• He doesn’t believe in evolution
• He’s a chiropractor
• He’s claimed there’s a link between vaccines and autism
• He doesn’t believe the climate is changing

In his surreal press release (dated March 31, not April 1), he states that he will address his religious beliefs in Parliament at his next opportunity, which sounds like it will be a hoot. Lunney claims that Christians are being persecuted in Canada, a claim that is thoroughly debunked by the excellent Ottawa Citizen editorial:

Add MP James Lunney to the list of people who somehow have come to believe they’re being persecuted — that indeed, their fundamental human rights are under threat — when people disagree with them on Twitter.

Lunney is standing down before the election in October so we’ll only have a few more of his public gems of wisdom.

Good riddance.

Sykes previously hosted The Bigfoot Files on the UK’s Channel 4. Leake has some sharp comments on Sykes’ credibility:

Bryan Sykes, who describes himself as a ‘professor of human genetics at Oxford’…

Sykes has not published any research on these creatures…

Sykes is a fellow of Wolfson but he admitted [his Institute of Human Genetics at Wolfson College, Oxford] was mythical. “The journal required some sort of additional address in the college and, hey presto, I became an institute!”

Sykes’s book says he has been professor of human genetics at Oxford since 1997, but university officials said he had not held that post for a decade or so.

My favourite piece is the final comment from another scientist:

Tom Gilbert, professor of geogenetics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark, said: “Bryan’s data highlights that a lot of people strongly believe they have evidence for them (yetis etc), but none of it holds up under scrutiny.”

It’s not so much the parents who bother me in this story as the Canadian Teachers Federation, the local school councils, and particularlu the Edmonton Journal who all give far greater space to these conspiracy theories than to sound science and expertise.

Out of the 17 paragraphs in her article, journalist Andrea Sands gives just two for a response from Health Canada. She even repeats tired arguments that the World Health Organization thinks wifi is caucing cancer in children. In fact they have studied the issues and have conculded the opposite. With respect to mobile phones:

A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

and low-frequency electromagnetic fields:

…there are no substantive health issues related to ELF electric fields at levels generally encountered by members of the public.

and wifi and base stations:

Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.

For more on the anti-wifi industry in Canada, see Bad Science Watch’s 2012 position paper.

I’ll leave the last word to Paula Simons, a fellow journalist at the Edmonton Journal:

Why are human beings – especially that subset of humanity known as parents – so bad at assessing risk? Why can some sorts of parents shrug off or dismiss the known risks of deadly infectious diseases such as polio and whooping cough – and then fret over the largely imaginary, unproven “dangers” of WiFi? No, we can’t insulate our children from every possible harm. But surely, we can do more to protect them from the dangers of scientific illiteracy and modern-day Luddite-ism.

Low and behold, the defendant in the case, Ladislav Mihaly, emailed me with a follow up request for help.

My name is Ladislav Mihaly, and I am the Engineer who won the case Ladislav Mihaly vs. APEGA.

I do not intend to publish my opinion regarding the Tribunal decision and fighting APEGA over the Internet as they do with me. I am writing you this E-mail, because you probably could help me to start a discussion or challenging AL GORE, APEGA and all the scientist of the World. I want to show to people that the whole theory about Human effect on climate is only spam and has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. My evidence is very clear and simple calculation. Also I want to prove that the ethanol fuel is generating around 1.8 times more carbon dioxide as the regular hydrocarbon based fuel. I already many years ago wanted to publish my evidence, but all the Canadian Universities, APEGA and Government just ignored my new development. In case if I could publish my calculation, I could prove that my Engineering skill and education level is farewell above the recent scientist level. I would like to ask you to take the position of the moderator, to avoid dirty and unhealthy discussion over the net. The calculation is only small part of my scientific study and development, but could lead to suspension of Nobel prize for Al Gore.

Please let me know if you are ready to hand this kind of open and public discussion.

Thank you in advance.

Ladislav Mihaly

Yep, our persecuted foreign engineer has a “evidence” that climate change is not human caused. This, despite the position of the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists.

So while I maintain my position that Mihaly’s complaint was valid and that his application for certification should be evaluated on its merits, I can’t say I’d be cheering for him to be certified any time soon (even though climate change denialism is rampant among engineers – here’s an enlightening survey of APEGA members).

Because of these limitations, you can wind up with articles like “Energy-based therapies and cancer” from Macmillan Cancer Support, the UK’s leading cancer charity.

This article naturally falls under the “Complementary therapies” section of information about treating cancer. It’s designed (I’m assuming) to answer questions that patients may have when facing tough treatment decisions and a wealth of pseudoscience from everyone who’s second aunt twice removed once beat cancer with a mixture of beat juice.

The need to tread delicately is apparent throughout the site, as the tough stick approach of scientific skepticism would likely appear callous to those at their weakest. Therefore, the page talks in generalities, while slipping the occasional explicit  statement like, “These therapies have no anti-cancer effects.”

Nevertheless, the page does reinforce a lot of alt-med propaganda and links to reflexology, shiatsu, and healing touch groups across Britain.

It’s tough to know whether articles like this help or harm cancer patients. While providing information (that is likely requested frequently) with clear disclaimers is arguably positive, the non-confrontational nature of the articles may serve as a tacit endorsement from an otherwise reputable agency.

It may also be the case that the staff at the charity, and is especially the case in smaller charities, aren’t well versed in the scientific efficacy of various treatments, and the desire to do something to improve the lives of others is strong, especially in the kind of people who work for charities. Therefore, promotion of alternative treatments is seen as one way to help, especially when science-based medicine provides few options.

So in general I’m reticent to criticize charities too much for promoting pseudoscience and woo. In most cases, it’s likely harmless and may provide some placebo comfort for clients and it’s beyond the means of many groups to keep up with the latest studies.

Except in cases like Canadian Blood Service’s sloppy blood astrology program. That’s just patent nonsense.

The most recent one I completed was just released and is part of a UK-USA comparison of belief in the devil, demonic possession, and exorcisms. Yes, it’s a Halloween novelty poll.

The expected top-line result is that Brits are a more skeptical (or is it sceptical?) lot than Americans when it comes to belief in the devil. Only 18% admit a belief in the devil, compared to 57% of Americans (including a Supreme Court Judge).

Polling by the British Humanist Association has found that 65% of Brits are non-religious, the same number who don’t believe in the devil. America is notoriously more religious but at least 1 in 4 people are starting to doubt the existence of hell.

The survey breaks down the demographics for both countries but I’ll concern myself primarily with the UK results. Based on polling size of 1900, we would expect a margin of error of +/- 2.2%, 19 times out of 20 (given a random sample, which this probably isn’t).

Breaking down by voting intention, the Conservatives tend to be the most skeptical, while 29% of UKIP supporters believe in demon possession.

Both men and women and Brits of all ages are roughly consistent in their beliefs; however, there is an interesting regional trend. London and the Midlands/Wales both post over 20% belief in the devil and possession, while in the North (go us!) that number drops to 14/15%. Scotland and Southern England are both about average. Belief is also higher among the less economically well off.

Unsurprisingly, the religious are more likely to believe in the devil and possessions than the non-religious, with non-Christians showing a sizable lead over Christians (although we’re getting into small samples here). This likely reflects the waning influence of the Church of England and Catholic Church in Britain, as their followers are less fervent in their beliefs.

Nevertheless, among the non-religious, 7% believe in the devil and 10% believe in demonic possessions. Of course in any survey like this, there tends to be a few people who want to cause trouble. Furthermore, non-religious is not synonymous with atheist, and disbelief in God doesn’t technically preclude belief in a devil or other supernatural entities.

The good news for anyone being possessed is that by a two-to-one margin (35% to 18%), believers in possession also think you can be exorcised.

Just ring the trio of American evangelical teens touring London who star in a new BBC Three series.

Not a lot was heard from Bad Science Watch immediately after its launch but that silence was hardly indicative of the work being done behind the scenes by Executive Director Jamie Williams and Chair Michael Kruse (as well as the other members of the Board, Advisory Committee, and numerous volunteers). It was designed from the start to operate behind the scenes, meeting with change-makers and government officials, rather than be another grassroots or community building initiative (as important as those are).

After an initial fundraising campaign, which raised over $4000, they started work on their first projects. Based entirely around the motto important issues, sound science, real change, BSW sought to identify key issues that they can address with evidence and prompt lasting policy change.

Their first project was an investigation of the anti-WiFi lobby in Canada, the result of which was a research paper that identifies a well-funded and organized effort by several key people and organizations. The release was subsequently picked up by several media outlets and will serve as a valuable tool for science and skeptical activists.

The second project was to force the Health Canada to de-register homeopathic nosodes. These products were routinely marketed as an alternative to vaccines and played on parent’s fears while offering no real protection for children. They lobbied through the spring of 2013 and just announced that Health Canada will require all nosodes to carry warning labels that they do not replace vaccines.

This product is not intended to be an alternative to vaccination.

While the products will still remain on store shelves, this is a huge win for science.

The next campaign of Bad Science Watch is to monitor and provide “rapid evidence checks” for Health Canada’s monographs, which provide safety and efficacy information about natural health projects.

Undoubtedly more projects will be announced in the future as Bad Science Watch proceeds one evidenced-based step at a time (always checking its work). Stay tuned to www.badsciencewatch.ca and make sure to donate what you can. To maintain their independence, they accept no industry funding and are clear and up front about their finances.

Here are the details if you want to come stalk me in person:

Monday, 23 September 2013 19:00 at the Victoria Hotel (28 Great George Street, Leeds LS1 3DL)

While I haven’t written down the exact notes for what I want to cover (I have all weekend), I’m basically going to discuss the 6 years I spent organizing freethought groups in Edmonton and Vancouver, and what I learned about the broader skeptical/Humanist movement in Canada during that time. Hopefully I’ll also have time to get into some of the current issues in Canada and where people stand.

I’ll try to keep gossip and my personal opinions to a minimum during the talk but I may intersperse them during the discussion afterward.

Hopefully it will be filmed so I can post a video of it later for those who want to subject themselves to that. Hope to see you there!

For those who believe the accusations (and I see little reason not to), it can be quite disheartening. From various comment threads on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook I have seen this frustration over and over as people worry about the ability of any major freethought organization to handle the larger issues of sexism and accountability.

Yet this strikes me not only as false but counterproductive.

The “institutional rot” that many see so far has been limited to 2 or 3 national US organizations (you can name them if you like). Every non-profit with a small staff, limited budget, and few active volunteers grapples with accountability and transparency in its decisions, yet the worst cases seem fairly isolated to me.

This is especially transparent if we look at the next generation of freethought leaders. The Secular Student Alliance and the Humanist Community at Harvard are arguably the two most progressive and forward thinking major organizations right now. Neither is remotely embroiled in scandal (that I’m aware of) and both are filled with bright, young activists.

Similarly, PZ Myers recently noted:

By the way, humanist organizations in general tend to discourage the kind of behavior that asshats take as a given privilege — if you’re looking for a group of people who won’t treat you as a piece of meat, look into the humanists.

As such we see the British Humanist Association and the American Humanist Association continuing in their good work without falling prey to the closed cultures of others. I like to think the BC Humanist Association follows on that path as well but I’m obviously biased.

By writing off the entire movement, these donors and volunteers forget how many people – and I suspect it’s a sizable majority – want to see things continually improve. By solely focusing on the negatives, they write off everyone who is actively working to make things better either within the troubled institutions (many of the local groups and volunteers are equally forward-thinking) or in independent organizations.

I guess my point is that we should not be so quick to dismiss the hard work of numerous organizations that are not involved in this mess. We can demand better and ought to work to see the movement we want to see.

At least, that’s what I’m trying to do.

After attending Imagine No Religion 3 this past spring, I had wanted to challenge the trope of Gypsy Fortune-Tellers that was tangentially brought up on a couple occasions by conference speakers. I don’t suspect and malice or intentional racism on the part of the speakers but the myths should be debunked and consciousness should be raised.

Looking a bit into it, I discovered a 1999 article by famed skeptical investigator Joe Nickell that quotes James Randi describing Gypsies as:

an ethnic group who “essentially live outside the cultures of the countries in which they choose to reside” and who often treat non-gypsies as “fair game for their fortune-telling, curse-lifting and other superstitious ministrations” (Randi 1995).

While I couldn’t track down Randi’s ‘95 reference, it appears he makes a fairly extreme claim about an entire ethnic group without evidence.

This is called racism.

So I started looking wider into the issue, and given my extremely limited background in social sciences, I recruited Edwin Hodge, the skeptical political sociologist, to assist me. Together we drafted the article over the course of a couple months (we’re both really busy) and submitted it to a leading skeptical magazine.

We were advised that it was a good topic to cover, we should shift the tone from an editorial to a more research-based piece (a legitimate request and expected given all of my writing is editorial). However, given recent concerns about the leadership of the various organizations which publish the major skeptic magazines, we opted to publish the article electronically as-is instead.

I hope you’ll share the article as you can. The Roma face a ridiculous amount of discrimination, especially from the Canadian government who, Jason Kenney in particular, view them as dirty thieves.