Home Blog Page 8

The Southport attack wasn’t ideologically motivated; the misinformation around it is

Last August, riots exploded around the UK in the wake of the murder of three girls in Southport, north Merseyside, at the hands of killer Axel Rudakubana. At the time, the series of public displays of violence and disorder were fuelled by misinformation around Rudakubana’s religion, immigration status, and his motivation – now that he has been sentenced to 51 years in prison, and far more information about his life is available, belief in August’s misinformation ought to have waned. Sadly, that’s not how viral misinformation works.

In the hours and days that followed his attack, Rudakubana was falsely revealed to be an illegal immigrant, recently arrived on a small boat, allegedly named the far more mob-friendly and Islam-coded “Ali al-Shakati”.  In fact, Rudakubana was born in Wales, and had been attending a school in Formby, halfway between Liverpool and Southport. Rudakubana was British, born to an immigrant family of Rwandan Christians. His father, Alphonse, is believed to have fought with the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), which brought an end to the genocide in 1994. Rwanda, for the avoidance of doubt, is a 92% Christian country; only 2% of Rwandans are Muslim. It is beyond doubt by this point that those riots were predicated on lies, initiated and spread opportunistically by those with anti-immigrant and Islamophobic agendas.

After his arrest, Rudakubana’s house was raided, and police found that he possessed a copy of an Al Qaeda training manual – leading some to claim that, actually, their assumption of a religious motivation behind his attack was correct. Conspiracy theorists and far-right activists took a victory lap, declaring the murders as an Islamist terrorist attack. Why else, they argued, would he have enlisted with Al Qaeda? Clearly, this was evidence that the UK has a problem with calling out terrorists and criminals when those criminals are Muslims. Indeed, Reform UK MP Nigel Farage appeared on GB News to say as much:

our ability to stop terrorists is dismal but I think what’s even worse is the cover up…  I was right all along, and if the public had known the truth about this guy crazy conspiracies would not have spread online and those riots would have been nowhere near as bad as they were. All Keir Starmer can do is talk about the far right well what about some of the evil ideologies that are allowed to persist within our community.

Ever willing to blow dog whistles, it is left to the GB News viewer to wonder precisely what Farage was referring to as ‘evil ideologies’. Meanwhile, Farage’s colleagues at Reform UK, Richard Tice and Lee Anderson, used their inevitable airtime on GB News to call for a reintroduction of the death penalty.

There are a number of things wrong with this response. In the days after his attack, those who were confidently declaring a terrorist motivation had zero evidence that that was the case – beyond that it was a horrific attack, carried out by someone who they wrongly believed had a Muslim-sounding name. Even if it later transpired that Rudakubana had indeed been radicalised, their jumping to the conclusion before there was any evidence was still misinformation. We can’t allow knee-jerk assumptions to be the standard we accept, with the justification that some of our speculations had turned out to be true.

More importantly, there was more to this story than an Al Qaeda training manual. Rudakubana, it transpires, was also in possession of material from the IRA, the Nazis, and the Rwandan genocide. A clearly disturbed teenager, he had developed a deep interest in extreme violence and spent hours watching graphic videos of murder and researching genocide, including looking up material on school computers. According to one senior official:

He was absolutely obsessed with genocides. He could name every genocide in history and how many people were killed – Rwanda, Genghis Khan, Hitler. It’s all he wanted to talk about.

Given the range of extremist material Rudakubana consumed, it is unlikely he owned the Al Qaeda manual because he was committed to instituting a worldwide caliphate. Rather, if one’s goal is to obsessively read about how to kill people, then the handbook of a terrorist organisation is going to be somewhere that material can be found, regardless of its ideological bent.

Indeed, Rudakubana was not prosecuted as a terrorist for this reason. According to the sentencing note:

The prosecution have made it clear that these proceedings were not acts of terrorism within the meaning of the terrorism legislation, because there is no evidence that Rudakubana’s purpose was to advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

Ideology undoubtedly plays a role in this story, but not Rudakubana’s ideology: those who instantly assumed, and continue to ascribe, a religious motivation to his attack in spite of the evidence to the contrary are the ones being led by their own ideological biases. They have already made up their minds about what this atrocity represents, and which social ills it illustrates, and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.

What does the public believe?

Once that narrative has been cemented, it can be incredibly hard to dislodge. According to YouGov’s recently analysis of public awareness of the details of the crime, 35% of all respondents believe these murders were a terrorist attack. Among Reform UK voters, that figure leaps to 66%. Two in three voters for Nigel Farage’s party believe something which is demonstrably untrue.

YouGov polling results showing Reform UK voters are by far the most likely to call the Southport killings a terrorist attack (66%, compared to 25-42% for other political affiliations).

It gets worse. YouGov compared their latest figures to a similar survey conducted shortly after the riots. In August, 12% of people wrongly believed the killer was an immigrant to the UK – five months later, that figure had actually increased to 21%. As time has passed, evidence has conclusively proved this belief false, yet almost twice as many people believe the falsehood.

Similarly, the August survey found that 11% of people believed Rudakubana was a Muslim – which he isn’t – and 4% believed his motives were religious terrorism. By January, 24% of people now believe he is a Muslim, and 23% believe that his attack was explicitly motivated by religious terrorism. Six times as many people now believe Rudakubana was carrying out a terrorist attack in the name of Islam than they did in the days after the attack took place.

This is the legacy of the misinformation that spread after the riots – the fact checks fade, and the lies and rumours and confident assumptions stay in place.

YouGov polling results comparing answers from 2024 and 2020/21 to questions about the killer’s characteristics, belief and motivation, showing belief in four falsehoods increased over this period.

A political breakdown of that growth in acceptance of misinformation about the attack shows once again that this is an issue heavily skewed to the right of the political spectrum. In August, just 8% of Reform voters in August thought this was a religious terrorist attack, by January, that figure had risen to 55%. Those figures compare with a rise from 3% to 31% among Tories, 3% to 17% for Labour voters, and 3% to 16% among Lib Dems. Reform voters are overwhelmingly more likely to believe a lie about this being an Islamic terrorist attack on the UK.

On who is to blame for the attack, understandably the majority of all respondents place the blame with Rudakubana (87%) and his parents (72%). From there, the authorities get their share of the blame – 70% blame the counter-terrorism programme (Prevent), 64% blame mental health services and 59% blame the police. These seem reasonable – Rudakubana was known to those authorities before his attack.

He was actually referred to Prevent three times: in December 2019, after making comments about a mass shooting, in February 2021, when a pupil raised concerns about Rudakubana posting images of Colonel Gaddafi on Instagram; and in April 2021, when a teacher raised concerns after noticing he was reading about the 2017 London Bridge attack. However, because there wasn’t any religious, racial, political or ideological element to his concerning actions, he wasn’t considered suitable for intervention under the scheme. Ironically, had Rudakubana actually been a Muslim, it might have been a different story.

Next, YouGov asked whether political parties were to blame. According to 63% of Reform UK voters and 40% of Tory voters, the political group that holds the most blame for this atrocity is the Labour government, which had been in power for almost four weeks when the attack happened.

Astonishingly, Rudakubana was four years old when the Conservative government came into power, and committed his crime four weeks after they left power, yet for Reform and Tory voters, the blame lies with Labour. Clearly, those Farage and Reform and Tommy Robinson attack lines have worked on their audience.

YouGov results showing where voters of different political affiliations place the blame for the Southport killings, with almost all blaming Rudakubana himself, but with Reform UK voters much more likely to blame the current Labour government, which had not even had a whole month in power at the time.

Perhaps this should not be a surprise. The Reform party, “Tommy Robinson” (alias of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), and the broader right-wing misinformation ecosystem have been building a picture of the UK for a while; one where Muslims commit rampant crime and where the authorities are too scared or complicit to do anything about it. These pictures are particularly vivid for people who live in parts of the UK where they’re less likely to encounter Muslims, or who don’t live in the UK at all. Unfortunately, some of those people are enormously powerful, extremely wealthy, terminally online and criminally gullible people… like Elon Musk.

X marks the plot

As riots raged around the UK, Musk’s response was to retweet and amplify some of the biggest sources of racist falsehoods, including Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage. So taken with the former, Musk has subsequently offered to help fund Tommy Robinson’s appeal against his imprisonment, seeing Robinson as a ‘political prisoner’ and calling for his immediate release from prison, in a tweet seen 73.5m times. For the avoidance of doubt, Robinson is in prison for contempt of court, having repeatedly spread dangerous lies that endangered the life of a 17-year-old Syrian immigrant. He is not a political prisoner, he’s just the regular kind.  

Musk has also claimed he will fund an electoral push by Reform UK, whose members (as we have seen) are clearly sponges for Islamophobic and xenophobic misinformation… though, notably, Musk has flip-flopped over whether Nigel Farage is the man to lead them to electoral glory on the Musk dime.

Musk spent much of January trying to use the influence his money affords him, in an attempt to remove Keir Starmer and push for a general election, on grounds that might be charitably referred to as ‘unclear’. He has also targeted Labour’s Jess Phillips, labelling her a “rape genocide apologist”, specifically over the issue of grooming gangs in the UK – accusations that led to an significant rise in death threats to Phillips.

As divisive a figure as Jess Phillips (and indeed, any outspoken female politician) might be, nobody who has any understanding of UK politics could deny she’s put the work in when it comes to helping victims of rape and domestic violence. Indeed, the victims of the Telford sexual abuse scandal – one of the scandals Musk claimed to be so motivated by – came out in support for Phillips against his attacks. Evidently, Musk has no idea about that, due to the cocoon of lies he has built around him.

Where, then, does Musk get his talking points about the issue? One thing we can say for certain is that Tommy Robinson – the man Musk has called a political prisoner and who has retweeted and responded to numerous times in the last year – has built a career on lying about Islamic grooming gangs.

Grooming gangs

According to Tommy and his followers and imitators, the UK government has been deliberately covering up a mass wave of grooming gangs, in which Muslim men of Pakistani heritage, who may or may not be immigrants, are targeting vulnerable young white girls; only Tommy Robinson is brave enough and patriotic enough to talk about it, and that is why he is being persecuted and imprisoned in an attempt to silence him.

As with all the best political propaganda, this warped view is based on some kernels of truth: in 2010, a group of British-Pakistani men in Rotherham were convicted of sexually abusing girls aged 12 to 16. Investigations found that this was not an isolated case, and child-grooming gangs have subsequently been jailed in more than a dozen other towns, including Rochdale, Oldham and Telford.

Inquiries into how these scandals happened have found that the contemporaneous response from authorities was inadequate, often because the victims were dismissed as being unlikely to be reliable witnesses, often because of prejudice around their circumstances – some of the girls were from care homes, or had more deprived socioeconomic or troubled backgrounds.

Meanwhile, the infrastructure that should have protected them failed – social workers were underfunded and overwhelmed, meaning cases weren’t given priority and followed up, and some local councils were in denial about the extent of the issues, and effectively minimised it. On top of that, undeniably, there were concerns by some of the police and other authorities that they might be accused of racial targeting if they investigated the specific gangs that were operating. That racial angle should not be overlooked, but it also should not be overstated, when issues of misogyny and class snobbery and poverty were just as prevalent.

The failure of the state to protect those victims, and to effectively investigate their cases, was seized upon by people like Tommy Robinson as an opportunity to recruit – he argued that these cases don’t represent the system failing, but actually that the system is operating as its designed to, and that pandering to Muslims takes precedent over the protection of young white girls. Never mind the fact that the actions of organised gangs don’t reflect the behaviour of people who happen to look like them, or that local Muslim communities are just as outraged as the rest of us. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of grooming and child sexual exploitation in the UK happens at the hands of white men – whose cases never receive the attention of people like Tommy Robinson or Nigel Farage. Never mind the fact that these cases had real victims, whose life stories aren’t Robinson’s to use as political capital. For those who want to allege that the system protects Muslim criminals at the expense of white lives, this was manna from heaven.

Musk pulls the strings; the right wing dances

The political right in the UK has danced to Musk’s recent tune when it comes to this subject. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch took to parliament to call for a full national inquiry into the scandal, despite being in power in 2022 when her party carried out precisely such an inquiry… whose recommendations they subsequently ignored.

Meanwhile, Farage and the Reform party argued for a far more targeted inquiry, tailored to their specific tastes:

The scope of that inquiry was like a shotgun, it was to cover a whole range of areas in which children were being abused. What we need, and what we’re calling for, is a rifle shot inquiry. One that looks specifically at to what extent were gangs of Pakistani men raping young white girls. Because, ultimately, it seems to me, there’s a deep racist element behind what happened.

For Farage, it is important that any inquiry doesn’t look at all grooming gang victims, just the white victims who have been abused by a specific race of perpetrator.

It might seem odd for Musk and his many committed (and often blue-ticked) fans to pin the blame for all of this on the recent Labour government, given they have been out of power for 14 years. The answer is likely due to a pattern of viral misinformation that Musk has trained himself and his fans to accept, because they happen align with his ideological biases, and the biases of his newfound political allies. Much of that misinformation focuses on Keir Starmer’s time served as Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Prosecution Service, from 2009 to 2013, which has led to claims about his personal involvement in failed cases. For example, one viral clip from 2020 has a caption that claims to show Starmer:

explaining in FORENSIC Details why victims of grooming gangs shouldn’t be believed if they’ve been under the influence or have a criminal record !!

The video is a 22-second clip of Starmer, in which he says:

A victim of child sexual abuse will swiftly report what happened to them to the police, will be able to give a coherent and consistent account, first time. That they will not themselves have engaged in any offending or other behaviour, and that they will not have misused drugs or alcohol at any stage.

This video circulated on Twitter at the time, and was called “revealing” by former Tory MP Nadine Dorries, with former Tory MP Maria Caulfield describing it as the “True Face of the Labour Leader #shameful”. Except, the clip wasn’t as it seemed – it was trimmed from a speech in which Starmer listed the many faulty assumptions on which cases had been turned down prior to his reform of the Crown Prosecution Service. This was Starmer listing examples of the failures that his new measures were brought in to prevent.

Another example originated in 2020 and was re-shared in 2022, where posts circulated on social media directly blaming Starmer directly for grooming gangs that escaped punishment, claiming:

From 2004 onwards the director of public prosecutions told the police not to prosecute Muslim rape gangs to prevent ‘Islamophobia’. That director was Keir Starmer, now the leader of the Labour party, who just promoted Naz Shah to his front bench, the Pakistani Muslim who thinks English children should keep quiet about being raped for the sake of ‘diversity’.

This is the kind of viral post that aligns perfectly with Musk’s recent claims, including his accusation that Starmer was “deeply complicit in the mass rapes in exchange for votes” and that he “repeatedly ignored the pleas of vast numbers of little girls and their parents, in order to secure political support”. But this post is evidently untrue.

Keir Starmer was served as DPP from 2008 to 2013 – he wasn’t in the role in 2004, and only became an MP in 2015; whatever he did or didn’t while in the role, votes had nothing to do with it. During his time at the CPS, Starmer brought in measures to ensure victims in grooming gang cases wouldn’t be dismissed so easily, and by the time he left the role the office had the highest conviction rate on such cases in its history. There have been 17 trials of grooming gangs since 1997 and 14 of them have taken place since Starmer became DPP.  

Just as large sections of the British public have internalised the lie that Rudakubana was a recent immigrant to the UK and a Muslim who carried out a religiously motivated attack, a narrative has become cemented that Keir Starmer personally intervened to protect gangs of child abusers from prosecution. It is a narrative that has been seeded by people like Tommy Robinson, for political power, and one that is subsequently hinted at and dog-whistled about by the handful of extremist MPs of Reform UK. The effect has been a pattern that’s become lodged, despite all the evidence to the contrary, in the social media discourse, to the point where Elon Musk has accepted it wholesale.

What all of this represents is ideologically motivated misinformation, designed to tie a religion – and, more pertinently, the people who follow that religion – to criminality, and to paint as complicit any politician whose solutions are anything other than extreme nationalism. And, as the YouGov survey illustrates, it is evidently working.

This is why skepticism can’t ‘stay out of politics’ – because we know that lies and misinformation definitely won’t stay out of it.

Understanding the origins of the 15-Minute City panic takes just 30 minutes

Let me to introduce you to 99% Invisible, a long-running podcast dealing in urban planning and ideas for better ways to live. Trust me, it’s always more interesting than that sounds.  

The show is produced in Oakland, California, but the particular episode I want to tell you about has a very European, specifically British, component. It also features a large dollop of things that interest us Skeptics. Things like disinformation, ill-informed politicians amplifying an inaccurate message, Jordan Peterson, angry mobs with placards – all the goodies we know and love.

The 15-Minute City

The episode takes a look at an angry backlash that erupted against a completely benign and sensible city-planning concept known as the 15-Minute City.

It’s a simple idea that was set out by Carlos Moreno, a professor at Sorbonne University. In a nutshell it proposes this: city life would be a lot nicer and better for us if more-or-less everything the city-dweller needs is reachable within 15 minutes of home, either on foot, by bike or via public transport.

Under this scheme, things like shops, parks, a place of work, a doctor’s surgery, and schools would be easily reachable, and not plonked in an out-of-town retail area, beyond the city ring road, or out of reach of any bus route.

The idea is pragmatic, and it acknowledges certain limitations. It doesn’t suggest you’ll get a specialist cancer unit at the end of every third street. Some amenities will inevitably fall outside that notional 15-minute circumference. The proposal stresses common sense, but that the majority things we need could be local.

The proposal suggests a number of benefits, including improved health and well-being, less car use and congestion, a lower carbon footprint, improved air quality, and strengthened local economies.

15-Minute cities are nothing new

Many cities, particularly those European cities whose street plans took shape long before the invention of the motorcar, already have many of the ‘15 Minute’ qualities. Some have even kept them. Many others made choices that seem bewildering to us now, as the planet went car-mad after the second World War.

The Le Corbusier vision of zoned living, of highways and high rises, had a massive impact on planning. The way forward for cities was six-lane motorways that magically never jammed up.

It’s hard to imagine now, but Amsterdam actually made serious plans to fill in its canals and replace them with US-style freeways (you might enjoy a separate 99% Invisible podcast all about that battle of people vs the motorcar).

There’s a reason we like local – it works

Think about 19th century Paris. People lived in five, six or seven-storey apartments. Richer people on the lower floors, the poor artists in the attic. Each building had a social mix. At the street level, there were cafes, boulangeries, expensive lingerie shops, bistros, banks, pharmacies and more expensive lingerie shops. Parisians could live and work entirely within a few blocks of home in their village-within-a-city.

Paris today has all sorts of other issues, but greater bike-friendliness – one of the missing ingredients from the 15-Minute proposition – is a thing they are trying to fix. They’ve gone all en avant, toute! for vélos.

Guess what happened?

As we all know by now, if you say the words ‘Bicycle Lane’ three times, an angry rabble of red-faced, red-trousered conspiracists appear. Usually in Land Rovers. This is happening in Paris and has happened recently here, in Oxford.

A woman guides a small child on a scooter along the centre of a Paris back street, with a man propping up his bicycle and checking his phone ahead of them, off to the side
A Paris back street, Autumn 2024 – by Tim Jokl, via Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0

Enter the Conspiracy theorists

The 15-Minute concept is entirely non-threatening and people-friendly. It’s actually pro-business and not especially political. Yet in the last few years it has become a target for right-wing conspiracy theorists.

We’ve had street protests and even death threats – including ones made against Professor Carlos Moreno himself (there’s more detail on that sad upshot in the podcast).

The conspiracy theory asserts – quite wrongly – that 15-Minute Cities are intended as a way of restricting individuals’ freedom of movement, that people will be confined to their neighbourhoods, that they will have to pay tolls and face a ‘Show me your papers!’-type situation before being allowed to enter adjacent neighbourhoods.

You may detect a little Covid-like panic here. It’s hardly a coincidence when you realise who the people behind the klaxons are. The 2023 street protest in Oxford happened alongside our old friends Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Russell Brand, each perpetuating and amplifying this false message.

Mark Harper, the then-Minister of Transportation, also weighed in. He openly condemned the idea in parliament, showing he was happy to parrot any bit of disinformation that happened to be that week’s hot topic on GB News.

Screengrab from GB News: 15-Minute Cities: The green dream is a dystopian nightmare, says Martin Daubney. The header photo shows Oxford city centre with a relatively clear road that has only two parked cars, a bike, a motorbike and two buses driving along
GB News scarmongering: “15 minute cities: The green dream is a dystopian nightmare, says Martin Daubney” alongside an image of Oxford city centre.

Those sensible Canadians  

There is a happy ending, at least for some cities.

An amicable solution, one that other cities might follow, was found in Edmonton, Alberta. The anger there (do Canadians get angry?) was ultimately defused by the addition of a single line in the planning proposal: 

The district plan shall not restrict freedom of movement, association and commerce in accordance with the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.   

To be clear, this changed nothing about the proposal. It simply stated an obvious fact: in Canada freedom of movement is a right. It worked.  
   
And in Oxford they found an equally simple solution. They just stopped using the irrevocably corrupted term ‘15 Minute City’. Every other detail in their proposal remained in place. It is being put into action.  

A tram snakes along Mariahilfer Strasse, Wien (Vienna) – by Tim Jokl, via Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0

And finally, a bit more about 99% Invisible 

A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation.

Gustavo Petro (Then Mayor of Bogota, now President of Colombia.)

Just a quick footnote. If this is the first time you’ve heard of 99% Invisible, my first-dip recommendation to help you get a flavour is an episode all about the Chicago River, called: Reversal of Fortune.  

It’s a rip-roarer. It has good civic forces vs naughty commercial forces doing battle over the direction of flow for an entire river, with a nice sideline in how to move skyscrapers a bit to the left.

From the archive: fears over hidden Satanism in Procter & Gamble’s logo

0

This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 5, Issue 2, from 1991.

Company logos have been in the news recently: from the multi-million pound re-invention of British Telecom, to the sad retirement of Nipper the fox-terrier, who for most of this century has cocked an ear to His Master’s Voice.

The logo of Procter & Gamble, in black outline on a white background, as used from 1931 to 1992. 

It is a circle with a crescent-moon to the right hand side, depicted as a bearded man looking left. To the left of the image are 13 stars.

Far stranger, however, is the story of the corporate logo of Procter & Gamble, parent company to such consumer favourites as Ariel, Fairy, and Vidal Sassoon, to name but a few. Here is a trademark with character: an old man’s bearded face in the crescent moon, facing thirteen stars, all set within a circle. What does this odd-looking image mean? Who is the old man, why the moon, and why thirteen stars?

The first time the logo attracted attention was in 1980 when the company began to receive telephone calls and letters asking whether the company had been bought by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Procter & Gamble denied this outright. Through 1981, the number of enquiries escalated to thousands, and the accusations shifted towards Satanism: the logo was claimed to be an evil symbol declaring the company’s support of a Satanic cult, to which it was allegedly contributing 10% of its annual turnover. Supposedly, at the top of the logo, the old man’s hair forms a devil’s horn, and the curls in his beard are revealed by a mirror to spell out 666, the ‘mark of the Beast’. The thirteen stars, apparently, if joined up by lines in the correct way, also spell out 666.

Another claim has it that an executive of the company had admitted the truth of a Satanic connection on a nationwide TV talk-show – Donahue, The Tonight Show, or David Letterman, depending on the version of the rumour, in true Friend-Of-A-Friend urban folklore style. It was even claimed that the Chairman of the Board had sold his soul to the Devil in return for the guaranteed success of the company!

Understandably, Procter & Gamble worked very hard to counteract the rumours, issuing press releases, instigating legal action and even soliciting the support of leading Christian fundamentalists who announced their faith in the purity of the company. But what is the story behind the strange logo?

According to Procter & Gamble, the Moonies and Satanism claims are – to borrow a phrase from Stephen Fry – pure tommy-cock and poppy-twaddle. In fact, the history of the logo is straightforward, and easy to document: it has its origins in a simple sketch of a cross in a circle, used to mark shipments of ‘Star Candles’, one of the company’s earliest products in 1851. Over time, this developed into a star in a circle, and later the single star was replaced by thirteen stars, in honour of the original thirteen colonies of the United States. The final embellishment was the addition of the man-in-the-moon figure, which according to urban folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand was ‘a design as popular around the turn of the century as the “happy face” drawing became three-quarters of a century later.’ Then, in 1930 a sculptor was commissioned to create the definitive design we see today.

Still, the rumours periodically resurface. According to a syndicated report of 20 March 1991, Procter & Gamble has answered more than 150,000 telephone calls and letters relating to the Satanism myth in the last ten years. A recent Kansas court case ruled that a couple accused of spreading this satanic stupidity must pay Procter & Gamble damages of $75,000. Small fry, perhaps, to a multinational whose UK operation alone had a turnover of £884 million for 1989/90, but a significant victory against modern ignorance and superstition.

An overdose on placebo pills can cause adverse reactions… but not because of the nocebo effect

0

Like the pop culture trope, the placebo effect has an ‘evil twin’. While the placebo effect is said to promote healing by influencing a person’s beliefs, the nocebo effect is claimed to harm through the same mechanism. Two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, the evidence for a significant and consistent nocebo effect is just as flimsy as that for placebo. 

This isn’t to suggest that the mind holds no power over the body. Our minds constantly influence our physical state; I can stand up and move simply by thinking about it. However, this does not imply that the mind’s ability to affect the body is boundless or largely unexplored. The contexts in which our minds exert control over our bodies are limited and typically mediated through nervous signalling or hormonal control.

When discussing the nocebo effect, the same handful of studies are frequently mentioned. One of the most prominent is the case study of the ‘placebo overdose’, published in General Hospital Psychiatry in 2007. In this paper, Reeves et al report on a 26-year-old man (referred to as Mr A) who arrived at the emergency room exclaiming, “Help me! I took all my pills”, before collapsing. Reeves notes that Mr A exhibited ‘rapid respirations’, appeared ‘drowsy and lethargic’, had a high heart rate (110 bpm), and very low blood pressure (80/40).

Doctors found an empty bottle of pills on him, labelled as part of a clinical trial for an experimental antidepressant. These were the pills that Mr A had taken; he denied taking anything else. Blood tests were conducted, revealing no evidence of paracetamol or aspirin overdose, and drug screening was negative. All other lab results were within normal range, including blood urea, nitrogen, creatinine, and electrolytes. The ER doctors gave intravenous saline to try and stabilise his blood pressure and, although it helped somewhat, his blood pressure remained low.

A paramedic in red checks a patient's blood pressure using a cuff and meter attached to their arm (a sphygmomanometer)
Paramedic checking a person’s blood pressure. Image by Pavel Danilyuk, via Pexels

Four hours later, a doctor who was administering the drug trial arrived. He informed the attending physicians that Mr A was in the placebo group, and that the pills he had taken were fakes. Upon hearing this news, Mr A expressed surprise and ‘almost tearful’ relief. Within 15 minutes, he was fully alert, his blood pressure had stabilised at 126/80, and his pulse was 80.

For those worried for Mr A’s wellbeing, he was admitted to the psychiatric unit, and diagnosed with depression and dependent personality disorder. He was prescribed sertraline and psychotherapy, to which he responded well.

At first glance, the story of the ‘placebo overdose’ seems compelling. It also appears to directly contradict my view that placebo effects are generally limited to subjective reports, largely driven by things like confirmation bias and the subject expectancy effect. The Cochrane Review on placebo effects shares this stance: placebo effects do not manifest with objective symptoms.

In Mr A’s case, however, his symptoms were undeniably objective. His blood pressure and heart rate were measured, not reported. So, is this really a case of ‘placebos making you sick’?

Don’t panic

The term ‘nocebo effect’ in this context is nebulous and mysterious: Mr A thought he was going to die, and so his body started to. When you die in the Matrix you die in real life; a demonstration of how the mind can affect the body. The mystery rather vanishes, however, when we simply reframe Mr A’s experience as a panic attack.

Mr A had a history with depression, having been prescribed amitriptyline when he was 22 years old. He stopped taking the medication shortly afterward, as he found the side effects intolerable.

In the weeks leading up to his admission to the ER, Mr A was again struggling with depression. During a particularly low and hopeless ebb, Mr A saw an advertisement for a clinical trial and decided to enrol, hopeful (one supposes) that this new antidepressant would result in fewer side effects than the amitriptyline.

During the first month of the trial, Mr A’s condition improved, but at the start of the second month, following an argument, he impulsively took all 29 remaining pills. He quickly regretted this and begged a neighbour to take him to hospital.

As panic set in, Mr A would start to hyperventilate, described by Reeves as ‘rapid respirations’. Hyperventilation increases blood oxygen but reduces blood carbon dioxide, leading to respiratory alkalosis, where blood pH rises. (This is also why cartoon characters breathe into a paper bag to calm down; it is a simple mechanism to prevent respiratory alkalosis by breathing more carbon dioxide!)

Respiratory alkalosis will cause peripheral vasodilation, an expansion of the blood vessels outside the heart, leading to a significant drop in blood pressure. Essentially, the same blood volume is now within a larger space, lowering the pressure. This also explains why Mr A’s lab results were normal, including for markers like creatinine and blood urea nitrogen. If, for example, the low blood pressure was caused by dehydration, these markers would be elevated. The intravenous fluids also had limited effect as the underlying issue was not blood volume depletion.

In response to the drop in blood pressure, Mr A’s heart would start to beat rapidly to try and compensate. This also then accounts for Mr A’s rapid heart rate, described by Reeves. Respiratory alkalosis will also induce constriction of the cerebral blood vessels, accounting for the reported drowsiness and lethargy, as well as his collapse. As Mr A experienced these symptoms, he likely interpreted them as signs of impending death, further reinforcing and exacerbating his state of panic.

A shadow on a wall shows a menacing hand in a claw shape, reaching towards a wooden drawing aid set in a running pose. The image evokes a sense of fear and panic.
Fear and anxiety build into a panic attack, making the heart race.

Upon hearing the news that he had only taken placebos, Mr A would have calmed down. Once he stopped hyperventilating, his blood pH and blood pressure would quickly have returned to normal.

Perhaps it is reasonable to characterise this as a ‘nocebo effect’ or a ‘placebo overdose’, but I would argue that to do so is to lend undeserved credence to the power of the placebo. Mr A’s condition wasn’t the result of placebo administration. The objective symptoms reported were the result of hyperventilation, through well-understood and documented mechanisms. Scratching our chins and nodding sagely about the amazing power of the mind doesn’t explain anything, doesn’t reveal anything, and certainly doesn’t help people like Mr A.

Maybe a more valuable lesson we can take away from this case study is that panic attacks can be far more serious that we think, and those suffering them don’t just need to ‘pull themselves together’. And perhaps if Mr A’s doctors had recognised his condition for what it was sooner, he would have been spared those hours of pain, distress, and discomfort.

The Telepathy Tapes is wrong – autistic children don’t have supernatural powers

Podcasting is an incredibly odd medium. It’s more intimate than video, in that it mostly finds you in passive moments, occupying your ears while you commute, work out, do your food shop, or while you drift off to sleep. Yet, it feels more authentic and immediate than traditional radio – even as the podcasting industry increasingly centres around legacy media producers and celebrity vehicles – perhaps because you consume it on your schedule; it’s not for everyone all at once, it’s for just you, right then.

We shouldn’t be surprised, then, when a podcast rushes from obscurity to become the next big thing. We saw it in 2014 with Sarah Koenig’s Serial, and the last decade or so has seen the rise to dominance, ubiquity and mass fortune of The Joe Rogan Experience – both shows that truly dominated and changed the podcasting standards, and shows that have been heavily criticised for their veracity (for an ongoing critique of the inaccuracies and pseudoscience of Rogan’s behemoth Spotify-backed podcast series, check out my new weekly show, The Know Rogan Experience).

The most recent show to emerge from nowhere and rise meteorically to the top of the podcasting pile, knocking even Rogan from his perch, has been documentary film maker Ky Dickens’ 10-part series, The Telepathy Tapes. Released in September 2024, Dickens sets out her stall in her very opening line, from episode one:

For decades, a very specific group of people have been claiming telepathy is happening in their homes, and in their classrooms, and nobody has believed, nobody has listened to them, but on this podcast, we do.

As Ky Dickens explains, the show ventures into claims of widespread telepathy via a group that is systematically dismissed: “non-speakers who often have autism”:

For decades parents and speakers haven’t told doctors educators and scientists that their kids are not in there. They’re not capable of communication or competent of learning. Imagine being one of those parents and discovering that everybody has been wrong about your child – they are in there, they are competent, and they can communicate. But then also discovering that your child can read your mind. Would you expect to be believed?

The makes some truly extraordinary claims about autistic people – we hear that people previously deemed to be non-verbal are, actually, capable of communicating perfectly well; in fact, not only are they able to answer questions that are put to them, they can accurately recount details of objects and pictures they haven’t actually looked at, and can answer questions not yet asked aloud.

In one episode, we’re told about an autistic child who put their hand onto a new book their teacher had recently read, and could tell their teacher exactly what happens in the book, by touch alone – that the child was effectively reading or ingesting the book by touch alone. It’s the kind of detail that would lead most people to ask follow-up questions and to probe deeper; in Dickens, we simply get a gasped “Wow!”.

If these feats sound like parlour tricks, reminiscent of a mentalism show, don’t worry: we’re told the purported telepathic abilities of autistic children and adults go much further.

According to the show, autistic children are able to see and speak to ghosts. They’re also able to project their consciousnesses out to a metaphysical place called The Hill, where thousands of telepathic non-verbal children from around the world gather to chat, exchange ideas, form friendships, and even have relationships with other non-verbal autistic people. The Hill isn’t exclusive to the non-verbal living; we’re told visitors are able to converse with and learn lessons from the greatest writers and thinkers of times gone by.

Dr Diane Hennacy Powell

From the very first episode, Ky Dickens and her production team – which includes the obligatory materialist skeptic who is converted by the feats they’ve witnessed – are led through a series of interviews, encounters and scientific tests by Dr Diane Hennacy Powell. Dickens explains, she discovered Powell on a podcast called Cosmos in You – it seems likely that it’s the May 2017 episode. There, in a clip that’s reproduced in The Telepathy Tapes, Powell is introduced as “a Johns Hopkins-trained neuropsychiatrist, speaker, researcher, and author” who joined host Suzannah Scully to “discuss the research she’s currently working on to study autistic savant and their telepathic abilities”.

Powell claims that her medical license was revoked after she published her 2009 book The ESP Enigma: the scientific case for psychic phenomena, but that she was reinstated after members of the board actually read the book. As Jonathan Jarry at McGill’s Office for Science and Society notes, publicly available documents from the Oregon Medical Board seem at odds with that interpretation, with the board’s concerns focusing more on her “disorganised approach to treatment” and “concerns over her management of patient medications” than any issues with her ESP research.

Powell’s work has continued in the time since her censure by the Oregan Medical Board, and her website includes a summary of her beliefs around psi phenomena:

Telepathy has been deemed impossible by most scientists, except for modern physicists who have observed far stranger phenomena at the quantum level of reality.

Psychologists and magicians know how easy it is to fool us, which is why they routinely attack the idea. This is ironic when neuroscientists are the only ones who have the credentials to really say if our model for how the brain functions would allow for direct mind-to-mind communication.

Her point here isn’t wholly clear, but it is true that magicians and psychologists have been highly critical of psi research, precisely because many of the purported demonstrations share resemble the kind of techniques they know can be used to fool people, or even to fool ourselves. She’s correct in saying that neuroscientists would have some insight into whether telepathy could be explained by the biology of our brains, but it’s first of all important to establish whether telepathy is real. Thus far, there is no compelling evidence to believe it is, and so the neuroscientists can stand down. Powell continues:

Because of our brain’s electromagnetic properties, I believe telepathy is possible.

Hundreds of studies on telepathy have shown positive results. These statistical studies aren’t taken seriously because their effect size is too small to prove something labeled “impossible.” Science has remained stuck with this circular reasoning for over a century.

This isn’t a fair summation of the scientific position on ESP. A study with a small effect size would still be accepted as ‘proof’ if the study were well-controlled, large enough to have sufficient statistical power, and its effects were reliably demonstrated. As it stands, we have hundreds of small-scale studies with flawed methodology, offering small effect sizes that don’t hold up to replication – in which case it is reasonable to conclude the effects are generated by noisy data, rather than a clear psi signal.

Rather than confront the inadequacies in psi research, Powell has developed her own hypotheses about who might be best placed to embrace their natural telepathic tendencies:

If anyone could prove telepathy, I predicted it would be non-vocal autistic children with savant skills.

Being incapable of speech from an early age increases their motivation to find an alternative means of communication with their caregivers, but that isn’t all. Autism expert Bernard Rimland, PhD reported “ESP” as existing in a small percentage of his patients, and considered it to be a savant skill.

As anyone who has a non-verbal person in their life will confirm, it isn’t a matter of motivation. But, tellingly, people who are non-verbal and unable to communicate would, necessarily, also be incapable of disconfirming Powell’s contention about their telepathic abilities. ‘The people most likely to prove me right are the ones incapable of telling me I’m wrong’ is, sadly, a recipe for self-deception. As is, in my opinion, a reliance on the autism expertise of Dr Bernard Rimland.

Rimland, chelation, and vaccines

Dr Bernard Rimland did indeed spend his career researching autism. However, the fruits of that research have not withstood the test of time. In 1964, he published his book, Infantile Autism: The Syndrome and Its Implications for a Neural Theory of Behavior, which claimed that autism was “triggered by environmental assaults” and could “be treated—or at least ameliorated—with biomedical and behavioural therapies.” Those behavioural therapies included “aversives” –  unpleasant stimuli designed to punish unwanted behaviour via negative reinforcement.

In 1995, he founded the Defeat Autism Now! campaign, which advocated for using chelation therapy to treat autism. Rimland maintained that the rise in autism was caused by the MMR vaccine – in particular the preservative thimerosal – and remained an ardent supporter of Andrew Wakefield even after his Lancet study was revealed to be fraudulent.

Powell’s citation of Rimland as her go-to expert on autistic children might seem like a coincidence – effectively cherry-picking the autism researcher who agrees with her on the possibilities of ESP – were it not for a speech she made in March 2017, at a “Revolution For Truth” rally, alongside Judy Mikovits, Del Bigtree, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In it, she described the need to “stop the insanity” of damaging children with vaccines:

I go to these medical meetings, I just got back from one. These are medical meetings where I’m getting continuing education. And there are doctors saying that vaccines are oftentimes the final straw that tips a kid over the edge.

A woman who is a neonatal nurse, she said to me — and she’s Jewish, her parents escaped the Holocaust — she said to me I pray every day that I go to work that I don’t go to Hell for what I do.



About 20% of children who get diagnosed as autistic have reversible symptoms, but we need to admit that what they have is a neuro immunological problem… it’s not only the toxins that are in our food, it’s also the nutritional deficiencies, and yet doctors are not allowed to order tests for deficiencies, they’re not allowed to order tests for toxicities.

Zaid Jilani, a writer at The American Saga, put these comments to Powell last month, to ask her if they reflect her current thinking on autism and vaccines. Powell replied:

The majority of people diagnosed as autistic do not have vaccines as the cause. The problem is that several of the children being diagnosed as autistic actually have sensorimotor issues that are related to toxic overload and brain inflammation that was often triggered by a vaccine.

Perhaps Powell no longer considers the vaccination program to be ‘insanity’, and no longer claims so strong a causal role for immunisation in the development of autism – but even her current position, that children diagnosed as autistic have ‘toxic overload’ that is ‘often triggered by a vaccine’ is far from a conventional view that would be accepted by experts in the field.

Spelling boards and facilitated communication

Still, while Powell may or may not still be on the same page as her cited autism expert when it comes to alleged vaccine damage, she does diverge from Dr Rimland in at least one very significant way: despite being an early proponent of facilitated communication, late in his career he became a vigorous critic of using spelling boards to help non-verbal autistic people communicate. Indeed, in 1995 he questioned why children would need to be given physical help to type, saying: “How is it possible that an autistic kid can pick up the last tiny crumbs of potato chips off a plate but not have sufficient motor coordination to type the letter E?”

For Powell, spelling boards are a valid tool. In 2015, she penned an article for Edge Science about her most impressive experiments, explaining:

Months later psychiatrist Darold Treffert referred a nine-yearold mute autistic girl nicknamed Hayley for my evaluation. She is an American child who doesn’t use FC. Hayley communicates by either pointing at letters and numbers on thick plastic stencils, or typing into a device called a “talker” that converts text to speech.

However, she does appear to have recognised, even back then, the objections to facilitated communication:

In January 2013, I evaluated several savants in India. One was a six-year-old boy with an encyclopedic knowledge of science, reportedly without having studied. Another was a girl who always knew exactly how many potato chips her father had reserved for later. One boy had accurately predicted several of his teachers’ promotions and transfers. I also learned of a boy who may have saved a life. He had a history of touching people, but only if and where they had physical problems. One day he tapped a woman’s breast. As a result, his psychiatrist recommended she get a mammogram, and it revealed breast cancer.

None of these Indian children could be used for formal experiments at the time. The most promising of them used facilitated communication (FC), involving physical touch to support the autistic child’s movements while they type. That doesn’t necessarily mean the typed words aren’t their own. Some learn to type independently, demonstrating intact language skills. Skeptics regard all writings obtained from FC as tainted—wishful thinking on the part of parents who desperately want to communicate with a child—and are concerned about unconscious cueing.

Spelling boards are one of the most relied-upon tools for Powell and Dickens’ experiments in The Telepathy Tapes. Proponents would argue that they differ from traditional Facilitated Communication because, unlike with FC, the sitter doesn’t need to hold the subject’s hand while they spell. The podcast takes great pains to tell us as much, making clear that they are not holding the child’s hands. However, video footage of the tests show that other sources of inadvertent interference are readily apparent.

In one experiment, a mother holds the spelling board up as her son guesses Uno playing cards held behind his head. He can’t see the card, but his mother, who is holding the target board, clearly can. As his pencil moves towards the board, the board moves too, as his pencil finds the correct answer.  Given that the camera is static, the subtle repositioning of the board is evident in screenshots.

A side-by-side comparison of two moments in the Uno test shows that the spelling board moves, indicating inadvertent cueing by the board holder

These are the experiments that make it into the glossy documentary trailer – from hours of footage shot, these are presented as the best examples of the telepathic successes. It’s hard to imagine what footage didn’t make the cut. Ky Dickens assures us in the podcast that raw footage is available on her website – however, what footage is there costs $9.99, and consists of a further series of short clips. As Jonathan Jarry explained:

Episode 1 of the podcast, for example, showcases Mia, who comes from a Hispanic family and whose telepathic gift is said to have 100% accuracy. One of the tests done has her mom opening a Spanish-language book that Dickens brought from home (to prevent cheating). The mom selects a page, says “Ooooh!” in excitement, and asks her daughter to name the character who is drawn on the page.

The video clip posted to the website clearly shows the mom not only holding the letter board in front of Mia but holding Mia’s jaw as Mia points to the board. Mia does spell out “pirata,” Spanish for “pirate,” which is the correct answer, but the mother’s influence cannot be ruled out: move the head and the finger will follow. In a different test, Mia’s mother is touching Mia’s forehead during the spelling, where it would be easy to subtly press down whenever Mia’s finger hovers over the right number.

When talking about this experiment during the show, Dickens narrates: “We tried to see if Mia could do telepathy tests with her father. We tried random number generators, random picture generators… and she could absolutely not tell us what her dad was looking at. Sometimes we show her dad a flash card or number, and Mia would start typing and then stop. And sometimes she wouldn’t even type at all. The test with her dad wore Mia out.”

The justification given? “She wrote in her diary that she can read everybody’s mind, but you have to believe in her for her to do it.”

At this point it’s worth remembering that if Mia isn’t actually the one doing the writing here, it wasn’t Mia who wrote that in her diary, because Mia doesn’t have a diary.

Interestingly, Mia’s father isn’t interviewed for the show, despite being willing to sit tests, so we never know whether the diary entry’s warning that “you have to believe in her for her to do it” is as pointed as it sounds.

Powell’s 2015 article contains further indications of other issues with such tests, involving another test subject, called Hayley (this account is distressing):

Hayley started practicing telepathy with therapists, taking pride in her ability and squealing with glee when she heard the “talker” speak the correct answers. Hayley became so excited during testing, her therapists started touching her shoulder to calm her down. By 2013, Hayley had become psychologically dependent upon being touched during testing. This was a problem for research.

My experiments were delayed while Hayley was weaned from this contact. I also needed the therapists to work with a divider between Hayley and themselves. Autism makes any change challenging and, as anticipated, Hayley’s behavior regressed. There was no way to predict what form it would take. It could have been anything from soiling her pants to refusing to enter the room. Instead, she stopped typing her answers.

Therapists have to think on the fly and will try a variety of techniques to get a client back on track. When they returned to her initial method of communication, Hayley started participating again. She selected her answers from cut-out letters or numbers on stencils by pointing to them with a pencil in her right hand, then typing them with her left.

It’s hard to read this with skeptical eyes and not see it as an indication that, when you introduce controls like removing physical touch, the apparent telepathy goes away… leaving you with the distressing reality that all you might actually be doing is upsetting a non-verbal autistic kid. That’s easy to overlook when the ‘communication’ is flowing, because if they were distressed, they’d tell you. However, in reality, your subject is telling you what you want to hear – or, rather, you’re telling you what you want to hear, and attributing it to them.

Given that the Telepathy Tapes is (beyond the odd paywalled video clip) an audio medium, even outside of the selective editing that can turn random chance into a miracle story, it is easy to gloss over the realities of what is actually happening in the tests, and to wave away any issues.

We’re told during one episode that this has to be real, because “Neurodivergent people don’t like lying, so it’s not possible that the autistic child is lying about what they can see.” Elsewhere, we’re told “It takes so long and so much effort to get a full sentence out, they’re not going to go through all that just to lie.” These justifications wholly miss the point: nobody is accusing the autistic child of lying; the criticism is that they’re not the ones speaking at all, and that telepathy is a far less plausible answer than poor test methodology and the overwhelming desire to believe. Rather than consider these serious criticisms, Dickens writes off naysayers as ableist gatekeepers.

However, if – as seems vastly more likely to be the case – the communication featured in the show comes not from the child but from the person holding the board, many of the miracles showcased in The Telepathy Tapes make a great deal more sense. A child doesn’t need telepathy to tell their teacher the contents of a book the teacher has read, they only need their teacher to not realise they’re talking to themselves.

It’s easy for a child to communicate in a language they don’t speak (as happens in one episode of the show) if they’re not the ones communicating. And it’s easy for tests to show that lots of non-verbal children have heard of The Hill in the spiritual plane, if the person asking them questions and holding up boards has heard the rumour of a metaphysical meeting place and is looking for confirmation. It is little more than a Ouija board, but with a disabled child as the planchette.

Disabled lives matter

The degree to which the adults in The Telepathy Tapes buy into these ideas of telepathy uncritically is genuinely extraordinary. In Episode 5, we meet Jes Kerzen, a teacher from Somerset who now runs ashertree.com. She explains that she had a telepathic connection with a non-verbal pupil called Asher, 25 years ago, and that he continued to communicate with her telepathically long after he left her school. She explains that she has notebooks of messages he’s communicated to her telepathically, including successfully diagnosing her friend’s illness, despite the two of them not having seen each other since he left her school.

Kerzen, in my opinion, has been in a quarter-century long penpal relationship with a persona she has inadvertently created, one that is in no way related to the disabled child formerly in her care. In doing so, she may feel that she has elevated that child into something wonderful and otherworldly, but in fact she has only erased who he actually is, in favour of who she wishes he was.

This, for me, is one of the real harms of The Telepathy Tapes. By sending the message that non-verbal autistic people are remarkable savants with psychic powers and an access to otherworldly stores of knowledge and wisdom, we’re sending the message that the lives these disabled children lead aren’t enough; that disabled children don’t have value unless they’re hyper-intelligent, visionary, and more enlightened than the rest of us.

In one episode, one of the featured children writes out a eulogy to a friend who died – a friend who, I believe we’re told, they knew only from their time on The Hill together in the metaphysical plane. The eulogy is an uplifting message of hope and enduring love. As Dickens notes, the fact that the child had to spend all day spelling out the message only makes it more evident of the bond that existed between the two.

An alternative explanation is that a disabled child was made to spend their day tapping a pencil on a board filled with letters, because their parents believed they had a deep psychic connection to a child they’d never met. And if the child acted distressed or upset during that process, that just shows how grief can affect even those of us who can communicate with the dead.

Podcasting is an odd, intimate and very effecting medium – it can elicit strong emotional responses. Because of that, it’s easy for us to assume that what we hear in podcasts is somehow more likely to be true than in other forms of media, especially when the production values are as high and the storytelling as deliberate as in The Telepathy Tapes.

Dianne Powell has been telling stories of these experiments for over 15 years, but they didn’t break into the mainstream when she was appearing on Cosmos in You. We’re at a point in audio media where the skillset and the tools and the polish that used to only come hand in hand with editorial oversight are now available to almost anyone, and as a society we have to get better seeing through slick and compelling productions.

People with Alzheimer’s deserve care and dignity – not false hope of miracle cures

0

It’s funny what sticks with you after someone is gone. When I was a bored teenager reading Shakespeare in English class, many years ago now, I remember my dad lecturing me about dramatic irony – the way the bard turned his characters’ greatest strengths into their greatest weaknesses. My father was a philosophy professor, with a professor’s tendency to pontificate, and he would use his daughters as an outlet if no more willing subject presented itself. The memory of his monologue sat, coiled somewhere in the back of my brain, until years later, when my father was diagnosed with early-onset dementia. The philosopher lives by his brain. For my father, his brain was what wound up killing him too.

I followed my parents into academia by becoming a data librarian employed by a medical school. In my role, I follow the news of research fraud cases across the country – often fertile ground for examples when teaching on the consequences of poor data management.

However, the recent parade of prominent Alzheimer’s researchers whose work has been retracted after credible accusations of research misconduct or fraud – Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Sylvain Lesne, Hoau-Yan Wang, Eliezer Masliah, Berislav Zlokovic, and Domenico Pratico – has often left me so angry and upset that I have to skip the articles about their cases. I’m sure these men, safe in their labs, had some tidy excuses for what they were doing: their experiment had failed, but science would ultimately bear them out… or whatever. What they were really doing, whether they realised it or not, is taking advantage of a million small family tragedies like mine by peddling false hope to the ill or capitalising on the fears of those who know they have a genetic likelihood to be stricken with dementia.

You can see the rationalisation of bad science at work in a New York Times article on the fraught clinical trials for Leqembi, which caused sometimes fatal side effects for participants:

[M]any researchers argue that the risk of side effects is a small price to pay for slowing, even temporarily, a devastating disease that afflicts nearly seven million Americans.

“People are robbed of everything that makes us human,” said Dr. Howard Fillit, a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and a prominent voice in Alzheimer’s research. “Can’t dress yourselves. Can’t go to the bathroom. Forget how to walk. Forget how to swallow. They’re like infants in a human body.”

Bogdanich W, Kessler C. What Drugmakers Did Not Tell Volunteers in Alzheimer’s Trials. The New York Times, October 23, 2024. Accessed December 17, 2024.

The overwhelming view of research science towards dementia assumes that a person’s life ends at diagnosis, or even, as indicated in the quote above, that those with severe dementia are no longer human. But that’s not true. My father survived seven years after his diagnosis, which is about average. Because he had early-onset dementia, he had dementia for over 10% of his life. I cannot dismiss that time as worthless.

In the early years of his diagnosis, after he stopped working, he did volunteer work and took saxophone lessons. Throughout his illness, many of his close friends stuck by him and continued to arrange to see him socially, picking him up when he could no longer drive. My father had always been a hard-charging and perfectionist academic, whose exacting standards drove a wedge between him and his daughters. Dementia softened that side of him. In some ways, I felt closer to him after his diagnosis than before.

I recognise that my family was extremely lucky, as far as one can be lucky in this situation. My father’s personality changed after his diagnosis, but he did not become paranoid or angry the way some people do. He never resisted the choices my family made for him. We were also lucky financially: my parents had invested in long-term care insurance that allowed us to place my father in a small nursing home where he got excellent one-on-one care when he needed it. We also had health insurance that allowed my sister, my mother and I to get the mental health care needed to cope. My father’s illness was extremely hard, but we made it through.

When I think of Alzheimer’s research fraud, I can’t help but think about how the money wasted on these pointless studies could have improved the lives of families who were not as lucky as mine. We have spent so much money, effort and time on finding a cure for Alzheimer’s, and we have yet to better the life of a single person affected by it. Rather than the sole focus on the magical cure, I would rather see money go towards researching how to improve the quality of life for people living with dementia.

Is there a way to improve the anger or paranoia that are such damaging symptoms of the illness? How can we build better nursing homes? However, to support these kinds of studies, we first need a fundamental cultural shift in the way we see the worth of those with dementia.

A Black female nurse in sky blue scrubs stands behind an older Black woman wearing glasses, a dark hair covering and orange top, sitting in a wheelchair, with the nurse's arms lightly wrapped around her. They hold hands, smiling at each other.
When we see people as people, however much they lose themselves, we can treat them well. Image by agilemktg1 via Flickr, public domain

To me, the controversy over research fraud in Alzheimer’s has been a stark illustration of how we, as a society, assign value to people and their lives. Because our society does not value the lives of people with dementia, we are fine with treating them as little more than lab rats to sacrifice in the pursuit of scientific glory. Over our history, science has had to reckon with similar controversies after infamous experiments like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study – which also could not have happened if the scientists involved understood their subjects as full humans worthy of the same amount of respect and dignity as anyone else. We are due for another reckoning. This time, in recognition of the value of good quality of life for these people, we need to change the incentives for scientists so that they are not only looking for a “cure” for dementia, but also for ways to better the lives of those with the disease.

When I have made this argument to others, they are astonished that I am not more worried, as the daughter of someone who died of early-onset dementia, that I will also die of the disease. Personally, I have been able to make my peace with this possibility. We all have to die some way after all, and having experienced more than my share of physical pain in my life, I think I would prefer dying of a disease that involves less of it. If we assume that I become ill around the same age as my father, I have around 25 years. Given the track record of Alzheimer’s research over the last 25 years, and the amount of fraud, I think I would rather know that my years of illness will be significantly improved rather than relying on a cure being found before then.

The last time I saw my father, shortly before he was put on hospice, he was in the hospital. He was doing well that day, and he recognised me when I came into his room. My father and I shared a love of music, and I was playing some music for him on my phone when two women from the hospital’s nutrition unit came in to give him lunch. One was a trainee, who looked nervous about this strange middle-aged man, and the other woman began giving her instruction. My father, who recognised the situation, if not the content, from his years of teaching students, perked up. He listened to the lecture, and afterwards attempted to say something reassuring to the young trainee.

After my father died, multiple people would write to my family telling us how encouraging he had been when they presented their first philosophy paper at a conference – this kind part of his personality had persisted through the dementia. I tried to explain on his behalf, and I saw the trainee relax, just a little bit. A bit of light had been thrown on my dad the person, not just the disease that afflicted him. I wish the men who committed this fraud could have had a similar experience.

From the archive: Martian waterways – the story of the canals of Mars

0

This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 5, Issue 1, from 1991.

Today it is widely know that people once believed that there were canals on Mars. But the story behind this strange state of affairs is much less well known. The astronomical data in the following account comes from William Sheehan’s Planets and Perception, an excellent account of the story.

During the nineteenth century, telescopes increased in size and quality and Mars naturally became the subject of increased observation. The best views of it are obtained approximately every two years, when Earth lies between Mars and the sun (this is known as an ‘opposition’). The distance between the two planets at opposition ranges from 34.6 million miles (55.7 million km) to 62.9 million miles (101.3 million km). This results in significant differences in the quality of Earth-based observations with the best oppositions occurring every 15 years.

In the opposition of 1877, Mars was only 35 million miles away; Asaph Hall in the USA discovered its two moons, and Giovanni Schiaparelli in Italy drew the best map of Mars of that time, also inventing the modem naming system for Martian features. He copied some of the existing naming systems in calling dark coloured areas after bodies of water and lighter areas after lands and deserts. Connecting the dark areas he drew a large number of canali – which in Italian means channel or canal. Although past astronomers had also observed canali, Schiaparelli was the first to mark them in such numbers and to draw attention to them.

Schiaparelli confirmed the existence of the canali during the oppositions of 1879 and 1881, but in these drawings they became significantly straighter and narrower. He also saw that many of these canali had ‘germinated’, such that they were actually two narrowly separated lines. The name, their straightness and germination all suggested they were artificial, but on this fact Schiaparelli always remained unsure.

Other astronomers agreed there was something where Schiaparelli drew his canals, as they were by then being called in English, but they believed he had simplified what was really there. Although they remained unconfirmed, his observations were not dismissed because of his high reputation, gained in the 1860s for his work on meteors. This led to many observers assuming that their inability to see the canals was a reflection on their own lesser observational skills.

In 1886 independent confirmation of Schiaparelli ‘s canal observations was made, and reported in the prestigious journal Nature (3 June 1886). By 1890 the existence of canals was generally accepted by astronomers. Almost all the maps of Mars produced at that time showed them, many even in the same positions as those of Schiaparelli.

To understand why other observers confirmed the canals some knowledge of how Mars was observed is required. Because of atmospheric interference, the view of the Martian surface is normally neither clear nor persistent but is constantly fluctuating, with details only sharp for brief moments. Hence observers had to be selective in which details they recorded. So observers who knew the layout of the canals would know which details to record as canals. Observers had to go by eye in planetary observation at this time because photography was too slow, only being good enough to record the coarsest features.

Great things were expected from the 1892 opposition, in which Mars would make its closest approach to Earth since 1877, but unfortunately the best views were obtained from the southern hemisphere, away from the best telescopes. Edward Pickering at Arequipa in Peru reported seeing lakes on the Martian surface. Other astronomers reported high altitude clouds, and some publicly claimed that these were attempts by the Martian inhabitants to communicate with Earth.

Following this, two events occurred which may have affected the later developments of the canal story by their influence on Percival Lowell. In 1892 the French astronomer Camille Flammarion published La Planete Mars. A believer since the 1860s in life on other worlds, he interpreted the canals as proof of Martian habitation. In his book he assumed the canals were indeed waterways, and described how Mars, being an older world, might contain a more advanced and wiser human race. The second event was a paper published in 1893 by Schiaparelli, in which he argued that Mars had a significant atmosphere, ice-covered polar regions and temperatures similar to those of Earth. Although he supported the highly geometric appearance of the water carrying canals he argued they had been created naturally.

Not until 1894 did Percival Lowell, the person now most associated with the canals, enter the story. Lowell came from a wealthy family in Boston, Massachusetts. A gifted mathematician, he declined an offer to teach at Harvard, travelling to Europe instead. On his return he chose to work in his grandfather’s textile business for six years. Between 1883 and 1892 he made three journeys to the Far East and his interest in this area led to four books. An amateur astronomer, Lowell was so taken by Schiaparelli’s canal observations that he decided to devote his own time and money to their study. He wanted to build an observatory somewhere in the American west where he believed the air was better. Returning to Boston in December 1893 he was given a copy of La Planete Mars. In January he, Picketing and others went west, reaching Tombstone, Arizona in March. They tested various sites, finally choosing one near Flagstaff. On May 31 they made their first observations of the 1894 opposition.

Schiaparelli’s 1893 paper and Flammarion’s book provided the outline of Lowell’s own theory, which he formed after only two months observation of Mars. It generated great public interest, inspired HG Wells’ War of the Worlds and he continued to promote and defend his ideas until his death in 1916. His theory was as follows.

He noticed there were canals in the dark areas, areas which other observers had assumed to be seas. With this and other evidence he realised that Mars must be almost all desert. Mars was smaller than Earth and had therefore aged more quickly, and so any intelligent races would also be at a later stage of evolution. The ancient, peaceful Martian civilisation – desperate for water – had constructed a planet-wide canal system. With the end of winter the polar ice melted and the water was carried by the canals to the drier equatorial regions. In Lowell’s view, the dark lines on Mars were not the canals, however; they were actually strips of irrigated vegetation growing on either side of the canals. These strips ranged in width from 2 miles to about 30 miles and could be over 2000 miles long. The interest of the general public was increased by Lowell’s claim that this planetary desertification would also happen on Earth, the existence of deserts demonstrated that it had already started.

The California Aqueduct snakes through a brown valley
An aerial photo of the California Aqueduct at the Interstate 205 crossing, just east of Interstate 580 junction. Not Mars. Via Wikipedia, by Ikluft, CC BY-SA 3.0

Lowell promoted his theory in a series of lectures and magazine articles, and in December 1895 he published Mars, discussed what had been observed, designed a possible planetary canal system and speculated on what Martian society might be like.

In July 1896 Lowell and his assistants began new observations which generated greater criticism than their Martian results. They recorded lines on both Venus and Mercury, and one observer saw lines on a satellite of Jupiter. Most of the lines on Venus radiated from a central point like spokes of a wheel. For Lowell to claim he saw the surface repeatedly when most astronomers agreed that Venus was covered by a layer of clouds sowed doubt in the minds of some of those who supported him over the canals.

During the 1890s some objections to the canal theories were raised. In 1894 Edward Maunder explained how the canals could just be a series of separate dark areas, ‘lakes’ not ‘canals’. In 1903 he and JE Evans performed what Lowell later called the ‘small boy theory’. They found that when a disc containing dot-like markings was viewed from a great enough distance, their volunteers (boys from a Greenwich school) drew canals. Lowell correctly responded that this only showed what might be the cause, not what actually was.

Photographic evidence of the canals was finally obtained at Lowell Observatory during the 1905 opposition. Of the experts who viewed the quarter inch diameter images, half saw canals and half did not. Subsequent photographs obtained in 1907 and 1909 were no more decisive. Eugene Antoniadi had seen many canals while working with Flammarion in the years 1895 to 1902. In 1903 the small boy theory, together with his existing doubts about the canals, led him to publish one of the first maps of Mars for 25 years which showed no canals. During the 1909 opposition he observed Mars using the largest telescope in Europe. The atmosphere was so good that on his first night’s viewing he saw the surface of Mars for seven hours. He saw no canals or lines just ‘a prodigious and bewildering amount of sharp or diffused natural, irregular detail.’ (Sheehan 1988, p. 244 ). Similar conclusions were reached by many other astronomers.

In the following years supporters of the canals made more use of photography as the technology improved. As late as 1962 Earl Slipher (who had worked with Lowell) published a photographic atlas showing the canals, but once again while some could see the canals others could not (Mutch 1976). It was not until 1965 when the spacecraft Mariner 4 passed Mars and returned photos showing no signs of canals that the controversy finally ended.

So, the big question remains: why did people see the canals? The answer comes from the study of perception. Schiaparelli, in 1877, observed surface features at the limit of resolution for the type of telescope he used. Atmospheric interference permitted only brief glimpses of surface features and colours. His mind had to build an image from these and the canals were part of the structure it built. Later observers had the same problem but the maps of Schiaparelli gave them an idea as to how their glimpses of the surface of Mars should be interpreted.

The idea of canals on Mars may be charming, but alas, it is without foundation.

Notes

  • Percival Lowell’s three books on Mars are Mars (1895), Mars and its Canals (1906) and Mars as the Abode of Life (1908).
  • For a detailed account see William Sheehan’s Planet and Perception: Telescopic views and interpretations, 1609-1909 (1988). For good short accounts see The Planets, by Peter Francis (1981), and The Geology of Mars by T A Mutch et al ( 1976).

The abuse of the scientific method in so-called alternative medicine

To accuse anyone of an abuse of science is by no means a trivial charge. In the case of proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), the accusation seems, however, often justified. Let me explain this by using the example of chiropractors (I could have chosen homeopaths, faith healers, acupuncturists or almost any other type of SCAM practitioner).

Put simply, science might be understood as a set of tools that can be employed for establishing the truth. In the case of chiropractic, science is used, for instance, to answer three questions:

  1. Is chiropractic plausible?
  2. Is chiropractic effective?
  3. Is chiropractic safe?

The way to answer these questions is to try falsifying the underlying hypotheses, such as to attempt demonstrating that:

  1. Chiropractic is not plausible.
  2. Chiropractic is not effective.
  3. Chiropractic is not safe.

It is only when all of our reasonably rigorous attempts at falsifying these hypotheses have failed that we can conclude that chiropractic is plausible, effective and safe.

This is rather elementary stuff that should be taught during the first lessons of any decent science course. Yet, practitioners of SCAM are either not being properly taught, or they are immune to even the most basic facts about science, or both. I regularly have the opportunity to observe the results of this deficit when I study the papers SCAM practitioners publish.

In the case of chiropractors, this is often embarrassingly obvious. They cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that their hallmark intervention, spinal manipulation, is a plausible approach for treating a wide range of health problems. Plus, they cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that spinal manipulation is effective to cure this or that specific condition. And, finally, they cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that spinal manipulation is safe.

A white person's wrist, with a watch, and their hand holding up a pair of freshly picked cherries by the stem, with their thumb and index finger. The cherry orchard trees are behind them
Someone holds up two freshly picked cherries. Photo by Howard Walfish, via Flickr: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Similarly, when they themselves conduct primary research, they set up their investigations in such a way that they confirm their beliefs that spinal manipulations are a plausible treatment, and that such manipulations are both effective and safe.

In other words, they do not try to falsify their hypotheses, but they do their very best to confirm them. And this, I am afraid, is nothing other than an abuse of science.

How can the average consumer (who may not always be in a position to know whether a scientific paper is reliable or not) tell when such abuse of science is occurring? How can they decide who to trust and who not? My simple but sadly not fool-proof advice consists of just two main points:

Firstly, never rely on a single paper or investigation – instead you should look to multiple papers to see if there is a consensus among the literature.

Secondly, you should check whether a discrepancy exists between the results and views of SCAM proponents and independent experts, such as where the chiropractors, homeopaths, acupuncturists, naturopaths or energy healers claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced. In such cases, your alarm bells should start ringing.

You should then ask yourself: do I trust the person with such a clear and significant conflict of interest, or should I trust the independent scientist? If you chose the latter, it might be wise to use caution and avoid the treatment in question.