full attention. As I’ve covered elsewhere, even professional online opinion polling is often rendered dubious and unreliable by an incentive structure which encourages participants to prioritise answering multiple surveys quickly rather than taking their time to give fully-considered responses.

The weighting issue is curious, too, given that of the 2,075 people spoken to in the survey, the weighted number of Christians was 1,148 – or 55%. Given that the British Social Attitudes survey in 2018 found that 53% of Brits followed no religion, and 41% reported themselves to be Christian, it seems likely that many respondents in the survey was mis-weighted.

Mining the data

As well as methodological flaws and questions regarding sampling, the framing of the survey’s results feels like an exercise in data mining. It would be very easy to use the same data to present quite a different picture – for example, when asked to what extent people agreed with the statement “I am more likely to pray now than before the pandemic”, just 23% said they agreed, while 44% disagreed. This is the same data that ComRes explained needed to be read while “factoring in the impact the pandemic has had on the ability to engage with one’s faith”, yet the data suggests the pandemic had little to no effect.

Elsewhere, when asked if people believed their prayers would be answered, just 30% said yes, while 38% said no. Unsurprisingly, that didn’t make it into the press release from the religious organisation who commissioned the survey. Nor did the result of the question about the possibility of miracles, defined by the survey as “extraordinary events thought to be caused by a God or higher spiritual being as they are not explained by the usual laws of nature”. 35% of respondents believed miracles were possible, while disagreed with the existence of miracles 36%. Had those numbers came out the other way, it’s easy to see headlines proclaiming that “one in three Brits believes God can perform miracles” (let alone the data mining that demographic comparisons would then afford).

Another fun and equally-justifiable hook from the data could have emerged from the finding that 22% of Christians prayed for Boris Johnson during the pandemic, compared to 44% of Muslims. “Muslims were twice as likely as Christians to pray for the Prime Minister while he was hospitalised with Covid”, would have made for an interesting headline.

Plus, hay might have been made from the fact that 10% of Christians who pray regularly disagreed with the idea that it was good for their mental health. I’m not saying that is a meaningful conclusion to draw, but that’s only because I’m saying that none of the conclusions drawn from this survey are particularly meaningful or reliable. In my opinion, there are question marks regarding their methodology and their sampling, and this entire story seems to be little more than Bad PR with a theological theme.

Christian PR

Any analysis of the results of this opinion poll have to take into account its source, because ComRes didn’t ask these questions out of idle curiosity: they were hired to do so by Jersey Road PR. According to their website, Jersey Road are a PR firm that “gives voice and profile to Christian organisations”, and last year they ran a similar story on the rising religiosity of British youth, which made it into the Guardian, among other news outlets.

Jersey Road PR exist to get Christian groups positive mentions in the press, so it might not be overly surprising that the survey they commissioned resulted in the kind of headlines that ran on the BBC news site, and bagged their client an interview on the BBC news channel.

The client in question this time is the “Eternal Wall of Answered Prayer”, as highlighted by the BBC:

It was commissioned by The Eternal Wall of Answered Prayer, a project to build a 169ft (52m)-tall arch made of a million bricks, each representing an answered prayer.

The group behind the ‘Eternal Wall of Answered Prayer’ aim to create a public art project near Birmingham, the shape of a giant infinity loop on which each brick will contain a crowsourced report of a prayer that was answered by (Christian) god. You may wonder how the organisation will ensure that only prayers that were truly answered by god will be included – according to their FAQ:

Every story is subjective and, as with any piece of art, people from all walks of life will be encouraged to come and admire the stucture. We do have a validation process to prevent abuse, but ultimately this is a piece of art that thousands of people will contribute to

The organisers promise the finished project will attract variously 200,000 or 300,000 visitors per year once it opens in 2023, it will generate £1.46 billion in terms of social impact. So far, the crowdfunder for the project has raised more than £320,000, and has garnered support from Christians Against Poverty.

According to the project’s founder, Richard Gamble, the wall will help “preserve the Christian heritage of our nation“, and he explained to the BBC that this latest (flawed) study challenges the perception that the UK is a secular society:

It is becoming increasingly clear that there is actually a growing spirituality in the nation,” he said. “If younger generations are exploring faith and spirituality online and in non-traditional ways it shouldn’t be a matter of debate, but should be encouraged and embraced.

Though Gamble doesn’t believe the report’s findings ought to subject to debate, I’d argue, given the flaws in the survey methodology and the striking nature of some of its findings, they’re not above examination and scrutiny. Indeed, upon seeing the data, UnHerd contacted another polling organisation, YouGov, to re-run the survey using their own sampling and weighting. According to their results (which can be viewed on YouGov’s website), the number of 18-34 year olds who attend church at least once per month is… 7%, not 49%. YouGov found 0% of that age group attend church on a daily basis – quite the contrast to the 12% in the ComRes results. According to the YouGov study, 75% of this demographic never attend church, and 79% of them say they never pray – results which are more in keeping with findings from other studies in this area, including the British Social Attitudes survey.

Nevertheless, this hasn’t stopped Jersey Road PR from claiming that their recent work for The Eternal Wall of Prayer has reached a total audience that “eventually exceeded 2 billion” – a figure which would represent more than a quarter of the global population. Assuming, of course, that their figures are accurate.

‘A Mystery to Ourselves’: from the Witches of Warboys, to an epidemic of Tik Tok tics

In the autumn of 1589, nine year old Jane Throckmorton of Warboys in Huntingdonshire “fell into a strange kind of a sickness and distemperature of the body”. She would lie on her back, then “…her stomach would lift up above the rest of her such that none could press her down flat. Sometimes she would shake one of her legs, sometimes the other. At other times one of her arms would jerk, then the other, then her head” (Witches of Warboys, p.13).

The situation soon escalated. Jane’s sisters started to suffer in the same way and Jane accused a local woman, Alice Samuel, of witchcraft:

Three of the Throckmorton children were present when Alice Samuel entered … their reaction upon seeing her was instantaneous. They all fell on the ground ‘strangely tormented’ and threw themselves desperately around the room like grounded fish … Their stomachs reached up into the air, their head and heels together backwards, throwing out their arms with great groans, most strangely to be heard, to the great grief of the beholders.

Witches of Warboys, p.33

Maid-servants then became afflicted. Samuels was ensnared in a maelstrom of histrionic young women, at a place and in an age inclined to believe in the power of witchcraft. After a four-year campaign of harassment, Samuels, her husband and her daughter were hanged. You can sense that the remaining inhabitants of the village looked darkly upon their social superiors, the Throckmorton family, who left the place shortly afterwards. The case of the Witches of Warboys has been cited as one of the critical cases for a receptive learned class, who formulated credulous witch-hunting legislation in the decades that followed.

It is hard not to be repelled by Jane Throckmorton and her sisters when you first read about them. Jane’s first set of fits subsided, only to reoccur when a newborn infant (a cousin) was in the house. A modern mind – one which discounts witchcraft as a mechanism – could wonder whether this was solely morbid attention-seeking coupled with sociopathic lack of empathy for any ensuing distress caused. I think that may be part of it. But like most things, it’s probably a little more complicated than that.

If you have kept an eye on the news since the pandemic started (a depressing pastime, I’ll grant you) you may have noticed the emergence of ‘Tik Tok Tics’. The social media platform, which is very popular with under twenty-fives, hosts videos by people with Tourette’s syndrome; these have helped to demystify and destigmatise  their condition and have been very popular with the platform’s users. According to Wired, videos tagged with #tourettes on Tik Toc have been seen more than three billion times.

Has there been an unintended side-effect?

A BMJ article by Hayman, Liang and Hedderley considers the rise in tic symptoms in young people who are already diagnosed with tic disorders; there is also “a marked increase in presentations of sudden and new onset severe tics and ‘tic-like’ attacks,” (My italics).

These new Tourette’s candidates haven’t developed in the traditional way. For one, they don’t start in the expected age range of 5-7; they are often female (boys are far more usually affected by Tourette’s); and the condition is a “sudden onset of motor and phonic tics of a complex and bizarre nature”.

Hayman, Liang and Hedderley have calculated that the regular referral rate is set to be doubled with these new cases. While the authors acknowledged that some patients would have had a background that would make the development of motor tics unsurprising, the other group “comprises florid, completely new onset tic-like disorder that appears functional in nature.” They accept that there may be undiagnosed predispositions (such as autism spectrum disorder, for example) but that “the precipitating factor [in both categories] … is anxiety (probably in part COVID-19 related)”.

Are Tik Toc Tics a form of Mass Sociogenic Illness brought on by anxiety during our unusual times?

In ‘Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness, Bartholomew and Wessely review some of the well-known historical cases of MSI from possessed nuns to convulsing schoolgirls. They conclude that:

Mass sociogenic illness mirrors prominent social concerns, changing in relation to context and circumstance.

In other words, any genetic predisposition and/or free-floating anxiety can express itself in the language – the tensions – of the age.

A smartphone with the TikTok logo on it

Hayman, Liang and Hedderley looked at the factors that either exacerbate or soothe the new cohort of ‘Tic-ers’. They “show little or no response to the usual medications for tics” so the traditional drugs are not recommended.

But there is “increasing evidence that personal, family and professional anxiety serves to exacerbate and prolong episodes, while clear explanation, reassuring and calm management can reduce or even eliminate occurrences”. So the reaction of older and professional people in the environment is important. Plus the patients’ own peers have an effect:

They report that they gain peer support, recognition and a sense of belonging from this exposure. This attention and support may be inadvertently reinforcing and maintaining symptoms.

Skeptics are very familiar with this idea: “What a mystery we are to ourselves”. We have all gone to conferences and read articles about the way our cognitive systems deliver us false messages. We know that our minds and bodies aren’t separate, but that they interact.

Yet I suspect many skeptics will surprised to find out that how profound an effect psychological distress can have upon a body – even to the point where complex cognitive constructs like witchcraft and demons get invoked. Bartholomew and Wessley reviewed the putative predispositions to mass sociogenic illness, factors such as paranoia, neuroticism IQ etc., but found no clear picture. In other words, this could happen to many of us.

When we are faced with a strange condition, or a familiar one that begins to occur at an above-average rate, it’s worth remembering the Witches of Warboys and the Tik Toc Ticers. As Bartholomew and Wessley say in their conclusion:

A broad understanding of the history of mass sociogenic illness and a knowledge of episode characteristics are useful in the more rapid recognition and treatment of outbreaks.

“I do try to think more critically!”: The Parapod’s Barry Dodds on his belief in the paranormal

0

Imagine watching multiple episodes of Most Haunted, except switch out Ciarán O’Keeffe with staunch sceptic (not with a ‘k’, and with a lower case ‘s’) Ian Boldsworth, and instead of Yvette Fielding you get the joyously naive believer Barry Dodds. They’re both comedians too, so add a healthy dose of laughs and shenanigans along with the ghost hunting and you get The Parapod Movie. Considering that most podcasts probably shouldn’t even be podcasts, it’s a bold step to take that formula and attempt to make a film of it. It seems however that they’ve managed to pull it off. With a healthy dose of crowdfunding, primarily from the audience of the aforementioned podcast, the movie is now on general release.

With a number of well-known members of the Skeptic community making appearances, and a cringeworthy cameo at QED as well, we thought it was appropriate to sit down with the disagreeing duo for a chat. Unfortunately Ian is under the weather just now, but that gave us the perfect opportunity to grill the proponent of the paranormal Barry Dodds on his own:

The Skeptic: Does Ian know that you’re doing this interview, and did he give you any guidelines to follow?

Barry: [laughs] He doesn’t know I’m doing it. I’m keeping my contact with him to a minimum because he’s not very well at the moment, so I just figured he doesn’t need to know about this one. Although, it’ll probably be like the scene in Father Ted when Ian finds out, you know, that “You let Dougal do a funeral?” scene, and it cuts to the hearse burning. It might end up being like that.

The Skeptic: Well, you’re free-range chicken for now, so enjoy it while you can. At the time of this interview, the movie’s been on general release for about a week, and you’ve been wandering the country doing screenings and Q&As. What kind of reception are you getting?

Barry: The screenings are finished for now. I was doing them with Ian and so we were just knocking around backstage having a laugh and a catch up, and then we would go out and do the Q&As, but for the last couple of them Ian was poorly so I had to go and do some on my own. I had to come up to sunny Glasgow for the day, which was lovely. It was nice in Glasgow, but then I went and did Bristol on my own, and I really missed Ian for that one. But the reception has just been really nice. Nobody’s been rude yet. There’s one or two people that have called me a couple of names, but compared to how it used to be in the past it’s been relatively mild.

The Skeptic: Well, that’s good to hear, but let’s talk about that one percent though. Are you aware of any feedback specifically from people within the paranormal and the ‘believers’ community?

Barry:  I’ve always tried not to make myself a representative of that community. I’m not part of any Facebook groups, I’m not in any clubs is such. I mean, there’s one company that I do work with now and again, and they help with the article that I write for Chat magazine. It’s a company called Haunted Happenings. They’re actually in the movie. They came to see it in Nottingham and they all loved it. I said to them outside “Listen, I’m really sorry, but I’ve done a terrible job of representing us”, and they they were like, “It’s fine. It’s fine. As long as you’re being yourself that’s the only thing you can do”. They’re quite grown up about it, but I’ve maybe seen one or two comments along the lines of “This is not representative of ghost hunting”. Well, that’s not really what we set out to do. We set out to make a movie version of our podcast, which is, sort of my, my belief in it with little research and little knowledge in any of the gadgets I’m using [laughs]. I just know if it lights up there’s something there, but if you ask me, why does it I couldn’t tell you. Yeah, I think some people maybe whinge that I didn’t show what real ghost hunting’s like, but the reality is that real ghost hunting is very, very boring.

The Skeptic: I think this was made clear in the podcast – that it’s primarily comedy, and the secondary thing is exploring the paranormal – so I would hope that people on both sides of that believing fence would take it in the ethos it was meant to be delivered with, right?

I saw an ad for a light sabre once. It looked incredible, and I went and bought for Ian. It turned out to be like something out of a pound shop… I was just wowed by the by the amazing video, and all the sparkly lights of it. Then some tat turned up.

Barry: Yeah, I mean, I remember talking to Ian about it, a while back, and he said he said it’s almost like the podcast isn’t about ghosts, it’s about people. Him being the critical thinker, and I’ve just come to accept it now that I’m quite easily tricked and deceived by things. I have a house full of tat where I’ve been deceived by online adverts. I saw an ad for a light sabre once. It looked incredible, and I went and bought for Ian. It turned out to be like something out of a pound shop, and that was his birthday present, but I was just wowed by the by the amazing video, and all the sparkly lights of it. Then some tat turned up. I’m very easily tricked and deceived. I’m getting better, and I’m a bit more careful these days.

The Skeptic: It’s nice to know that it’s having a positive effect on you in some way.

Barry: Yeah, I try. Ian would maybe dispute that I do it as much as I say, but I do try and think a bit more critically. Like, when I see a bit of ghost footage, instead of just immediately being amazed by it, I kind of think “How does this footage exist? Why does it exist?”, you know? Why would anyone ever look at the security camera footage where a door just moves a little bit. Why is that thing? So, I’m trying to think a little bit more.

The Skeptic: After watching the movie, do you think many minds will have been changed in either direction?

Barry: No [laughs]. I think I might have pushed one or two believers on to the skeptical side.

The Skeptic: We should be thanking you for that. It’s really hard to get traction so, anything you can do is very much appreciated.

Barry: Um, yeah, I don’t think I’ve convinced anyone. I think there’s a couple of things that happen in the film that I won’t mention because I don’t want to spoil it for anyone, but there’s a couple of things do go unexplained. One being a thing that I experienced, and another thing that happens towards the end of the film that we just can’t explain and people always go “Why don’t you talk about that thing at the end?”, and it’s like, because we don’t know what it was is the honest answer. 

The Skeptic: Considering Ian has his hands on the scissors when it comes to editing both the movie and the podcast, do you ever feel like you’ve been unfairly represented or had something positive on your side left out?

Barry: [Laughs] I don’t. Of course, everything is changed around in edits. I used to watch Big Brother and I’m a Celebrity they would always come out and go “It’s all in the edit”, and I was like “Oh, he’s just making excuses”. But now I’m like, yeah, you can really change a lot with everything. I don’t think any of it’s been unfair. The one bit that I remember being an edit in the Parapod where I was like “Oh, you’ve been sneaky there”.  I don’t think I’ve ever told anyone this before actually, but there’s a bit in the podcast while we’re talking about one of the rituals, which we used to do at the end. It was this thing about putting stuff on your stairs in your house and then Ian goes something like “Are you just making the film Home Alone?” and we both laugh and he goes “What a brilliant joke I just did”. The reality of that was I just went “You do all this when you Kevin McAllister” and he went “Who’s Kevin Mcallister?” and I said it’s the kid from Home Alone. He says “Oh, okay. All right. Let’s re, record it.”, and then he said the line then took the credit for it. I was like “You fucker”. So that’s the only thing I’m being precious about is, like, maybe he nicked that joke off me.

The Skeptic: OK, we’re going to out him for that now, and I’m sure there’ll be a lawsuit pending.

Barry: [Laughs] Sorry Ian!

The Skeptic: It does lead on nicely to the next question though: Ian seems to be relentlessly merciless with you in the movie and in the podcast. Is he nicer when the microphones are off?

We very much disagree on the idea of there being anything that happens after death… I think you can have a complete difference of opinion on something and still be friends at the end of it. I know there’s some people who just can’t imagine that.

Barry: Yeah. You couldn’t be like that all the time, otherwise you wouldn’t ever be around that person. I said this in Sale and he disagreed with me, but I’ll say it again: I think we’re actually both quite similar people, similar sort of background, similar sort of political beliefs. It’s just that we very much disagree on the idea of there being anything that happens after death. He’s very fixed in his ways and I think sometimes you can just have a complete difference of opinion on something and still be friends at the end of it. I know there’s some people who just can’t imagine that.

The Skeptic: I would imagine it depends on the thing that you have the differing opinion about. Maybe something like this, where there’s less real-world harm then then maybe you get away with it. Maybe the, the fact that both of you are aware that everything’s been played for laughs makes some of that ok.

Barry: Well, yeah. My big thing is always “If it’s funny, it’s worth it”, regardless of whether I’m the butt of the joke or not. There’s a scene in film where I’m in quite a horrible situation where I’m stuck somewhere. Well, the important thing is that when I’m in the cinema, if people are laughing, then it’s like, yeah, it was worth it. I’m fine with it as long as people enjoy it. It was always the first thing I said to Ian when we finished recording anything. I’d always go “Is it funny?”. I know we did this whole team Dodds, team Peackock/Boldsworth thing, but I was never ever that bothered about it. So I didn’t want to win. The objective was it [to be funny], probably just cause my proper “job” is as a comedian. I’ve been a comedian for twenty years, so funny always takes precedence over everything else.

The Skeptic: The premiere of the film was way back in early 2020, followed by a planned screening tour round the country. Then the pandemic hit, and it must have felt like the movie was cursed somehow. Can you tell us about the impact that had on you, Ian, and the film in general?

Barry: It was disappointing. I remember I was getting ready to go to London on the Tuesday and Ian was already down there. I called into his radio show, which I used to do all the time and just have a chat with him, which I think used to really annoy his producer. I’ve got to take this one on the chin, because we were meant to be going on the Tuesday to do Richard Herring’s podcast and then on the Wednesday was the London screening, and I rang up the radio show and was like “Oh, I think this Richard Herring show is going to get canceled. This is ridiculous. Why is all this getting canceled?”. I just had no idea, but I suppose no-one did really. And then, all of a sudden, in like 24 hours this thing just became like “Oh, no, this is a real thing. This isn’t this isn’t just a media storm. This is really serious!”. So, I suppose that sort of overtakes any disappointment really, because you can’t sit around complaining that your film isn’t out when there’s people dying. At the end of the day was it was like, okay well, we’ll wait until the time’s right, and then we’ll carry on where we left off. We’ll just be patient.

The Skeptic: The third season of the podcast was about conspiracies, and you seemed to believe a disturbingly large number of them. Nowadays, following on from talking about Covid, we’re seeing some real-life harm caused by that sort of conspiratorial thinking when it comes to the pandemic and the vaccination program. Do you buy into any of those Covid conspiracies at all?

Barry: This is the thing: with the third series it was all conspiracies and I sort of picked them out and there were some that I thought – these have got some really good arguments about them [Brian raises eyebrow]. I thought the arguments for the moon landing were quite compelling [Brian raises other eyebrow]. I thought some of the JFK stuff was very interesting [Brian orders botox], but the problem is that my interest is ghosts. I’ve always been into ghosts. Conspiracies, although I’ve got a passing interest in them, it’s not my focus of attention. It’s like this whole thing about flat earth. When people out there say it’s flat and honestly, if it is, I’m not bothered. I’m not bothered that it’s round. It doesn’t make a difference to me in the slightest. In the same way, I’m not bothered if we haven’t really been to the moon. It makes for an interesting, hopefully funny chat on a podcast. I never I never left thinking I’ve got to get to the bottom of the truth behind this conspiracy. It never really got to me in that way. So this whole thing with, you know, the vaccine and Covid. Even if it was made in a lab or something there’s nothing I can do about it. At no point did I hesitate to get my jabs. And then you see stuff like Bill Gates put a microchip in it. Well, even if he has, I’m not bothered. He’s not going to find out much. It’s a weird one, and some of the stuff that I’ve read is just seriously mental. All this stuff about Hillary Clinton’s got some lair and she eats kids, and Donald Trump’s a saviour from God – it’s just a bit daft. I’m sure there’s stuff that goes on that we don’t know about, but I wouldn’t give any weight to people not getting a vaccination.

The Skeptic: If even Barry Dodds says it’s mental then it must be, right?

Barry: [Laughs] Yeah. Honestly, if Bill Gates wants to track me, he can. He’d probably end up quite depressed.

The Skeptic: Ok, this one’s a bit more personal. For many people, their belief in the afterlife is framed as something comforting perhaps, because it’s maybe a means of maintaining connection to a loved one that’s passed away. For you it seems much more of fear-based or thrill-seeking kind of ethos. Why do you think that’s the case, and what do you get out of it?

Barry: I think it’s changing with me. When I was younger the idea of ghosts and ghost stories used to really scare me, but I’ve always been really drawn to things that scare me mainly because I get a bit of an adrenaline rush. I hated fairgrounds when I was younger. Really hated them. I love roller coasters now. I love that thrill, that rush. The fear of a ghost hunt, that rush again. I hate public speaking, like, even in assemblies at school, I can remember always saying to the teacher I don’t want to do anything where I’ve got to say something, I don’t want to speak. Now I’m a stand-up comedian. My job three or four times a week is to stand up and not just speak to people, but to make them laugh or they’re going to be aggressive back to me. So, I’m drawn to things that I’m scared of, because I do get a rush from it. As I get older I’ve got a real fear of there being nothing after death. That idea I really don’t like, because I love life, I don’t want it to end. I don’t want this particular roller coaster to come to an end because it’s amazing. When I speak to people and they say it’s just black, it’s just nothing, you go back to how you were before you were born. I just think what’s the point then? Let’s just go and get there now, otherwise we’re just wasting our time. I understand that the thing about you’re here once, have fun and make the most of it, and I really like that ethos, but I don’t want it to be the end.

The Skeptic: In one of the most awkward and uncomfortable scenes in the movie we see you speaking at QED, one of the biggest conferences for skeptics. So, the conference is happening again in 2022…

Barry: No!

The Skeptic: Would you…

Barry: No [laughs]. Not a chance. I get the feeling that you were all very kind to me but you probably wouldn’t want me to do that again, at your conference.

The Skeptic: I was thinking a different format from last time. Maybe as part of our panel discussion or something, but okay. I don’t book the speakers anyway, but I know some people that do. I was going to put in a word for you, but I guess not.

Barry: I can’t tell you how awkward I felt at that. It was horrible, and that’s why I’m coming out with such rubbish, because my brain has just left the building and my mouth just knows that it’s got to keep going.

The Skeptic: Well, further to what we said earlier on, it made for good laughs so you scored some points there.

Barry: Well, yeah, so it was worth it.

The Skeptic: So, finally, what does the future hold for the Parapod ‘brand’?

Barry: I think the reality is that we’ve made no plans. So, we haven’t discussed doing anything more, but we haven’t discussed the idea of sacking it off completely. I think we’re both, now, just sat back watching what happens with the film. Currently it’s only out in the UK, so we need it to go around the world and just see what the reaction is, and if there’s demand for more of it. There might not be, so we can’t make any plans until we see what the reaction is.

The Parapod Movie is now available on multiple platforms. You may not see any great answers about what lurks on the other side, but there’s plenty to offer nonetheless. As such, we recommend you check-in your skeptical senses at the door on the way in and just enjoy the ride.

We all want to feel special and unique – which is what leads some of us to conspiracy theories

0

Facts do not matter when confronting hardcore conspiracy theory believers. Facts will not have the silver bullet effect that we want them to, and if they did work, we wouldn’t have conspiracy theorists to deal with in the first place. What matters instead is the motivation present in the believer. If that motivation can be exposed, then it’s much more likely that the person can be convinced to abandon the conspiracy theory belief altogether (it’s not very likely, just more likely).

The first thing we should keep in mind is that it is very rare that a person is raised in an environment that pushes conspiracy theory belief… though in the very youngest of us presently this may become a more common phenomenon. Keeping that in mind, we should recognise that something brought people to conspiratorial beliefs. The literature argues that the most common cause presently is mere exposure to conspiracy theories which, until the last few decades, was an uncommon occurrence. Thorson argues that exposure, even to debunk a conspiracy theory, helps spread them – which makes sense because we typically share the thing we are taking apart. Yet this exposure doesn’t compel someone to believe, something else gets people to click those links. That motivation is the key.

A single blue shell amongst black and brown pebbles

Sociological and psychological literature has identified a few of these motivations. For this article, I would just like to concentrate on one motivation – the need to feel unique or superior to the rest of the crowd. This motivation is one of those that seem obvious once it is pointed out. It’s the type of motivation that first galvanized anti-vaxxers fifteen years ago. It’s the type of motivation that allows a flat earther to condescend to us regular folk. It’s what permits the Health Ranger to call the rest of us “sheeple.” They are the special, the unique, they have seen through the veil, and thus should be regarded as more intelligent than the conspirators they seek to unmask. I’m being a bit simplistic – anti-vaxxers are also motivated by the fear of the unknown and a misinformed alt-med worldview – but this need to feel special is a primary motivation when it comes to attaching a personality to conspiratorial belief.

Two separate articles both identified this motivation in 2017: “I Know Things that They Don’t Know” (Lantian et. al) and “Too Special to be Duped” (Imhoff and Lamberty). Both of these publications conclude that the desire to feel more unique than the general public has a discrete impact on the beliefs that an individual will hold. They also explain why they will continue to hold those beliefs despite the presentation of evidence that counters their position.

These studies are not, of course, without their limitations; the biggest being that they are based on self-reporting. Self-reporting is problematic because it’s inherently subjective, and as another writer has pointed out regarding placebos, it can create false conclusions about an objective phenomenon. However, there is also no other way to measure this, short of some science fiction brain scan. Even though conspiracy theorists believe fantastic things, we have to take their word for it when they tell us why they believe what they believe.

That disclaimer aside, this research is important for a few reasons. The first, as stated above, is that understanding the motivations of conspiracy theorists should be a primary step if we are going to combat the phenomenon. It is an unfortunate fact that an extremist may never have been radicalised if only they had stumbled into an online forum debate over which actor was a better Doctor instead of a forum where the central argument was about whether or not Immigrants or the Jews were the real problems. That individual has staked their position to feel part of something, but also to feel distinct from the general public.

The second reason this is important is that it tells us that the attachment isn’t rational, it is emotional. As Lantian et. al writes:

the converging evidence presented in this paper demonstrates that believing in conspiracy theories may be a way to satisfy one’s need for uniqueness.

The paper goes on to observe that conspiratorial attachment will be stronger in those that feel uniqueness is an important trait. Imhoff and Lamberty argue:

Conspiracy theories seem to hold the promise of being a set of political attitudes that guarantees that one will be seen as having an independent, if not necessarily accurate, mind.

The important conclusion we should be reaching is that when we attack a conspiracy theory, we aren’t just attacking what someone believes, but are attacking the person themselves. It explains the defensiveness and anger with which conspiracists respond to challenges. This isn’t like trying to claim that the MCU isn’t “real cinema”, because there aren’t many of us that have built our personalities around the Marvel movies. When we challenge conspiracy believers, we are not only saying that thing they believe is false, but that they are also just as plain and normal as the rest of us.

Finally, and I think most importantly when it comes to confronting conspiracy theories, the appeal is in their unpopularity with both the general public and the official authorities. The more unpopular the belief amongst the general public, the more it satisfies that need, and the stronger the attachment to the belief. Similarly with opposition from the authorities. This explains the failure of the U.S. government to convince an already conspiratorial right-wing base to wear a mask and get vaccinated. Since the same individuals already reject the legitimacy of the authority to begin with, the pleadings from those authorities are not just falling on deaf ears, they are actively strengthening the opposition to those pleadings.

Going forward we must recognise that these beliefs are part of the individuals’ personality – whether that is as their own distinct identity or as a group identity (even these publications appreciate that irony). It could be beneficial to point these individuals in a more constructive direction. They can still be unique; they can just be unique in a better direction. We, as skeptics, should remember that these people represent a loss of effort, intelligence, and creativity toward something productive.