Ten Most Wanted: Celebrities Who Promote Harmful Pseudoscience

I don't know if it's really moral to include Prince Charles on that list. He can't help it if he's the product of hundreds and hundreds of years of inbreeding.

Hoonser, Toronto Ont.
October 28, 2008 10:25am

I hate all of them on the list except for Bill Maher. I disagree with him about PETA and the pharmceutical industries.

I do not think he is all the dye in the wool animal nut because he said on his program that fish is the staple of his diet, that chickens are stupid animals that have their desire to roam bred out of them eons ago, and that dogs are dumb animals who are only loyal to the person that gave them the last saussage.

I found a letter written to Michael Shermer about Expelled. In it, he was told by a jew that atheism caused the Holocaust. Ben Stein made the claim that the Nazi's used Darwin's ideas to try and breed out the jews from existence or some nonsense.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
October 28, 2008 10:51am

Excellent podcast, Brian! I was entertained and I learned some things I didn't know or had forgotten about Anderson, Maher and Rogan. I didn't know that Anderson and Maher were PETA advocates. and, I forgot that Rogan was supposed to be a comedian; well, he does have some funny ideas.

bigjohn756, East Texas
October 28, 2008 11:11am

You know, Bill Maher is still one of the rare who dare say that religion is bullshit on his show. That is mostly what he talks about... So it balances things out for me. I haven't him on BigPharma.

Harry Somerset, Florida
October 28, 2008 12:32pm

Prince Charles 'perhaps the most influential man in the United Kingdom'? I'm skeptical of this claim. No, he is generally considered a bit of a boob and his silly ideas about things regarded with tolerant amusement. He is really not very influential at all.

Bernard Hughes, London
October 28, 2008 2:57pm

I'm actually more upset at Bill Maher on this. He's meant to be the public face (well within the popular American media) of Freethinking and rational thought. No sooner does he refute and make light some nutty religious view than he damages his own credibility with some irrational rant on some other topic.

I remember wincing once when he likened getting rid of religion to removing amalgam fillings. The irony was razor sharp.

Funny thing is in spite of his criticism of the three monotheist religions he isn't actually an atheist. He's a Deist (or a pantheist, I'm not certain), he actually gets upset at people calling him an atheist. I don't personally care one way or another what he believes, I just wish he wouldn't drag other peoples credibility through the same mud he does his.

Brian Menzies, South Australia
October 28, 2008 4:59pm

#10 - Montel Williams - Agree. However, I am having trouble with why Police departments use psychics. Does it mean some are real? I honestly don't know.

#9 - Chuck Norris - Agree. As a Christian myself, I do not subscribe to his view. The bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old anywhere that I know of. It just states God made it, not how or when.

#8 - Joe Rogan - Agree. I herd he was a scientologist. But I cannot confirm this.

#7 - Ben Stein - Semi-Agree. Ben Stein is NOT Christian, Ben is a Jew. They are different. Brian, you made a big boo boo on this factoid. You can go here: [http://whitehouser.com/politics/religion/ben-stein-on-christianity-faith-god/] and here: [http://www.nndb.com/people/371/000022305/]. Furthermore, you can still be a Christian and believe in science, as neither contradicts the other. You can also be a Christian and believe in evolution and neither contradicts the other.

#6-#5 - Agree. Gave the podcast balance.

Greg Droder, Kamloops, BC, Canada
October 28, 2008 5:46pm

This is a pretty good list.

My quibble:

#5 "[Larry King] hits them hard, asks them the tough questions, puts them on the spot."

Really? I don't think I've ever seen him ask any guest a tough question. I believe this is why so many guests are willing to be interviewed by him. It's an unspoken agreement. King gets access to A-list celebrities and the celebrities know that they will never be asked anything uncomfortable or awkward.

Greg Droder: The fact that police departments sometimes use psychics only indicates that the police can be fooled just like anybody else. Have there been any successful cases of police departments solving crimes using psychics (that couldn't have been solved using old-fashioned detective work and/or luck)?

Timmeh, Yokohama, Japan
October 28, 2008 6:39pm

Good list and rankings.
How is "celebrity" defined here? Are John Edward, Kevin Trudeau, Alex Jones, and Pat Robertson celebrities?

I agree with Timmeh that Larry King is pretty passive.

Police departments may turn to psychics when they have no leads, and they want to pretend that they're doing something. If later something turns up, the psychic takes credit for it.

Max, Boston, MA
October 28, 2008 7:28pm

@ Max

If I remember the discussion on Skeptalk correctly, people who had become famous for promoting woo were excluded. To qualify for the list they had to be famous for something else and use their popularity to propagate irrationality and nonsense.

Joel Green, Toronto, ON, Canada
October 28, 2008 8:07pm

Didn't Montel Williams, Bill Maher and Oprah become famous in part for propagating nonsense? Or were they doing something else?

Max, Boston, MA
October 28, 2008 8:30pm

This was a very interesting listen. I had not known about Rogan and Anderson.

Unfortunately I am all too familiar with Jenny McCarthy. You should be interested in her changing of history here:
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1598 ... she is not being very consistent.

Also, I would like to tell you that the link to Lt. Com. Bidlack's letter is broken. Someone who is obviously not secure in his/her belief Sylvia Browne's talents and beliefs has taken advantage of website owner's health and hijacked the site. It has been vandalized (though from a thread on the JREF forum some computer savvy folks are looking into it).

HCN, Wacky Washington Way out West
October 28, 2008 8:35pm

On second though, I guess it's fair to say that Oprah's fame does not PRIMARILY stem from propagating nonsense.

But then, Pat Robertson's fame doesn't stem from dispensing medical advice, yet he does just that on the 700 Club, featuring stories about faith healing.

Max, Boston, MA
October 28, 2008 8:57pm

Timmeh: I thought of that too after some brain picking. I feel it a waste of tax funds. So it got my wheel's spinning.

Max: This would make for good PR with the public and tax payers.

Science may later learn they are real. A good saying I like is: A lack of evidence, is not evidence of nothing. The truth and time will tell in the long run.

Greg Droder, Kamloops, BC, Canada
October 28, 2008 9:32pm

Greg,

The saying is: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But if someone claims to be able to walk through walls, and then bumps his head trying, that provides evidence of absence. Every failure adds evidence of absence, until the claim is discredited.

Max, Boston, MA
October 28, 2008 10:27pm

When I read the title of the podcast I thought to myself: "I hope that J McCarthy and Winfrey are on that list". BAM! Number 2 and number 1 respectively. I loved this list and totally agreed with it. (Although I do love Maher's show).

Johnny, Xalapa, México
October 29, 2008 12:20am

'Prince Charles probably the most influential man in the United Kingdom' - where the heck did you get an idea like that? Bernard Hughes was spot on in his assessment. We're a lot less reverential of royalty's ideas than you seem to think.

How many Americans look to George Bush for medical advice?

Andy Hunt, Gateshead
October 29, 2008 2:01am

Prince Charles the most influential man in the UK? Really? Are you kidding me? Evidence please?

This oddity aside, this was another good episode.

Benedict Cohen, Bristol
October 29, 2008 3:15am

I might as well point out for now the link to the open letter doesn't work. I think that might be because the site has been hijacked.

Probably better to go to the wayback machine and searching the url there.

Karl, Adelaide
October 29, 2008 5:46am

Good on you for slipping in a mention of the awful, mercifully-ex Health Minister of South Africa, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. Probably the one person who has done most to hinder Aids awareness in the country. Secretly hoping she chokes on her African potato!

Anna, South Africa
October 29, 2008 6:11am

I didn't know Chuck Norris was a creationist! Why Chuck, why!?!?
On the other hand, that opens up a whole new realm for Chuck Norris jokes.
Great episode, as usual!

JD, Peoria, IL
October 29, 2008 7:23am

In response to #7

The Holocaust was to Enlightenment era scientific rationality, as the Crusades was to Medieval era Christianity.

Every atheist I know jumps at the chance to use the atrocities of the Crusades as proof that religion is a bad thing. Isn't Ben Stein's use of the Holocaust the same argument?

Ben Ivey, Clinton, MS
October 29, 2008 7:33am

I'm a relatively big Bill Maher fan and didn't realize his beliefs on these issues. The only one that really comes up on his show is he slips in some PETA nonsense and no one ever laughs. In fact in those moments you can almost hear the collective eye-roll of his panel and audience. I was really disappointed to find out his views on medicine and whatnot. I think the saving grace on this is, sort of how no one has done more for anti-Scientology than Tom Cruise, no one makes PETA look worse than PETA. Their ideas are so preposterously stupid that no one in gen-pop takes them seriously. The only thing that makes the last big idea from PETA not the dumbest thing you've ever heard is the next PETA idea. They actually build a following with the saner low-level things that, if they knew better, the people would join their local humane society.

Recent PETA Blunders I can name off the top of my head:

1) Ben and Jerry's should use breast milk (as in Human milk) in their ice cream
2) Put signs along the mexican border advertising that we eat so much meat here that we might die early.
3) The donkey thing Brian mentioned. (though, unless this has happened more than once I seem to recall no one else was hurt.)

Pat Robertson might have a big following, but for the most part he's preaching to the choir. Oprah's audience is sleep deprived over-worked moms and the unemployable. They don't have these beliefs she helps spread already. Pat Robertson's following is already in the bag.

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
October 29, 2008 7:57am

"Prince Charles the most influential man in the UK? Really? Are you kidding me? Evidence please?

This oddity aside, this was another good episode."

Benedict,

Well, yes that statement could technically be considered as correct.

Could it not be said that the Queen, as the official head of state, is the most powerful person in the UK and therefore the most influential? I would say, technically, yes. Well, following that logic, Prince Charles is the next in line for the thrown and therefore would be considered the most "influential MAN in the UK."

Again, I say technically ...

Brian, as expected, another great episode. Thank you.

Mike Kasun, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
October 29, 2008 8:04am

I think they are saying that Brian was implying that Brits stop and think to themselves "What would Prince Charles Do?" (WWPCD?) in their day to day lives. I very much doubt this is the case. I also very much doubt this is how Brian pictures the UK, or is what he meant.

It's true that no one would turn to GWB for medical advice either, but someone with such a prominent role believing something crazy does give it a certain amount of credence.

It also does have a direct impact because, for example, it would be hard to pass a law that made it illegal to practice homeopathy as medical treatment if one of the biggest proponents is one of the heads of state.

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
October 29, 2008 9:01am

Another fine episode. This will be the one I play for people when I'm suggesting your podcast.

On the topic of Bill Maher, being anti-religious (especially organized religion) is a fairly common trait of extreme-left whack-jobs. To them, corporations, the government, all religions, and the Tri-lateral Commission conspire together to keep us from being healthy, happy, high on pot, and acheiving one-ness with the universe.

This correlation obviously does not endorse organized religion nor does it discredit atheism, but it is an unfortunate fact, as evidenced by pundits like Maher and others, who might seem to be advocates for rational thought, or may just be anti-establishment nuts who speak well.

(I'm not really familiar with Bill Maher outside of his role in "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death" but this seems to be the impression I'm getting of him)

Morgan, Tracy, CA
October 29, 2008 9:07am

Well I watched that Anti-Pharma clip Brian linked to live and I didn't really come away with it thinking Bill thought medicine was evil.

The most "conspriacy" sounding he got was talking about how it's better for "Big Pharma" if there are sick people. Which is, of course, true.

When I first watched that clip I just took it as "Bill thinks were a nation of over-prescribed people who are too quick to look to a pill to solve our problems." In that light, he has some valid points.

It's funny though how a clip can take on a different meaning once you know someone's agenda.

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
October 29, 2008 10:21am

While I think PETA is horrible and frequently quite wrong, I don't see where in #6 harmful psuedoscience is being propagated, just harmful political agendas. Without evidence of such this becomes less a critical analysis and more a political statement itself...

Ray, Tampa, FL
October 29, 2008 11:24am

Head of State? Well no he isn't his mother is and no most British people take very little notice of the Royal Family in general as they are considered to be o bunch of inbred hereditary freeloaders. Those Brits that are Royalists are by and large realists as well and would have little to do with this type of quackery.
Also they have no role in the government of the UK other than to rubber stamp what the lower house of Parliament legislates on. So if he was King of England and stood up against a law he could not refuse to give it royal ascent with triggering a constitutional crisis, which he would probably loose hands down and he would probably have the sense not to do it anyway. If you don't believe me remember he nearly got thrown out on his ear for remarrying as strictly speaking he should not have and that was just the groundswell from the Church of England. Remember last time one his family did something wacky like marrying and American they got thrown out.

Influence? No sorry he has been considered a joke for the last 30 to 35 years at least and there is a strong movement to bypass him in the event of his mother death for one of his children. However that will not happen, see above Constitutional crisis.

John M Howitt, London, England
October 29, 2008 12:24pm

I think you should include a special award for "Every Local TV News Producer" for their heroic but under-appreciated efforts in promoting quackery and idiocy. Sure, the Oprahs and PETAs of the world are the famous "diva" whackjobs, but local TV provides the constant, daily chorus. "Tonight on Five at Five: How to Protect Yourself -- AND YOUR CHILDREN!"

Cambias, Amherst
October 29, 2008 12:31pm

A splendid episode, as usual.
However, I must say that you cannot refer to Prince Charles as "perhaps the most influential man in the United Kingdom", as this is so far from the truth. Ask any Brit (even the most ardent royalist) and they'll tell you that Prince Charles is a living joke.

Samuel Golten, Manchester, UK
October 29, 2008 4:48pm

Ben says:
<quote>The Holocaust was to Enlightenment era scientific rationality, as the Crusades was to Medieval era Christianity.

Every atheist I know jumps at the chance to use the atrocities of the Crusades as proof that religion is a bad thing. Isn't Ben Stein's use of the Holocaust the same argument?</quote>

Absolutely not! The crusades were about regaining "holy" (christian) territory from the muslims. Faith vs faith. To say the crusades were fueled by religion IS accurate.

The holocaust was produced by the idea of a superior race and nationalism. It was all politics. you cannot blame Science or the enlightenment. That is ridiculous.

Johnny, Xalapa, México
October 29, 2008 8:29pm

I was going to do the pass the buck game and tell everyone that Hitler was a Catholic. I even had a ton of quotes to prove my case, such as:

"Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church."

But that would be meaningless because for every quote I find, another person can use the same technique.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
October 29, 2008 8:43pm

Is Oprah Winfrey really the wealthiest woman in the world?

"Liliane Bettencourt is the wealthiest woman in the world with a fortune around 22.9 billion, which makes her the 17th wealthiest person in the world, reports Forbes magazine. Ms. Bettencourt is the 2nd wealthiest person in her homeland of France. She inherited her money from her father, Eugene Schueller, the founder of the cosmetic company L'Oreal, of which she owns 27% of."

Source: http://www.socyberty.com/People/Five-Wealthiest-Women-in-the-World.122601

Andrew, Melbourne
October 29, 2008 9:34pm

The Crusades were about rescuing the Byzantines from the Muslims in order to repair the schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. About as political as it gets, but that's typical of organized religion.

Max, Boston, MA
October 29, 2008 10:39pm

The pot calling the kettle black: pro-oil/anti-environment James Inhofe picking fights with PETA. Surely his "global warming is a hoax" mantra is more damaging than any Pam Anderson cash grab.

Scotty, Tulsa, OK
October 29, 2008 11:21pm

Chuck, how could you? How can the man who gives the boogie man nightmares and who himself only sleeps for thirty minutes every two weeks-with his eyes open and a pissed look on his face-sink so low? JD, from Illinois is right, that this does allow some new jokes. In fact, it does back up one of my favorites: In the beginning, god said, "let there be light." and Chuck Norris said, "say please." Also, if he is a creationist, it defends this one too: "Chuck Norris slept through the big bang." Hey, that one is even more appropriate than I thought. Anyway chuck, (no capital now) you've let us down.

On the plus side, another awesome episode Brian! I found your podcast a few months ago when I discovered podcasts themselves. You do a fantastic job discrediting stupid beliefs and do a tremendous public service to all. Keep it up!

Steven Zuber, Colorado
October 29, 2008 11:43pm

You have to love the phrase "evidence-based medicine". What he is actually talking about is "school-medicine". What's the difference?

School-medicine denies the use of "alternative medicine" because it doesn't fit into their model of the human body. (They don't check if it works.) They have a simplistic of the human body and the causes of illnesses. To the most part they ignore the psychosomatic effects which cause sickness or too some part can heal sicknesses. The body is viewed as a couple of on/off-switches

"Healing because of your faith" is not pseudo-science it's called the placebo effect. Granted: It doesn't work on all sicknesses but we don't know any realistic number because the "evidence-based medicine" doesn't any research on it.

I would love to see some evidence-based medicine but so far the school-medicine is more filled with dogmas than the alternative medicine.

My only advice: Test what works for you and be careful before you make your body a landfil for tablets. (Some of it makes extremly addictive)

myself (ad) jschoder.de

Joachim Schoder, Munich, Germany
October 29, 2008 11:59pm

We have a candidate for the next Listener Feedback episode.

Max, Boston, MA
October 30, 2008 4:46am

For those who love alternative medicine, here are some more things you could try that is not part of 'school-medicine' or evidence-base medicine:
-bloodletting
-consult a Voodoo-priest
-any skinproblems can be treated by covering them with wolfskin
-trepan your mentally ill friend (this means drilling a hole in his skull)
-and anyone who suffers from smallpox has forgotten to hang red curtains round his bed.
-drinking quicksilver or mercury will help you live longer.

And I pray to God daily that homeopathy isn't right about the memory of water. After all, what do we use in our toilets?

And I completely agree with Chuck Norris: teach the creation by God as science. But then I will have to insist that the Cosmic Egg, the defeat of Tiamat and the dismembering of Ymir be taught as science too. Lets not forget alternatives to the alternative...

And by the way Joachim: the placebo effect IS researched by 'school-medicine', that's where the name comes from! The effect is also used by regular doctors.
And yes, sometimes doctors prescribe too much pills. But don't blame science for the mistakes any human can make...

To say it with the words of Immanuel Kant: please, DARE TO THINK!

And while you are at it: think things all the way through. If water has a memory and a very thin solution is extremely powerful, you don't want to drink any that has come out of rivers or oceans with fish swimming in it, because you would be drinking.... that's right.

Sabine, Belgium
October 30, 2008 5:27am

I think this is my favorite podcast of yours. This top 10 list needs to be promoted and repeated as often as possible, in the hope that regular people will see these idiots for what they are--idiots!

Mark, Huntsville, AL
October 30, 2008 6:31am

Brian - how do you define "influential"? I can not think of a single way in which Prince Charles is the "most influential" man in the United Kingdom. Not political, not intellectual, not scientific, not social, not nothing. He's like the old smelly dog in the corner - still around out of habit rather than either duty or love.

Princess Di - yes. Newspapers and magazines taking "the alternative view" would reference Princess Diana when discussing colonic irrigation or psychics or hot rocks or whatever. But not Prince Charles. Not one. Not once. He's got far more respect and influence outside the UK than he ever had here.

Read our newspapers - visit our country - check for yourself.

Keep up the good work. Skeptoid is compulsive weekly listening.

All the best

Ben W.

Ben W, West Yorkshire, UK
October 30, 2008 3:16pm

Thank you! Great list :) I was surprised and pleased to see McCarthy at #2, and Ograh at #1. I totally agree with the rest too.

www.stopjenny.com, Canada
October 30, 2008 5:43pm

Chuck Norris's tears cure cancer. But he dont cry, so your gonna die, sucka.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Austraila
October 30, 2008 7:00pm

"[Larry King] hits them hard, asks them the tough questions, puts them on the spot."

I am sure this is the first time anyone said that of Larry King. The second was when Timmeh quoted you and accurately pointed out that it is precisely because he doesn't do this it all, that he is able to get such good interviews.

Larry King has a very well known reputation for soft ball questions; he has admitted to not reading the books of his author guests or really doing any preparation a journalist would do.

Usually you're so meticulously researched, and, I thought, an aspiring TV producer. I was really taken aback when I heard this. Though I suppose your point still stands. I just thought it was a weak point in an otherwise very well put together argument.

Granny Tettey, Hartford, CT
October 30, 2008 7:30pm

Montel will have a show again.

Tokorona Shinjitsu, Puyallup, WA
October 30, 2008 8:50pm

Tonight is an almost "Perfect Storm" vortex of suck, with Ben Stein as guest on Larry King. I only hope that Jenny calls in about those nasty vaccines, and Joe Rogan counters with "proof" that we never developed vaccines, and that all vaccines were administered on a faked moonscape in Nevada.....

Patrick Lawrence, Portland, OR
October 30, 2008 9:14pm

I wanted to correct my own flight of fancy there. I said:

"Newspapers and magazines taking "the alternative view" would ... not [reference] Prince Charles. Not one. Not once."

If I'm to be factually correct then I must admit that some may have referenced him some times.

But the point that I and many others have made still stands: he has very limited influence on people in the UK in any form. He's seen as a complete irrelevence, really.

Sorry about the exaggeration in my previous comment.

Ben W

Ben W, West Yorkshire, UK
October 31, 2008 2:43pm

"You may be disappointed that this is not simply a list of Hollywood Scientologists. On the contrary, I think Tom Cruise deserves a medal. He's done more to discredit Scientology than anyone else. "
don't worry he's already been given at least one. there is a reason why he's in that colt. they will do just about anything to pamper his ego.

celesitla-salamander, Australia
October 31, 2008 5:29pm

You know, as much as the Brits hate the royal family, the people over on this side of the Pond still care about them. We do not see them as the huge welfare queens that they are because we are still swept up in the mystique of royalty that we actually care about the figurehead "rulers" of the country we told to piss off.

I guess that is why someone like Prince Charles still matters to Americans.

Kind of reminds me of an observation I heard. There were these two princesses, cousins of Prince Charles, in charge of some small island that no one ever visits. The British Government, fearing a recession, needed to cut costs. The government asked the princessess to give up the stipend when they turned 30 to save the country money. These two princess said "no way in hell!"

After this happened, parliment said "oh well, we tried! Let's find some other way to save money."

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
October 31, 2008 10:29pm

Brian,

Thanks for this list. Many of these I knew about (I guessed Jenny M. would make #2 or #3, but couldn't guess who would beat her out), but a few were news to me. I'm bummed to see Bill Maher on the list. I've been a big fan of his for a long time, but was not aware of his PETA association nor his anti-pharma standings. Given his other anti-conspiracy voice, I'm surprised and disappointed by this. I'll have to be more critical when I watch him now.

As always, this is one worth sharing, and I'll try to get more people informed.

Randy Graham, Memphis, TN
November 01, 2008 9:10am

Corrected link to the Open Letter to Montel:
http://stopsylvia.com/articles/openlettertomontel

The new website due to some scummy psychic link farm buying the other site name when Robert Lancaster is recovering from a stroke.

HCN, Wacky Washington Way out West
November 01, 2008 1:41pm

I too am very disappointed in Bill Maher, but he also believes in astrology, said so on his old Politically Incorrect show when Steve Allen was a guest, so it seems he makes up his own truth.

bennett, Los Angeles
November 01, 2008 9:21pm

PETA? Please.

I'm a firm critic of PETA. Their politics, morality and actions.
But that is the difference - political, morality.
Some of our great skeptics(Bill included and Penn and Teller for a good example) have been veering off the skeptic path in my opinion. There are reasons to be skeptic of PETA claims if in fact they're unfactual. That is the skeptic role. As bill himself noted(but doesn't always follow) some questions aren't to be answered by evidence and scientific tools. They're questions of ethics and opinion.
In the instances PETA may be hypocritical, yeah sic em. The rest of the time it isn't a matter for skeptics(when playing that role, they are allowed for personal opinios of course, just in different settings).
Again I find PETA to be abhorrent and plain stupid, but keep that to the pundits and out of skepticism.

Shahar Lubin, SaPa, Vietnam
November 01, 2008 11:30pm

Like all extremists, PETA promotes any claims that support its ends, regardless how factual they are, from discounting the scientific utility of animal testing, to last month's "got autism?" campaign alleging "a link between cow's milk and autism".

It's never enough for extremists to argue on moral grounds alone. They have to distort the facts as well.

Max, Boston, MA
November 02, 2008 8:48am

Prince Charles, the most influential man in the United Kingdom?

NO!

Hardly anyone here takes his political or 'scientific' opinions seriously.

Daniel Titley, UK
November 02, 2008 10:24am

Does not matter what is going on in England. People in America still give a flip about him.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
November 02, 2008 11:03am

I have the fact the Prince Charles is stepped on the SCAM bandwagon. But that is only because I remember him appearing on Tomorrows World in the mid-90s presenting an award for Science/Invention (I can not remember which.)

Scott Harrison, Durham, England
November 02, 2008 1:07pm

Yet another great podcast but when I listened to the comments about Prince Charles I nearly fell off my chair. Maybe the view from across the pond is different but to call Charles "perhaps the most influential man un the UK" is so wrong ! I like Charles and am a firm royalist but most people I know would agree that his views are often at best ill informed and flaky. His views on Homeopathic cures is a good example of this. You only have to read the british press to know how little respected his views usually are !! No way should he have been in the top 10.

david rich, windsor, england
November 03, 2008 11:43am

Haha, strange, but I had no idea Rogan was such a conspiracy nut in the Roswell, tinfoil hat definition. As a rabid MMA fan, and hearing some of his stand up all I've heard were some ramblings about DMT and the cosmos. Typical stoner talk really.

Other than that, it's a shame there's such a pro-creationism, anti-science, fundamentalist lobby still around.

Faustis J. Whethermen, U.S.
November 03, 2008 1:20pm

Mr. Dunning do you have the stones to lay these claims upon Monsieur Rogan? For he is of the order of the prostegious jiu jitsu. My dear sir Monsieur Rogan may partake in the druthers that causes one to question the validity of most however he wraps more charlottes than your equinox could possibly fathom.

John, Rambo
November 03, 2008 6:22pm

It's pretty sad to hear about all this nonsense that these people spread. I have always enjoyed the work of Maher, but I have known for some time that he is a anti-science nut. I have debated that point with others of the religious persuasion, when they point to him as a "typical atheist". I tell them that I am an atheist, but atheism does not guarantee rationalism. It is a single answer to a single question. There is no atheist doctrine, which allows for claims of all sorts of nonsense to pass by completely unchallenged.

Great piece, Brian.

Azmodan Kijur, NF, Canada
November 04, 2008 10:36am

Two comments. #6 for Pamela Anderson didn't make any statements about pseudoscience involved here, just an argument that PETA isn't good at promoting its proscribed objectives.

Also, could you point me to the point in Bill Maher's linked youtube video where he says that "Big Pharma conspire to keep everyone sick by prescribing drugs." He seems to just be claiming that there are better (proven) preventative measures to being healthy that Big Pharma isn't going to tell you about.

Ryan, Canada
November 04, 2008 3:11pm

I don't like PETA much either but quoting Sen. Imhofe as support is just wrong-headed. He's described people who believe in global warming (at all, not just man-made) as "eco-Al Qaeda"

Simon, Seattle
November 05, 2008 5:41am

I have to weigh in on this as I think people like those on the list balance out the world from the rest of the idiots that fester the earth. I think Rogan is on to something, Oprah is a fat blow-hard and Larry King's nuts probably look like a sling with raisins in it. Finally, Pamela Anderson and those PETA idiots have the right idea to be heard but truthfully need to read some Darwin and worry about the starving, diseased children in our own backyards.

D sausage one love, Fort Dicks
November 05, 2008 5:58am

Thank you for this post. I like Oprah, but I hate is when she promotes pseudoscience like The Secret.

But Acai juice is the real thing. Send me an email for information on this new miracle juice!

Instafaggot, Minneapolis
November 05, 2008 2:31pm

As a Brit I object! Prince Charles "perhaps the most influential man in the United Kingdom"? Well, 'perhaps' is a weasel word that may let you off the hook. (Like 'may').

He's regarded as an eccentric by the people I talk to, and has a long history of bizarre and oft-quoted (and chuckled over) pronouncements.

Entertaining yes, but influential? I doubt it.

But wait, is that the clang of Traitors' Gate I hear? Now they're coming to take me away.....

Roy

Love your podcasts. I discovered them a few months ago, and listened whenever I could over the course of three weeks.

Roy Grubb, Hong Kong
November 06, 2008 3:41am

I know it's been said. But I do feel strongly about it and believe it is worth repeating and probably a mention when we have another edition of 'things I'm wrong about'.

Brian, you are of course a phenomenal skeptic and one of those I look up to in the skeptical movement but:-

Prince Charles is NOT 'perhaps the most influential man' even in his own household let alone the wider UK. We have a parliamentary democracy over here with the royal family restricted almost entirely to a ceremonial role which has absolutely no bearing on policy or legislation. All power in the UK is vested in European Institutions, our democratically elected MP's, members of the House of Lords and the Judiciary. This is also why the press and public get so ruffled when Prince Charles opens his mouth it is because he is speaking ultra vires.

Moreover on a public opinion note, even the naive believers who swallow all forms of pseudo-science treat damn near everything Prince Charles asserts with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Worse, far, far worse are the Blair family (previous PM and first lady) who despite giving the public every assurance on MMR, refused to confirm whether their baby had the combined jab. This sent compliance plumeting way below 70%. We are now staring a measles epidemic in the face. One which will inevitably and sadly lead to preventable deaths. Surely, this evil act is much more deplorable than a few comments on 'grey goo' from an irrelevant toff?

Please see Goldacre for more

Adam, Hove, UK
November 06, 2008 7:18am

I'll start by saying I'm a great fan of Skeptoid, and of all the other great work you do promoting skepticism - but I think in this instance a little more research would perhaps have avoided mildly insulting your British audience by suggesting anyone outside of batty old ladies with too many cats and an unfortunate attachment to porcelain memorabilia takes anything any member of the Royal Family says at all seriously.

I have to agree with the other Brits on this one. Prince Charles is, like all of the Royal Family - and most of the Royal Families of Europe, largely ornamental. Think of them less as heads of state, and more along the lines of castles - interesting historical artefacts, ultimately outdated, kept around largely because of nostalgia.

I do think that the Prince's alt-med funding malarkey is a vast waste of time and money, not to mention stupid as only the inbred can be, but at least he's not following his father's example and traveling the world hurling politely phrased racist epithets at anyone he meets.

There's a point actually - if the Royals really were that influential, it would be perfectly socially acceptable to refer to asian people as "slitty eyed." (Yes, Prince Philip really did use that phrase. In public. Yes, the entire nation simultaneously smacked their heads against the nearest convenient hard surface.)

Other than that, excellent episode - Oprah's influence is, frankly, terrifying.

Grace, Bristol, UK
November 07, 2008 1:20am

It should be noted that Montel Williams resigned his commission, he did not retire, therefore does not hold the rank of LCDR.

Matthew Schramel, Mosul, Iraq
November 12, 2008 4:55am

I reckon they should do what they want.
Its their views so why should we bother.
But they shouldent Promote it on Tv.

Stefan Hewitt, London
November 12, 2008 6:18am

I think calling Oprah "dangerous" is a bit much. Sure, she'll swallow anything you put on her plate, and she's the top of the list in terms of influence. She can't be more dangerous, though, than Jenny McCarthy. Oprah tends to have a short memory and it wouldn't surprise me if she were to have Jenny McCarthy one week, then the following week have an episode about the importance of vaccination. Flaky and inconsistent? Absolutely. Dangerous? Not likely.

Dan the Man, Omaha, NE
November 12, 2008 8:44am

Dan,
Oprah did say she didn't eat beef anymore (I beleive due to fear of mad-cow), and the beef industry took a serious financial hit. That kind of influence coupled with being flaky and uncritical is dangerous.

Morgan, Tracy ,CA
November 12, 2008 10:44am

Dan the Man,

You have to be joking. 90% of the public couldn't even tell you what Jenny does/doesn't believe. Oprah is a kingmaker. She really might be the most influential person period, in the world, in term of "she speaks, people react."

If you don't believe me, read some horror stories of working in a book store when Oprah adds a new book to her list. (Well, it's not so bad now, because book companies/stores coordinate with her ahead of time.) Half the time people didn't know the author, the plot, or anything about it, "It's blue and it's the Oprah book." They still HAD to have it.

Her favorite things episodes cause such an influx of customers that many smallish companies can't even handle it.

As mentioned before, she mentioned she didn't want to eat meat, and the meat industry took such a noticeable financial hit they sued her.

She also devotes a lot of her time to "woo" and might deserve to top this list just for the way she promoted "The Secret".

I guess what you're saying is that if a person listens to Oprah they buy a stupid book, if they listen to Jenny, they die. However, it's the lack of critical thinking promoted by Oprah that's likely contributing to the others on this list. I don't think that her massive, albeit someone indirect, influence can be overlooked.

In other words, there's a good chance that if someone didn't spend an hour a day watching Oprah talk about every quack medical idea, they would be more likely to realize that Jenny is a quack.

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
November 12, 2008 1:21pm

Your listing of Bill Maher and Pam Anderson is gratuitous since you make the claim that PETA supports terrorist organizations and is not an accountable charity but never show any evidence that PETA is promoting any misinformation, pseudoscience, or unscientific claims.
Brian, I know you hate all things vegan and vegetarian but the scientific evidence is very good that the products of animal agriculture have unhealthy consequences both for the individuals consuming them and for the environment not to mention causing unnecessary suffering. If anything, PETA is showing people the truth of how animal products get to their table which is something most people enjoy being blissfully unaware of. I don't agree with many things PETA does (certainly I think the Holocaust is exploited for many claims) but they are most definitely trying to pop the bubble of ignorance surrounding the majority of the public who eat the standard American diet. Wouldn't that qualify as spreading truthful information?
Ahmadinejad is a celebrity who gives money to terrorist organizations and denies the holocaust and he's certainly harder to look at than Pam. I'm disappointed that you included PETA who might be dangerous and irritating (to you). Regardless of their sensationalistic tactics you can't say they are spreading any unscientific claims.

Diana Fleischman, Austin, Texas
November 14, 2008 7:07am

PETA does all kinds of things, almost all of which are unscientific, and some are harmful.

1. They distributed pamphlets to school children which contained cartoons depicting all the harmful things cows milk would do to them.

2. They believe people should consume people milk, one reason of which is all the drugs we inject into the cows. They ignore all the drugs people are taking and all the disease this could spread. Drinking the milk of another species is advantageous because not many diseases can be passed along.

3. The posted billboards stating that drinking milk caused Autism.

So there's 3 different things I could name of the top of my head, or find with minimal research effort, regarding their anti-milk campaign alone.

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
November 14, 2008 9:55am

1. Cow's milk can do unhealthy and harmful things to you and without any of the facts they stated I can't defend their claims. The milk industry is certainly guilty of spreading misinformation about the healthful properties of milk. For example they claim that milk aids weight loss, patently false.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601348.html

you know, because calves lose so much weight drinking milk.

2. People DO consume human milk. The drink breast milk not cow's milk campaign was tongue in cheek. If you don't know, many of the diseases that plague the human species came from domesticated animals so you are wrong that there is less disease risk with the milk of another species. Why do you think milk is pasteurized?

3. Milk proteins have been associated with autism
see
http://www.biodia.com/TechnicalCharts/345-390AbChildAutMilk.pdf

but I agree that there is no evidence that milk CAUSES autism. Still, when pressed they tried to use scientific articles to back up their claims. That's more than what any of the other people on the list do (do you see Montel or Jenny McCarthy or Oprah bolstering their claims with peer reviewed journal articles?). So my contention is
a) Brian did not mention any unscientific misinformation that PETA has spread and still put them on this list
and
b) while they may be spreading exaggerated claims based on science they are not fabricating claims out of whole cloth like many others on this list.

Diana Fleischman, Austin, Texas
November 14, 2008 1:45pm

PETA, the anti-vaccine people, the AIDS "skeptics", the anti-stem cell research people, the intelligent designists, they all distort science to justify their conclusions, which they reached for moral or other non-scientific reasons (animal rights, civil liberty, sanctity of human life, faith in a Creator).

If your main argument is on moral grounds, just say so.

Max, Boston, MA
November 19, 2008 4:28am

This is very interesting and mostly I agree with what you say but I have a few disagreements. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "alternative medicines" but I'd have to say that there are some alternatives to medicines that do work for instance a lot of herbs and natural oils with special properties definitely have effects (although they tend not to be as strong as regular medicine). I mean after all a lot of medicine is just refined from natural sources. So i think it is unfair to dismiss everything that doesn't fall under "scientific" medicine as false. Secondly I know personally of people dealing with autism and if you are autistic your diet can be very important take a look at this site

http://www.autism.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1385&a=3368

and that's from the National Autistic Society.

There is no "cure" for Autism this is correct but there have definitely been improvements through various treatments, including diet. I know it's good to question things just like I am doing with you're article but I can't help feeling that you start off with a bias towards discrediting, if you think about it, you discrediting something that works such as specific diets for some autistic people because you think it's pseudoscience is exactly the same as these celebrities saying regular medicine is bad. I think it's not quite as black and white as you paint it theres things that work coming from both sides and you can't generalise that either one is completely right or wrong.

Chris, Scotland
November 21, 2008 8:29pm

"There is no "cure" for Autism this is correct but there have definitely been improvements through various treatments, including diet."
Chris, Scotland

But, according to your reference, the vitamin/diet courses don't "treat" autism. They counter the sleep and GI side-effects of autism (for example).
A few are even less specific, indicating merely "a high proportion of people on the autism spectrum have benefited from taking..." But doesn't indicate what the "benefit" is.
As you put it, there are "improvements through various treatments," but none of them address autism itself.

Lewayne, Near Des Moine
November 21, 2008 9:50pm

Lewayne, you're saying that relieving the symptoms doesn't "treat" the disease. This criticism is often leveled at Western medicine. Cold remedies, decongestants, anti-inflamatory drugs, laxatives, acid suppressors, statins, anti-depressants, painkillers, they all treat the symptoms rather than the causes. Still, they can save lives, improve quality of life, and "promote healing".

Max, Boston, MA
November 21, 2008 11:51pm

If there is no cure for a disease, the alternative is only to treat the symptoms until a cure is found. Autism is a great example, as are Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson's. Doctors aim more to making the patient comfortable and stopping specific problems than ending the process all together. This is normally where the claim of " Big Pharma doesn't really cure diseases" comes from; Instead of seeing what is happening as a short-term fix while a long-term cure is being discovered, people shout that no one is doing anything.

Brandon, San Antonio, TX
November 24, 2008 8:38am

Max has pretty much said what i was going to say. If you think relieving someone of symptoms or "side-effects" does not come under treating someones illness then there's a hell of a lot of western medicine that you must think is pointless. If you can do something that makes the quality of life for someone better should you just forget about it because it's not an actual cure?

As for the benifits some are stated on the page:

"In a small ninety-day trial Patrick and Salik (2005) reported that 18 of 22 children with autism or Asperger syndrome taking a supplement of essential fatty acids displayed significant increases in their language and learning skills based upon a criterion referenced measure."

"The first time DMG was discovered to have a positive effect was in 1965 when two Russians, M G Blumena and T L Belyakova (Rimland, 1990, p.3), wrote about improvements in the speech of 12 out of 15 children with learning disabilities following use of calcium pangamate"

And if you looked at the bottom there's a bibliography with all the sources, so if you're really interested in the specific findings of each you can go read up.

Chris, Scotland
November 24, 2008 8:59am

There are a lot of people who confuse treating the symptoms of a disease with actually helping cure the disease. Some of these people are doctors! I can't tell you how many doctors I had to see before one was able to name my condition (a type of arthritis best known by its acronym, DISH). Why only one of more than a dozen specialists had ever even heard of this is appalling. It's sad that so few people stop with the opinion of one doctor instead of taking the skeptic's position that maybe Dr. X doesn't know as much as s/he would like to think.

Alesia, Denver, Colorado
November 29, 2008 5:07am

"you're saying that relieving the symptoms doesn't "treat" the disease."

No, I'm saying that treating a GI side effect is not the same as affecting the altered brain function of autism. There's a difference between "treating" (easing symptoms of __) and "curing" (eliminating the disease).
If vitamins ease the GI discomfort or sleep disorders that can be side-effects of autism and improve a patient's quality of life I'm all for it. If fatty acids can improve speech and learning, great. Hope they keep up the research.

But, that's different than "curing" autism.

As an example, using pain-killers to relieve cancer patients' pain treats a symptom, but doesn't make the cancer cells go away. Treats a side-effect, doesn't "cure" the patient. That's all I'm saying.

Apparently, there's an impression that I have something against western medicine. I haven't. I love it, use it whenever necessary, owe it my life. Prescriptions if warranted, surgery if necessary, vaccinations for my kids, all of it.
If anyone is likely to find a cure for any disease it's going to be traditional medicine.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
November 29, 2008 8:30pm

From my first post,

"There is no "cure" for Autism this is correct"

The first thing I said on the matter was that I agreed there was no cure. You keep making the point that it's not a cure but I'm not quite sure who you're disagreeing with because I never said it was a cure in the first place.

I think you'll agree that someone reading through this article (but not the comments) would completely disregard diet as being of any benefit to anyone with autism.

If there is any truth to something (however small the truth...)it should be told, and there is a truth to diet being benificial to the life of someone with autism (not a cure but a benefit). The article should have posed a more balanced conclusion (on the diet, autism front) and that was my original point.

Chris, Scotland
November 30, 2008 6:10pm

"I'm not quite sure who you're disagreeing with because I never said it was a cure in the first place."

I think it began as a misunderstanding on my part. The way you phrased it "no cure... but has been shown to..." seemed, to me, akin to the type of thing I used to hear all the time when I worked with special needs kids (including autistics).
"I can't tell you this is a cure, but studies have shown that my snake oil has positive benefits for autistic children." Which parents always hear as "cure."
While my saying the following carries no weight beyond anecdote, none of the autistic children I worked with ever benefited measurably from any diet modification. However, none of them suffered from the GI side-effects either.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
December 01, 2008 7:40am

A good diet is far more than 'good for you.' But you are right, that's about all doctors know about nutrition.

Many of our current disease 'epidemics' can be prevented and/or reversed by diet, exercise and sleep. And specific nutrients can be consumed or supplemented in therapeutic doses to treat symptoms just as well as the drugs doctors are so determined that we take.

BetterWays, Houston
December 02, 2008 7:43am

I have a son with autism and we did remove dairy, and gluten from his diet. The change in his behavior was almost immediate, it was remarkable. The one aspect that you never talk about in your article is if doctors come out and say vaccines are bad, then the pharmacutical companies that manufacture them are out billions of dollars. Sometimes money is more powerful than the truth. Everyone has a price even the medical community.

Tony, LA
December 16, 2008 3:21pm

"...we did remove dairy, and gluten from his diet. The change in his behavior was almost immediate, it was remarkable."

Assuming we gave this more weight than anecdote, by what means did this transformation occur? Or more specifically, what about dairy and gluten were responsible for (presumably) negative behavior?
I mean, I know people whose behavior is changed by the presence or absence of dairy and/or gluten, but it's because they have a dietary allergy to it. And the behavior is vomiting/diarrhea vs. not. Not good Bob vs. bad Bob.

"...if doctors come out and say vaccines are bad, then the pharmacutical (sic)companies that manufacture them are out billions of dollars."

Sure, but doctors (and by that I mean ones from accredited medical schools) aren't going to "...come out and say vaccines are bad..." because the damn things WORK. It really is that simple. No massive cover-up, no global conspiracy, no big payouts needed. It's actually possible that Big Pharma simply protects their investment by producing products that do what they're supposed to do-keep children from getting easily preventable and potentially fatal diseases. What better marketing is there than that? "Your child didn't die from Diphtheria, Tetanus or Pertussis, because they got a DTaP." "Your mom lived to give birth to you because she wasn't crippled or killed by Polio."

Not every corporation-produced product is inherently immoral or designed to screw the end-user for the purposes of higher profits.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
December 16, 2008 8:06pm

How can you leave James Hansen of NASA from this list? His work has done more to promote the Global Warming hysteria than anyone besides Al Gore. This, despite several of his findings having been proven false--the ten warmest years on record happened in the last fifty years; this winter is the warmest ever, etc.

Kathi, New Port Richey, Florida
December 30, 2008 9:45am

Where are the scientologists on this list?

Ben, Dijon, France
January 07, 2009 3:16pm

I guess I should have read the article before I commented, instead of just glossing over the names. I guess I'm glib, lol.

Ben, Dijon, France
January 10, 2009 10:52am

Was interested to see Joe Rogan up there. Hadn't heard of him before (didn't know he was a comedian) but I watch a few talks he did on youtube about DMT (dimethyltryptamine) ages ago and found it very interesting and credible. His info on the subject seems to check out with other things I've heard but now I'm wondering is this more of a pseudoscience than a real occurance because he seems like a nut. ????????

Emma Rohrt, Sydney, Australia
January 15, 2009 9:37pm

Those who have stated that dietary modifications can alleviate some symptoms associated with autism are correct. Some autistic children have a reaction to gluten that is similar to being intoxicated. This can lead to certain "stimming" behaviors (called stimming because it is providing stimulation). Stimming might include but is not limited to repeated sounds, movements, or patterns.

Dietary modification, or a "gluten-free" diet would not be a comprehensive treatment for any autistic child. Research strongly indicates that the most effective method of treatment is Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA)Therapy. This should be started at as early an age as possible - as soon as the autism is noticed.

Jennifer, Detroit
February 23, 2009 7:20am

"Those who have stated that dietary modifications can alleviate some symptoms associated with autism are correct."
Jennifer, Detroit

Really?

"There's no evidence that special diets are an effective autism treatment."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/autism-treatment/AN01519

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
February 23, 2009 7:01pm

How comes, there are no "celebrity" scientologists listed here? They are seriously full of such pseudoscientific nonsense that such broadcasters are surely worth to be mentioned here.

Jill, Sunderland, UK
February 24, 2009 1:44am

LeWayne-I went to the link you gave and found the following quote:

"there is no scientific evidence to conclusively support or deny the claims that these autism diet interventions can or will make a significant improvement in the functioning of the child. However, it is recognized that some parents report improvements when dietary therapies are used."

As I stated, diet do not treat or cure autism. However,they may reduce "stimming" behavior. So in other words, I haven't seen them make a 'significant improvement' in functioning, but by reducing "stimming" behaviors they can make life for the child and parents a bit easier.

This is a newer innovation, to the best of my knowledge, and is a technique that an ABA therapist may choose to implement (as a small part of a well developed treatment plan)

Jennifer, Detroit
February 24, 2009 10:52am

Really? Because the entire text I found at the link says the following-
"There's no evidence that special diets are an effective autism treatment.

Autism is a complex brain disorder that has no known cure. For this reason, many frustrated parents turn to unproven alternative treatments — such as restrictive diets that eliminate gluten and casein — in an attempt to help their children.

Proponents of restrictive diets believe that casein, a protein found in dairy products, and gluten, a protein found in many grains, affect brain development and behavior — causing autism in some children. However, there's no evidence that diet triggers autism or that restricting gluten and casein improves autism symptoms. And for growing children, restrictive diets can lead to nutritional deficiencies.

If you're considering an alternative autism treatment, talk to your child's doctor. He or she can help you identify the treatments that are most likely to be effective for your child, as well as local resources that may provide additional support. If you decide to pursue a restrictive diet, work with a registered dietitian to create an appropriate meal plan for your child."

I didn't see "stimming".

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/autism/DS00348/DSECTION=treatments%2Dand%2Ddrugs
does say-"Though some families have reported good results with special diets and other complementary approaches, studies have not been able to confirm or deny the usefulness of these treatments."

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
February 24, 2009 7:07pm

The Mayo Clinic website that you used as an original source for our discussion has conflicting information on some of topics -all described in a very light way. Autism is extremely complex as is the treatment of the symptoms - far more complex than a Q and A website can begin to address.

I do agree that it is probably more appropriate for that website to firmly steer parents away from 'alternative treatments' and towards their family doctor as a starting point!

While there can be some good information on the web, I've found that websites that water down research for the public aren't great.

For more in depth research on autism and self-stimulating behavior (aka "stimming")you'll need to read peer-reviewed journal articles. You'll find some extremely recent studies that evaluate the links between some forms of stimming in certain children with the ingestion of gluten.

Here are just a few titles of some older articles that focus on stimming, but since they're from journals, you'll need to use pub-med or other scholarly search engine to read them. You will also be able to find them in journals at most university libraries:

Social influences on "self-stimulatory" behavior: analysis and treatment application.
VM Durand, EG Carr - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1987 - pubmedcentral.nih.gov

Annotation: Repetitive behaviour in autism: A review of psychological research

M Turner - The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied …, 1999 - Cambridge Univ Pre

Jennifer, Detroit
March 02, 2009 2:07pm

Prince Charles latest debacle:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7934568.stm

It's reprehensible that a man with such pomp, circumstance, privildge and ultimatey influence should feel it necessary to try to profit from this pseudoscience nonsense by prying on the uneducated or misinformed. I'd vote for a Republic tomorrow if I had the chance.

Andrew Jarvis, Lancashire, UK
March 10, 2009 8:04am

Great list, but as a Briton I must take issue with your referring to Prince Charles as "perhaps the most influential man in the United Kingdom". For the record, virtually no one in Britain takes the opinions of members of the royal family at all seriously, even ardent monarchists. Charles, in particular, is a national joke, universally percieved as a weak, dull man whose primary occupation is waiting for his mother to die, and who will periodically come out with nonsense about talking to plants or nanorobots turning the planet into grey goo, etc. He has certainly said some pretty irrational things, but he doesn't belong on this list simply because no one actually gives a fuck what he thinks.

Tom Doran, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
March 10, 2009 11:00am

I agree that Jenny McCarthy is misinforming people, not because she believes that vaccines cause autism (they obviously do), but because she leads people to believe that vaccines can be "greened" by replacing the toxic ingredients with "green" alternatives.

For one thing, if all the toxic substances in vaccines were removed, there would be no vaccine left. Also, there is no need to vaccinate children in the first place; in fact, injecting babies and children with all manner of toxic crap with the intention of preventing diseases is a really bad and stupid idea, or, as Dr. H. Shelton has pointed out, "a form of delusional insanity."

In fact, apart from historical links and as a figment in people's imagination, vaccination has NOTHING whatsoever to do with disease prevention. It's all a hoax and about promoting ill-health to keep the wheels of the sickness industry turning.

Look at it as an organised criminal enterprise, an ugly and brutal racket and a means of turning our children into little morons and zombies.

Erwin Alber, Bangkok
March 14, 2009 3:05am

"In fact, apart from historical links and as a figment in people's imagination, vaccination has NOTHING whatsoever to do with disease prevention. It's all a hoax and about promoting ill-health to keep the wheels of the sickness industry turning."-Erwin Alber

I wonder how some people can still say things like this. Polio comes to mind when I think of a disease that has just about been eradicated thanks to vaccination.

The only fault I can find with this episode is the CDC website says that most of the childhood vaccines have eliminated or greatly reduced the amount of mercury in them. It did not say they had completely removed them as you claimed. That aside I find most of your podcasts extremely informative and entertaining.

Chuck Merchant, High Point, NC
March 14, 2009 2:08pm

I love how lefties are all about "science" except when it clashes with their anti-corporatism and environmentalism (especially nuclear power). What a bunch of ignorant hypocrites.

As for Bill Maher, he's a Jew. Many of the famous atheists are Jews. Revisit them in old age, however, and you suddenly find them embracing Judaism. Interesting.

J. L., Omaha
March 17, 2009 3:39pm

Great list. I think you forgot Suzanne Somers.

Jess, Toronto
March 18, 2009 6:30pm

Oprah Winfrey the most influential woman in the world? I didn't even know about her prior to readiong about her in skeptic (US-American) blogs. Seems strange and US centric to me.

M.C., Bergisch Gladbach
April 03, 2009 12:16pm

Larry King never asks tough questions to anyone.

Bob, Illinois
April 09, 2009 11:25am

J.L., Bill Mahr was raised CATHOLIC as he has stated numerous times.

I also believe his lineage to be from Ireland, not Israel.

As for your statement that most atheists are former Jews...well the burden of proof is on you for that one. Personally, I find such statements to be non-productive and lend no support to any credible argument.

psiEnergos, Phoenix, AZ
April 16, 2009 8:57am

I think you are completely biased about Jenny McCarthy. *shrug* Does YOUR child have autism? If they did, you would think differently.

Anonymous, Anywhere
April 23, 2009 1:32pm

If my child has autism, I would not go out and try to find the first cause and hold onto that as the reason for it. What I would do is not find a thing to scapegoat, like she did, and accept that it was my fault that the kid ended up that way. I would then learn how to handle my autistic child more effectively and not waste my time going around the country and try to stop what medical science has proven to be safe and effective.

So, no I would not feel the same way that she does. She did not do the research into autism and went to a few other sources that confirmed her conceited attitude.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
April 23, 2009 5:33pm

Oprah and Jenny, #1 and #2, join forces to promote bullshit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSTRE5430RD20090504

Max, Boston, MA
May 04, 2009 10:52am

How did tom Cruise miss your list? I do have a child with autism, diagnosed by doctors from just about every discipline, and he is really close to not being very much that way anymore and he was severe. I have years of labs and blood, hair and urine test to prove he in fact was poisoned by heavy metals, he indeed has immunity from vaccines, and he was not boosted after his 1 year vaccines and still has immunity from them, in fact he has 3.5 times the amount he should have. His body was not able to bring the virus down to a level he could tolerate and it scramble his eggs - can Humpty Dumpty be put together again? I've seen in 4 of my friends kids. Cancer used to be a death sentence and now it's not. Why then can autism not be cured? When you spend everyday of 6 years of your life up to your eyeballs in treatment and research, call me. Other wise PHD just stands for Piled Higher and Deeper.

Paulette, San Deigo
May 06, 2009 3:15pm

Paulette, reading your post was a little difficult, but what I think you are saying is that your son was diagnosed with autism, and that he is now improved. Is this correct?

Also, you are saying that he was poisoned by heavy metals (which I assume were related to early vaccination?).

As vaccines are created in batches, and many people are vaccinated from the same batch, is there a cluster of people who suffer from a) heavy metal poisoning and b) autism that has been linked to the same batch of vaccinations?

What treatment was undertaken for the heavy metal poisoning, and what heavy metals were involved?

How long after the vaccination was the diagnosis and analysis of heavy metal poisoning undertaken?

Measurable values of heavy metal are very unlikely to come from the tiny amounts that were in (and remain in some) vaccines - have you isolated all other sources of contamination with these heavy metals?

Also you mention that PhD stands for "Piled Higher and Deeper" - you do understand that the treatments for cancer you allude to were ... created by scientists using exactly the sort of science that is unable to find a link between vaccination and autism, right?

Brenton, New Zealand
May 06, 2009 4:42pm

How about no, I will not spend a lot of time looking at the research just for you because it is not necessary. You have demonstrated a point that I said earlier. Your child has autism and instead of accepting that it was your fault that your child is autistic, you go and find a scapegoat.

They took the heavy metals out of vaccines and the rates of autism have not gone down what more do you want?

Autism cannot be cured for the simple reason that it is a neurological disease. Those cannot be cured yet. Furthermore, they are caused by a genetic abnormality. That means you and your husband had to cause it.

Now, instead of going after a scapegoat, why don't you accept that your kids is autistic, learn how to cope with it, and move on with your lives.

When I have a child and if he or she is autistic, I am not going to blame it on a vaccine because I know that if vaccines caused autism, there would be more cases of it right now. I mean in the millions. I will accept that it was my fault and move on with my life.

What I am going to do is the responsible thing and ensure the herd is immune to mumps, measles, and rubella.

Joseph Furguson, Beawley, Ca
May 06, 2009 4:45pm

I'd have to disagree with your assertion that Larry King asks "the tough questions" of politicians and world leaders and the like.. he doesn't ask the tough questions of anyone.. his questioning style is akin to a slow-pitch softball game pitched by a cuddly teddy bear with suspenders who doesn't want to offend or upset anyone.

JP Shipley, Cambridge, MA
June 02, 2009 6:55am

Much as I love Skeptoid, Prince Charles has little influence in the UK. If it were Diana, however.....

The folks of the UK don't need royal endorsements of SCAMs, as it's the real aristocracy - low grade celebs - who help shape opinion and put snake oil in the kool aid.

While HRH's SCAM endorsements are a waste of public money, he's little to offer but for the converted.

(PS - my pounds, shilling and pence are on Harry donning the crown. Charlie notoriously doesn't get on with his mum.)

Trey, Prague
June 17, 2009 10:29am

What, no Pope?

Surely, you jest!

Phil Thompson, Port Talbot, South Wales
June 21, 2009 8:41am

You mention that Bill Maher is a PETA board member, yet according to PETA's website there are only three members of the Board of Directors and he isn't one of them. Maher claimed to be a director in a Larry King interview. Perhaps he was in the past, but the odd thing is that PETA seems to have always had only 3 board members, Newkirk and a pair of cronies.

N.A. Browne, San Diego, CA
July 25, 2009 4:28pm

THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE DRANK WAYYY TO MUCH OF THE KOOLAID. WAKE UP DUDE. YOU'RE WRONG ON ALMOST EVERY POINT YOU MADE. YOU'RE SO WRONG THAT IT CAN'T JUST BE A COINCIDENCE BUT RATHER A TACTIC OF ATTACKING CELEBS WHO ARE SPEAKING TOO MUCH TRUTH. SO ARE YOU BRAINWASHED PAL OR PAID TO ATTACK THEM?

WAYYYY SMARTER THEN THIS AUTHOR, CHICAGO
September 23, 2009 8:59pm

Oh let me see science based medicine, ya we can really depend on them to find a cure for cancer! They ask for donations and government money (it must add up to 100’s of Billions of dollars) to find a cure but they have not found a cure for a single disease in a half century not even Herpes let alone cancer, something is very wrong here. Cancer is an epidemic 1 in 3 women and 1 in 2 men will have cancer in their life time. They say less people die from it and more survive. Ya, survival is a delightful way to live and it makes for a very good repeat cancer customer. If it wasn't such a tragedy for so many people it would be a colossal joke! Bill is a breath of fresh air and thinking in the one dimensional world of modern medicine. Paul

Paul Blake ND, Maung, Thailand
September 27, 2009 9:53pm

"we can really depend on them to find a cure for cancer!"

Are you serious?

Are you expecting a single pill that will instantly cure all types of cancers? Just because that does not exist does not mean there have been no cancer drugs in the past 50 years that have increased the chances for remission or life expectancy. Over the past 15 years, death rates from cancer has dropped by 20%.

My mother-in-law would have been dead 5 years ago if it wasn't for new cancer medications.

Mike Fuller, Indiana, USA
September 27, 2009 11:49pm

Measles vaccine: 1963
Pneumococcal vaccine: 1977
Invasive H. Flu vaccine: 1985
Pertussis vaccine: 1993
Chicken Pox vaccine: 1995

Source: http://tinyurl.com/lay6j2

Mike Fuller, Indiana, USA
September 28, 2009 12:54pm

"THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE DRANK WAYYY TO MUCH OF THE KOOLAID. WAKE UP DUDE. YOU'RE WRONG ON ALMOST EVERY POINT YOU MADE. YOU'RE SO WRONG THAT IT CAN'T JUST BE A COINCIDENCE BUT RATHER A TACTIC OF ATTACKING CELEBS WHO ARE SPEAKING TOO MUCH TRUTH. SO ARE YOU BRAINWASHED PAL OR PAID TO ATTACK THEM?"

Hahaha...your so funny, doing a parody of a too far gone conspiracy believer! Classic!

Surely this couldn't be anything but a joke......right?

Justin, Australia
October 27, 2009 8:12pm

Most of the list seems supportable by the facts. However, Pamela Anderson and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals seem grossly out of place. PETA does do some goofy stuff, but how does pursuing the goal of reducing needless suffering of animals cause damage or harm to people and how does it practice pseudoscience? Let's assume there is a link to the Animal Liberation Front and that group does, in fact, physically attack facilities that harm animals. That does not constitute a pseudoscience that harms people. It isn't promoting pseudoscience, and it doesn't harm people. It fails to meet the criteria for this list on both counts. PETA does so much overall good in reducing the suffering of animals, and apart from their occasional nuttiness, it is truly a shame to put them and Pamela Anderson in the company of Ben Stein and Oprah Winfrey.

Daniel Torsen, Las Vegas
November 27, 2009 10:29am

I also don´t see how PETA is pseudo scientific. I rather would say PETA promotes an ideology than that it pretends being scientific in any way.
I personally would suggest Kirk Cameron & Ray Comfort for the list.

Valery Suprunov, Duesseldorf Germany
December 17, 2009 6:11am

""let me see science based medicine""

Wow, you admit it's science-based. I'm pleasantly surprised.

""we can really depend on them to find a cure for cancer!""

There is no single "cure for cancer" more than there is a single one "cure for heart disease" or "cure for poverty". We do, however, have many different cures for cancer, and at least one vaccine that I'm aware of.

""They ask for donations and government money (it must add up to 100’s of Billions of dollars)""

Irrelevant.

""to find a cure but they have not found a cure for a single disease in a half century""

That is one incredibly tall statement, and is of course not backed by reality the least bit. What we do have is new vaccines, better treatments, a better understanding of disease and the human body, and an increased life expectancy.

""not even Herpes let alone cancer""

I always wonder what people are on about when they say "they haven't even cured x". Just that a condition is mild compared to another condition doesn't mean it's necessarily easier to cure.

""They say less people die from [cancer] and more survive. Ya, survival is a delightful way to live and it makes for a very good repeat cancer customer.""

First you said medicala science hasn't improved, and now you state that science has indeed advanced when it comes to cancer... and paint that as bad, too.

Face it, if they were out only to make money by keeping you sick, we wouldn't have had vaccines - which HAVE eradicated several diseases entirely.

Safe-Keeper, Bergen, Norway
December 31, 2009 8:56pm

Prince Charles is the most dangerous person on this list. He has the ear of a whole government to whose members he apparently often writes with 'suggestions'. These are treated very seriously by the unfortunate recipients. It was he who e.g. managed to get UK taxpayers paying for homeopathy treatment for many thousands of people merely because he believe in it when every scientific test proves it to be totally ineffective for any disease.

Steve, UK
January 27, 2010 3:37pm

I'm also not sure why Pam Anderson/PETA is on this list. If they promote domestic terrorism, that's a different charge than promoting pseudoscience. It's reprehensible to equate the Holocaust with the suffering of animals, but that's not really an issue for science, is it?

Amanda M, Indiana
January 27, 2010 9:27pm

i just think Oprah is crazy and whats even crazier that oprah is all her devoted followers. how can you take marriage advice from someone who has never been married???? you really have to do research on wat celebs say coz they just say uninformed things. i kno no one is perfect, but still, its not cool. its crazy how celebs can say things and we just automatically believe them coz they have money and fame... well wat will their fame and money do for them when they die???? absolutely NOTHING

Linda Nonini, Seattle, WA
March 03, 2010 8:59pm

First of all, I don't think that the ELF or ALF count as terrorist groups. The UN definition of terrorism mean that they intentionally harm civilians. The Animal Liberation Front has never harmed a single human being. The FBI has expanded the definition to include destroying property with the soul intention of hurting political groups. This means if some kid eggs a house, they're a terrorist...

I also don't think the ALF/ ELF being supported by PETA has anything to do with science, either. Like somebody above said, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron didn't make this list despite spreading actual misinformation. I don't understand why PETA would for supporting a so-called terrorist group.

Greg, Gso, NC
March 22, 2010 11:28am

Ran across your site by accident looking for something else. Interesting that you give your opinions but do not back it up with any evidence.

Many many CAM or alternative therapies have evidenced-based research that helps to describe it physiological actions. You may refer to sites such as PubMed to look for basic science and clinical trial studies that have been conducted. Furthermore, the use of integrated/integrative medical practices, i.e. the use of conventional and alternative therapies is an emerging trend which appears to results in benefical sustained long term effects.

L. Price

Lisa Price, Seattle WA
August 25, 2010 10:57pm

Er, you might want to look at a few more episode transcripts. The claims of pseudoscience peddlers and alternative medicines have been talked about, at length with sources for evidence.

Tom H, Kent, UK
August 26, 2010 2:47am