Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet - 1990 06

Magazine Overview

This issue of "BASIS", the newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, dated June 1990, Volume 9, Number 5, and edited by Kent Harker, delves into several critical examinations of popular beliefs and pseudoscientific claims. The primary articles scrutinize the efficacy of positive thinking in cancer treatment and the legitimacy of the Institute for Creation Research's bid for academic accreditation.

Sampson and Delightful Thoughts

The lead article, "Sampson and Delightful Thoughts," features insights from BAS advisor Dr. Wallace Sampson, an oncologist and Stanford medical school faculty member. Dr. Sampson's work involves systematically analyzing the claims made in popular books and articles, particularly those related to health and cancer. The article highlights his rigorous approach to scientific inquiry, emphasizing the importance of isolating variables, replicating findings, and developing theories. It criticizes the lack of such scientific rigor in studies concerning meditation and positive thinking, suggesting that many researchers in these fields fail to ask fundamental questions and collaborate openly. Dr. Sampson's critique extends to the notion that positive thinking can boost the immune system to fight cancer, pointing out that an over-boosted immune system can be harmful, as seen in auto-immune disorders. He also stresses that cancerous cells are not foreign but are the body's own cells gone awry, making the idea of a specific immune response to them through thought highly improbable without a clear biological mechanism.

The article traces the genesis of the positive-thinking-as-cure idea to psychologists, questioning their qualifications in anatomy and immunology. It specifically mentions Lawrence LeShan and Norman Cousins's "Anatomy of an Illness" as influential works. Dr. Stuart Simenton's proposed mechanism linking psychological stress to cancer via the immune system is presented as speculative. Dr. Sampson counters these ideas with examples of individuals under severe stress (AIDS patients, holocaust survivors, POWs, death-row inmates, clinically depressed) who exhibit a below-average incidence of cancer. The article also critiques Dr. Bernie Siegel's popular book "Love, Medicine & Miracles," suggesting it may have steered cancer victims away from conventional treatments. The author concludes that this "attitude-can-cause-disease" trend aligns with the New Age movement, which mixes these ideas with meditation and other practices.

The "Reality" section of this article reviews research from reputable sources, including the "Journal of the American Medical Association," which found no significant correlation between state of mind and cancer incidence or cure. It notes that studies showing significance often had poor controls. Dr. Sampson observed a lack of scientific dissent in smaller journals, suggesting a "buddy system" among proponents of the positive-thinking-cure movement.

Consumer Advocacy

Authored by Shawn Carlson, this section focuses on the Bay Area Skeptics' role as a consumer advocacy group. It argues that consumers have a right to know they are receiving services for which they pay, especially when those services might endanger public health. The article criticizes psychics and astrologers who offer counseling under the guise of psychological and life-guidance services, asserting that they should be held to professional standards, including state certification and demonstrable proof of their abilities. The piece notes that psychics and astrologers have repeatedly failed tests of their claimed powers. The section concludes by urging them to either submit to public scrutiny or cease their deceptive practices.

Of All the Places!

This short segment highlights BAS secretary Rick Moen, who was quoted in the "National Examiner." It also mentions a group called "Californians for Earthquake Prevention" and their ludicrous theory about sound waves and footsteps causing earthquakes. Rick Moen is quoted dismissing these ideas as "ludicrous," reinforcing the BAS's identity as a scientific think-tank.

Get Ready!

This section is an announcement for the upcoming BAS annual picnic in August, providing details on cost ($5 per person suggested for food, BYOD) and encouraging attendees to notify organizers Ben and Carol Baumgartner.

Degrees of Folly: Part XI

Written by William Bennetta, this installment continues an ongoing investigation into unaccredited schools in California. It details the assessment of the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School (ICRGS) by the Department's Private Postsecondary Education Division (PPED). The ICRGS is described as an arm of the Institute for Creation Research, a ministry promoting "creation-science." The article outlines how the ICR, founded by Henry Morris, sought approval to grant master's degrees. Despite initial resistance and concerns raised by some committee members, the process involved negotiations and the formation of new committees. The ICR engaged in public relations efforts, including a "news conference," to denounce state officials and present a misleading account of their interactions. The committee's report, submitted in January 1990, concluded that the ICR was not a scientific institution. However, a dissenting opinion from Leroy Eimers was noted. The Department formally refused to reapprove the ICRGS in March 1990. The article details the subsequent legal actions, including the ICR filing a lawsuit against state officials, alleging violations of academic freedom and freedom of speech, and seeking damages. The ICR's complaint is characterized as absurd and misrepresenting the core issue, which is the ICR's desire to award degrees rather than simply teach science.

The "Brothel Brochure" sub-section discusses a news report about the ICR's lawsuit, quoting John Morris, son of Henry Morris, who stated the ICR was teaching "Christian doctrine" and made a controversial comparison to homosexual brothels. William L. Rukeyser, a special assistant to Bill Honig, disputed the ICR's claims, stating that while degrees in "creationism" or "a system of beliefs" might be acceptable, the current curriculum did not qualify for a master's of science degree, emphasizing "truth in advertising."

The Council Concurs

This section reports that the Council for Private Postsecondary Educational Institutions affirmed the Superintendent of Public Instruction's intention to deny reapproval to the ICR. A letter from Joseph R. Symkowick, Department's general counsel, to Dr. Henry Morris is included, serving as the final notice of denial of authorization to operate under Education Code Section 94310.2, based on the visiting committee's report.

A Curious Tactic

This part details the ICR's filing of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, which is described as a premature and potentially intimidating tactic. The lawsuit names state officials as defendants and alleges violations of constitutional rights. The article criticizes the ICR's complaint for misrepresenting the case and suggesting that "science" can be legitimated by popular culture.

Think Positively

The final brief item mentions psychologist David Spiegel of Stanford, who had a prejudice against those he calls the "wish-away-your-cancer crowd," before his research on psychotherapy lengthening the lives of breast-cancer patients.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of BASIS are skepticism towards unsubstantiated health claims, particularly those related to positive thinking and alternative cancer treatments, and a strong stance against pseudoscience and unaccredited educational institutions, exemplified by the detailed critique of the Institute for Creation Research. The editorial stance is consistently rational, evidence-based, and critical of claims lacking scientific support or proper methodology. The newsletter also champions consumer advocacy and transparency in services offered to the public. The overall tone is one of intellectual rigor and a commitment to debunking what the organization perceives as misleading or harmful beliefs and practices.

Title: Bay Area Skeptic Informatoin Sheet
Issue: June, 1990
Publisher: Bay Area Skeptics
Document Type: Newsletter/Magazine Issue

Article 1: Psychosocial Intervention and Cancer Survival

This section details a study led by David Spiegel, which investigated the impact of psychosocial intervention on women with metastatic breast cancer. Initially skeptical of 'visualization' and mental exercises, Spiegel became convinced that group therapy could not only improve the quality of life but also prolong it. An unprecedented study involving 86 women in Santa Clara Valley, reported in the British medical journal "Lancet", showed that a year of group therapy and pain control instruction added an average of 18 months to their lives. Spiegel stated, "We didn't make cancer go away. We extended survival." He believes the therapy curbed depression, enabling patients to adhere better to diets and medical treatments, and possibly enhanced immune function. Dr. Sandra Levy, a specialist in behavioral immunology, called the study the best thus far to "fairly indisputably" show that psychosocial intervention helped cancer patients, suspecting a positive physiological effect. Ronald Glaser, a psychoimmunologist, noted the study's consistency with the hypothesis that impacts on the central nervous system can affect disease, suggesting that positive psychological states might have beneficial effects. Psychologist Neal Fiore emphasized that Spiegel's work countered New Age theories that blamed patients for their disease, stating improved health "has nothing to do with previous attitude of character." Tom Coates of UC-San Francisco's Behavioral Medicine noted the study "gives hope." The study was also praised in "Science" by Bernard Fox and Jimmie Holland, though Holland cautioned that psychotherapy should not replace standard treatments. Spiegel and psychologist Irv Yalom initially aimed to disprove non-medical treatments' efficacy in 1976, but this later study yielded surprising results. The 86 women, averaging 55 years old, were divided into a therapy group (50 women in weekly 90-minute sessions) and a control group receiving standard care. By year's end, the therapy group reported half the pain, less mood disturbance, fewer phobic reactions, and fewer maladaptive coping behaviors. Spiegel described the experience for one woman as "like looking into the Grand Canyon," where facing mortality brought a sense of self-worth.

Article 2: The Creationist Threat

This section critiques the methods and agenda of creationists. The author argues that creationists are a "dangerous lot" with a hidden agenda, well-financed, and possessing political clout. They have learned to bypass ordinary scientific processes and instead lobby executive, legislative, and judicial branches for concessions. The newsletter accuses creationists of using unscrupulous tactics, including lying, cheating, and manipulation. A specific example cited is the claim of finding dinosaur prints alongside human footprints in the Paluxy river, Texas. Glen Kuban and a research crew produced proof that these "mantracks" were misidentified prints of a small, three-toed dinosaur. Despite this evidence, creationists continue to search for such tracks. The article also discusses an incident in "Creation/Evolution" journal where Norman Geisler responded to a critique of a misquoted statement attributed to Clarence Darrow. Geisler, from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, attempted to explain the misquote's origin by referencing Wendell Bird's "Yale Law Review" article, but then astonishingly dismissed "Ivy League publications." The author highlights this as an example of "cognitive dissonance" and denial within pseudoscience, where error is not acknowledged but defended. The article further criticizes the dismissal of academic institutions like Yale, Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Dartmouth, and Harvard based on perceived "humanist" leanings.

Article 3: Pseudoscience Contrast

This piece contrasts the scientific approach to error with that of pseudoscience. In science, discovering error is seen as positive, leading to the jettisoning of discredited ideas and progress. There are incentives to find mistakes, making science "truth-converging." In contrast, pseudoscientists react to error as a disaster, creating a disincentive to acknowledge or correct it. They hide "fakes and frauds" to avoid casting doubt on their beliefs. Any notion, however outlandish, can gain prominence if it supports the "party line," and critical evaluation is suppressed. The author emphasizes that committed dogma must appear flawless, and admitting even minor mistakes can threaten the entire edifice and the believers' identity, leading to denial and withdrawal.

Article 4: Ringmaster Exposes Ring Leaders of Spiritual Fraud

This article, by Austin Miles, author of "Don't Call Me Brother," exposes the inner workings of fundraising schemes by figures like Jim Bakker and the PTL ministry. Miles, a former Pentecostal pastor and internationally famous circus ringmaster, details how con-men exploited the faith of millions to gain vast sums of money. The PTL allegedly took advantage of laws protecting freedom of worship, operating without accountability. They built a large machinery of lobby groups and tax dodges to enrich themselves at the expense of the elderly, poor, and pious. Miles plans to reveal "nonexistent 'financial crises', telethons and a level of immorality that makes an honest preacher blush." The article invites readers to hear this first-hand report from someone who witnessed the corruption grow.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of claims that lack scientific rigor or evidence. The publication strongly advocates for skepticism, scientific methodology, and the exposure of fraud, whether in the realm of health claims, creationism, or religious ministries. The editorial stance is clearly anti-pseudoscience, anti-creationism, and critical of religious exploitation. The Bay Area Skeptics aim to provide a platform for rational discourse and to debunk what they perceive as misinformation and harmful beliefs, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based reasoning and critical evaluation.