What’s Wrong With Catching the Measles!

A child with the now eradicated small pox in Bangladesh 1973

A recent article on the warning of a measles epidemic in New Zealand bought out some of the weird and wonderful ideas a (hopefully small) proportion of New Zealanders have about the measles.  What a polarizing subject it is!  The majority of people who were questioning the vaccination were taking what on the face of it is a reasonable stance in that the state should not be able to dictate health care to the public.

For a comprehensive discussion of the scientific reasons why such an argument is flawed I would suggest that you read the Science Based Medicine Blog.  But to summarize there are two principle issues namely herd immunity and risk.

There are members of the community who cannot have vaccinations due to age (such as babies) or due to medical conditions and therefore the only protection that they are afforded is herd immunity to avoid contracting preventable diseases.

Depending on the disease, for effective herd immunity the threshold for the percentage of the population to be immunized is between 75% and 95%.  Effectively, while there is a high number of immunized people, a parent who chooses not to immunize their child will be taking advantage of the herd immunity.  However, when to many parents refuse vaccinations the threshold drops to a point where the disease can thrive and even cause an epidemic.  Once an unvaccinated child contracts a disease they then have to deal with the next principle issue of risk.

The statistical likelihood of a child being harmed by a vaccine is considerably lower than if they actually contract the disease.  Diseases like the measles will cause a small proportion of children significant long term harm or even death due to pneumonia or brain swelling caused by encephalitis.  Such risks are dramatically reduced through the use of vaccination.  People with immunodeficiencies are far also more likely to suffer the extreme effects of these diseases.

So, when many parents refuse to vaccinate their children, it ends up putting many other children at risk.

That’s enough of the dry stuff.  I want to point out some of the pearl’s of wisdom out of the many anecdotal stories that came through the readers comments to the article:

Leigh # 4 asks:

“I would also like to question why the alternative homeopathic vaccination program that was available 20 years ago, which I used successfully, has been removed from the market? Yes, we middle-class parents like to question- and with very good reason!”

I can probably answer this one – it’s because injecting children with magic water does not vaccinate them against diseases!

Phil # 16 after accusing all studies that show the benefits of vaccines as being fraudulent stated:

“Please don’t vaccinate your children, they need to get measles, mumps, chicken pox etc. No-one wishes suffering for any child, but the human body needs to be exposed to these things to work correctly later in life. I believe, through years of research, that vaccinations may well be child abuse.”

So everyone who has had a vaccination and not subsequently contracted disease can not expect to have a body that works correctly later in life…show me the evidence.  Also, I would suggest you observe a child going through the discomfort of the measles, mumps, or the chicken pox – allowing your child to be inflicted with such diseases when they are preventable could also be argued as child abuse.

Les # 19 Does his best to totally butcher year 9 probability:

“Educated parents are aware of the risks, that’s why. A basic risk analysis will show the vaccine isn’t worth it. From the MOH own vaccination site: 1 in 1000 measles cases get inflammation of the brain so using 100 cases a year, it will take ten years before someone should have that complication. However, the same site shows the vaccine causes convulsions in one in 3000 recipients, and inflammation of the brain in 1 in a million. Assuming even 30,000 doses a year, thats at least 10 having convulsions. Not my child thank you”

So lets fairly compare 100 people who are not vaccinated and contracted the measles with 30,000 people who are given a vaccination…spot the imbalance!  In fact according the website if one thousand children contract the measles approximately one will get inflammation of the brain versus 0.001 children in one thousand who suffer inflammation of the brain from the vaccination (of course there still will be a small proportion of vaccinated people who get the measles – but usually because there is no herd immunity!).

Phil # 62 After providing an anecdote that shed no light on the discussion he said:

“Herd ammunity has been proven to be a load of hype, and cannot work. Outbreaks will always happen, and some cases will result in death. No vaccination campaign will ever stop that, even if you choose to believe it will. Vaccines are fraud. End of story, and the MoH knows this but will never back down in their promotion of it. So sad, for the millions who are harmed through vaccines. The diseases will happen anyway: it is not vaccines that has stopped them.”

And small pox just stopped itself…

I thought that Tim #31 gave a good summing up of the skeptical position:

“How is it that in this day and age we have people who believe that vaccines cause autism, 9/11 was carried out by the CIA, the moonlandings were a hoax etc etc. BUT they don’t believe the brain damage and harm the real diseases like measles can cause?

I am a ‘middle class, educated parent’ whatever that means. I say it is a crime not to vaccimate your kids when they are supplied free of charge by the government. What will happen when we have a polio outbreak? or worse… Just get the poor kids vaccinated NOW.”

Apollo 11 Degaussed?

NASA’s recent reported admission that the original footage from the Apollo footage was degaussed along with 200,000 other tapes has resulted in a flurry of discussion on New Zealand’s Stuff website.  This combined with the release of re-mastered digital upgrades of footage taken of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin’s moon landing has provided additional ‘evidence’ for moon hoax conspiracy theorists that the USA never sent people to the moon.

However, I would be keen to know if anyone has a link to the news conference where Richard Nafzger, a NASA engineer, is alleged to have made the admission of the degaussing.  The news story reported on Stuff originated with Reuters and the identical story has been reported all over the world.  The NASA website simply states that a final report is nearly completed in relation to the missing tapes that will be released in the near future – or is this further evidence of the conspiracy?

It goes to show how far reaching the 2001 documentary “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?” has entered into the popular consciousness and contributed to the creation of a bizarre but persistent conspiracy theory that is alive and well in New Zealand.  While many of the comments on the Stuff website were either indifferent or ridiculing the moon hoax conspiracy, a small but vocal minority were insistent that the USA never sent people to the moon.

One of the fervent moon hoax conspirators called ‘Paul T’ made a number of comments claiming that the classic image of Buzz Aldrin used on the Stuff website (and reposted above) is evidence of a fake as it shows evidence of having multiple lighting sources aside from the sun.

For a more comprehensive explanation, I will direct you to Phil Plait’s excellent Bad Astronomy website, but briefly Paul T is right – it does have multiple lighting sources, but not from stage lights.  The obvious lighting source is the sun and the others are the reflective surfaces around Buzz in the photo namely the moon itself!  The moon’s surface dust reflects a small percentage of the sunlight (which is why we see the moon from the Earth) and it serves to slightly illuminate images.  The exposure length and aperture of the camera will also be important in determining the brightness of the reflected light.

‘Paul T’ also makes the ridiculous claim that there were astronauts who were going to speak out about the hoax who died in mysterious circumstances.  This is presumably a reference to the tragic death of the three Apollo 1 astronauts in a launch pad fire.  All I can say is – show me the evidence!

However, the Stuff’s decision to focus on what are minor points in the scheme of the Apollo moon landing are unfortunate given its wide readership in New Zealand.  Lets hope they have something more of celebratory tone for Apollo 11’s 40th anniversary on Monday the 20th of July.

New Zealand’s Best Known Homeopath is Interviewed

Recently “New Zealand’s best known homeopath” (I have never heard of her – perhaps I don’t watch enough television), Gwyneth Evans featured on Breakfast on TV One to respond to the criticisms made by Dr Shaun Holt that homeopathy only operates due to the placebo effect.

I would hope that the average New Zealander would watch this clip and not require a deep understanding of science or the scientific method to see homeopathy for what it is – wishful thinking.

While briefly explaining the underpinning framework for homeopathy, Mrs Evans says that it has been around for 200 years. The only comment I have in response to this is that I am pleased that due to modern medicines reliance on the scientific method, it has done away with bloodletting, the theory of four humours, and astrological influences on medicine.

However, rather than presenting a general critique of homeopathy (if you are interested then have a read of Dr Stephen Barrett’s article) I want to touch upon some of the things raised by Mrs Evans.

When asked about the efficacy of homeopathy, her reply is that rather than relying upon a crude physiological drug, there is a homeopathic energy or vibration that is retained in the substance that triggers the bodies own innate healing power.

As with most woo, once again ‘energy’ is presented as some kind of magical field or property (for which there is no scientific evidence of). To borrow the term used by Brian Dunning, energy is a measurement of something’s ability to perform work. It is not some all encompassing field that impacts upon vials of water sold as medicine or people, in this respect there is a distinct common misunderstanding about what ‘energy’ actually is.

Consider Einstein’s well known and little understood equation of E=MC2, mass can be expressed in grams and speed in metres per second. So simply put an objects energy equals the amount of work it takes to move a few grams a few metres in a few seconds. Energy is a measurement of work, not some bizarre made up energy field akin to the Force from Starwars.

With this in mind, it simply does not make any logical sense to say that the water retains the energy or the vibrations of original substance it contained and that it somehow interacts with the body’s ‘energy’.

Furthermore, if it did indeed trigger the body’s innate healing power, then this should be something that can be scientifically observed and I am still waiting on the evidence for this and the underlying theory about its mechanism.

While I am on this subject, further on into the interview Mrs Evans is asked about the scientific evidence for homeopathy, and she pulls out the old “it’s a different paradigm” card. What she means is that the homeopathic community has decided that the rigorous testing that science demands no longer applies to them as it has a different understanding of disease and health when compared to evidence based practises.

I would hazard a guess that the reason for such an attitude is because there is very little scientific evidence for her discipline, if the scientific evidence supported homeopathy, do you think that homeopaths would be saying that the positive results did not apply to them as their paradigm cannot be measured by science? On the contrary they would be quick to trumpet the results.

It is quite simple, there is no paradigm shift, homeopathy claims to cure people of illness and therefore its effects are measurable. Homeopathy claims to trigger an innate healing ability and therefore there is a physiological response, which requires a mechanism.

Evidence Based Faith

In Thursday’s letter to the editor section of the Dominion Post, there was a response to the proposed guidelines to allow students to opt out of religious activities in New Zealand’s public schools. A letter written by Jeff Tallon of Muritai says:

The Human Rights Commission’s draft guidelines on religious education state that everyone’s beliefs should be treated respectfully and all views are equally valid (Jan 10-11).

Though I don’t support compulsory religious education, the commission’s position is questionable. All views are not equally valid – we must apply rational tests to beliefs.

The commission has painted itself into an empty corner. It is really asserting that no religious system is true or can be taken to be true and so none should take precedence.

But this ignores the rational basis for faith. One hundred and fifty years ago, Christian/Jewish faith was essentially a blind belief in ancient stories. But that has changed. Archaeology, epigraphy, ancient history, astronomy and even modern cosmology and molecular biology present a powerful body of evidence for traditional Christian faith. And if a religious system is true in the historical, scientific sense, then perhaps it deserves precedence.

Our national position on religious education comes from our commitment to secular government, not because faith has not rational basis, and definitely not because of tacit assumptions that all religious faiths are untrue.

While I appreciate that the short word length expected of a letter to the editor means that it is difficult for all the evidence to be laid out, the writer of the letter appears to be believe that a rational basis for Judeo-Christian beliefs can be found throughout the sciences. The initial question that comes to mind is what particular brand of belief is he referring to, as many different denominations accept or reject (or as a middle-ground, accept as metaphor) a wide variety of Biblical passages. They also have different concepts of God and other supernatural beliefs. Is he referring to the ‘evidence’ that shows that the Earth was created 6000 years ago according to the Book of Genesis or the scientific evidence that it was created 4.5 billion years ago?

Such a sweeping scientific claims are hollow as there is no scientific consensus across all of the disciplines mentioned that anything supernatural could account for observations or discoveries that have been made. One could employ the logical fallacy of final consequences and say that the Christian faith must be true as the perfect nature of the universe is a testament to God’s ability for creation. Perhaps it is the argument from personal incredulity, in that the writer believes that due to the complex nature of the world that no other explanation apart from God is possible. Such arguments are implied through the use of such a broad range of scientific disciplines to support the rational basis of the Christian faith. Of course such arguments are invalid and therefore have no rational basis.

What is clear from the scientific evidence through the application of cosmological, geological, and biological observation and theory is that supernatural forces are not required for the existence of the universe, the Earth, or people. The current scientific thinking across all disciplines does not provide support for the proposition that omnipotent Gods, demons, or angels have previously (or currently) impacted upon the lives of people.

Many claims made within the Bible, while theoretically possible to test, are now impossible to test due to the passage of time and all that remains is faith on the part of the particular religions followers. The few things that have been amenable to testing, such as the shroud of Turin, have proven to be at best controversial and at worst shown to be medieval forgery.

Furthermore, apologists from a variety of other religions as varied as Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology would make similar claims about the validity of the scientific underpinnings of their religions.

Mr Tallon has made an assumption that the underlying rationale for the guidelines is that all religious faiths are equally untrue. The employment of such guidelines does not say anything about the veracity of a religious position. Rather it reinforces the secular nature of our Government and our country, while allowing those minority groups with different belief structures freedom from pressure to conform to the religious beliefs of another group.

The Threat of Defamation

An Australian poster going by the name of AndyD on the JREF forums has recently had a run in with Ezio De Angelis, a self described psychic medium who was a finalist in the recent television series The One. This show pitted various psychics against each other in a showdown to determine who was Australia’s top psychic.

AndyD edited and posted on Youtube a satirical video of De Angelis conducting a psychic reading from ‘The One’. The principal edits were of the sitter providing many more negative answers than what was shown and the rationale of the video was to highlight the number of misses that had made their way to the cutting room floor during the editing process for the episode.

In late September De Angelis contacted AndyD and told him:

“This video is part of a pending Defamation and compensation action. It has already been removed from Bad Psychics.Com as part of this legal process.

In order to ensure that you are not implicit in the litigation you are required to remove the video and commentary immediately.”

This threat of legal action upset AndyD sufficiently to not only remove the video from Youtube, but also remove half of his posts on his blog. He has since reinstated most of the posts, but the video has not been put back on Youtube.

Without the benefit of viewing the video, it is difficult to judge if it is actually defamatory (and anyway I am no lawyer), but this is a common tactic attempted by some of the more high profile psychics to have blogs, articles, and websites that are critical of them removed from the Internet. Uri Geller is notorious for his litigation and famously filed action against Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and James Randi which inadvertently resulted in James Randi and CSICOP parting ways.

Threats of defamation are not restricted to those who dabble in the supernatural world, but also in pseudoscientific realms such as the recent threat of legal action made by New Zealand Chiropractic Association against the New Zealand Medical Journal.

For those sceptics who have an Internet presence, they are open to the threat of litigation (whether it has a basis or not) and for most people the prospect of having the hassle and expense of a civil hearing is sufficient to give in to such threats.

In New Zealand the Defamation Act 1992 provides  are two defenses that can be used, the first is that the defamatory statement is the truth, which on the face of it seems straight forward. However, the burden of proof lies on the person making the statement to show that it is true. The second defense is that it is an honestly held opinion. With this defense, the facts presented must be correct and it must be clear that it is the personal opinion of the person making the statement. Furthermore, the opinion must be genuinely held.

This should not be taken as legal advice and if you are the subject of legal action then make sure that you get advice from a suitably qualified solicitor.

Believe it or Not: NZ Survey

The Sunday Star Times (A New Zealand paper) is running a survey in conjunction with Marc Wilson (A senior philosophy lecturer at Victoria University) over the next week or two testing New Zealand’s beliefs in superstitions and the like.  An article in last weekend’s Sunday Star Times briefly covers the survey and includes a discussion by Vicki Hyde (chair of NZ Skeptics) about skepticism including her description of one NZ Skeptics conference:

“When the Sceptics Conference opened one year on a Friday 13th, we had a ladder parked over the entrance doorway and everyone came through under it. We also had a box of mirror glass to break, chain mail letters to ignore, salt to spill, umbrellas to open inside. It was the one conference where all the speakers ran to time.”

It is good to see NZ skeptics in the news making good points and also making the point that skepticism is not dry cynicism but actually is fun.

The survey itself is quite interesting and I look forward to the results which should be fascinating.  I hope they good a good response to it so we can make some useful inferences.  The link can be found in the article above or directly here. 

Having just done the survey I can say that it deals with superstitions, pseudoscience, lotteries, religion, a strange question about attitudes to different social groups, conspiracy theories, urban myths, alternative medicine, and a few other issues in quite a bit of detail.  I did find it quite hard to answer some of the questions due to the wording (which is typical of such surveys) but generally it wasn’t too bad for this sort of survey (I have seen way worse).  The temptation of winning a new blackberry was nice too – I need a new phone so fingers crossed… here’s hoping!

NZ Chiropractors vs NZ Medical Journal

Thanks to Mary’s comment and a few other sources for pointing out this interesting development in the New Zealand medical scene.

New Zealand has created a small buzz internationally with an interesting dispute based on a very well written and timely New Zealand Medical Journal editorial piece by David Colquhoun entitled “Doctor Who?  Inappropriate use of titles by some alternative “medicine” practitioners.“  The full editorial is available here. 

Two points stood out from this editorial for me.  Firstly Colquhoun states:

The first thing one wants to know about any treatment —alternative or otherwise — is whether it works. Until that is decided, all talk of qualifications, regulation, and so on is just vacuous bureaucratese. No policy can be framed sensibly until the question of efficacy has been addressed honestly.

This really hits home the problem with chiropractic “medicine”: there simply is no true indication of its efficacy as a treatment for anything, but plenty of evidence it can cause problems such as strokes.  Yet they give off an aura of being a profession with equal academic backing to standard medicine. 

The second point that I thought was interesting was that chiropractors who claim to be medical doctors are already breaking NZ law but the law is simply not enforced.  I did a quick search and it seems the relevant legislation is the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, of which section 7 contains the relevant information.  It seems the issue could be solved quite quickly by simply applying the law as written and this is what Colquhoun recommends.  I do wonder if the penalties are severe enough though, entailing a fine not exceeding $10,000, and I also wonder about the wording – I suspect a good lawyer could wriggle a pseudo-doctor out of any fine.

What makes things interesting however is that this article was met with a rather aggressive response from the New Zealand Chiropractic Association via a letter to the NZMJ from their lawyer, Paul Radich.  The NZMJ reproduced the letter (here).  The claim is made that the editorial (and another paper by Dew et al) is “one of the most blatant examples of defamation that we have seen.”  The letter then goes on to demand a retraction, apology, opportunity for rebuttal and costs under the Defamation act. 

What has really set the world alight however is the response by the editor of the NZMJ, Frank Frizelle.  In it he discusses the letter from Radich, and then concludes with:

The Journal has a responsibility to deal with all issues and not to steer clear of those issues that are difficult or contentious or carry legal threats. Let the debate continue in the evidence-based tone set by Colquhoun and others.

I encourage, as we have done previously, the chiropractors and others to join in, let’s hear your evidence not your legal muscle.

As the Holford Watch blog states, “it isn’t often that you come across a newly-minted phrase that is destined to become a classic but Professor Frank Frizelle has managed it”.  I can see people quoting that last sentence for years to come, myself included.  Evidence based thought rather than lawyer based thought all the way!

What I find disappointing is that the New Zealand media doesn’t seem to have picked up on this issue (if someone has heard of it on the news or radio please let me know).  Without media coverage it will probably die down quite quickly which is a shame because it is a lost opportunity to raise public awareness of this important issue.  Far too many people (including me until a couple of years ago) think that, as a dentist is a “tooth doctor” and an optometrist is an “eye doctor”, that a chiropractic is a “back doctor”.  This is manifestly not the case even if what they do is genuinely beneficial (which in my opinion it is almost certainly not) and the general public need to realise this.

For what it is worth, my advice is that if you have back problems go and see your doctor or a physiotherapist.  I have had back problems and my physio sorted it, and I have been fine since.  For extensive information about chiropractors check out chirobase and for the flipside, check out the New Zealand Chiropractors Association website.

For more details and posts about the NZMJ legal ”battle” check out this page which seems to be keeping up to date with posts about the issue, and Colquhoun’s own site here.

Astronaut Edgar Mitchell on Campbell Live

Recently Edgar Mitchell has returned to the public eye 37 years after setting the current record for the longest moon walk. Mr Mitchell is one of the privileged few who has had such an opportunity, but his most recent public statements risk over shadowing his important space exploration legacy.

On the 8th of August 2008 he appeared on TV3’s Campbell Live to discuss his belief that the Roswell UFO incident occurred. Coincidentally he lived in Roswell at the time of the alleged UFO crash that occurred in 1947 and he commented that he did not think much of it at the time.

The reason he did not think much of it was because no one did think much of it, the mythology that surrounds the Roswell UFO incident did not enter the public consciousness until the publication of The Roswell Incident in 1980 by Charles Berlitz and William L. Moore where it was contended that a UFO had crashed and the military had covered it up. The 1990’s saw a flurry of books being published that expanded the mythology even further and the idea that alien bodies were recovered from the wreckage was introduced.

Mr Mitchell told John Campbell that he was privy to information from ‘old timers’ who told him that alien bodies had been recovered from the site, and that a fourth alien was alive and subsequently assisted the US authorities. He has refused to disclose who these ‘old timers’ are during other interviews. This is unsatisfactory in determining whether his position is based upon a solid foundation.

The evidence for the Roswell incident is weak. The books tend to be based upon witness testimony obtained some 30 to 40 years after the events. This in it self presents its own problems due to the well understood problems that arise out of relying upon memory. Furthermore, very few of the people interviewed were eyewitnesses, rather they were reporting hearsay evidence, which weakens the strength of the evidence even further. Other witnesses have been shown to intentionally or unintentionally inflate or fabricate testimony about what they did see in 1947.

Supporters of the Roswell incident point to the cover up carried out by the air force as evidence to support an alien crash. They are correct that there was a cover up, but for a much more earthly reason. The item that crashed was a high altitude balloon that carried experimental top secret equipment that the air force hoped would detect Soviet nuclear tests. In the increasingly tense years after the Second World War, it is not surprising that the air force would move quickly to clean up the crash site and release a cover story that it was a weather balloon.

Perhaps Mr Mitchell could be forgiven for having one errant belief that he has reluctantly made public – as he said to John Campbell, he has been recounting his belief in aliens at Roswell to many people for the last 10 years, but it has only recently come to the attention of the mainstream media. However, in the years after his tenure as an astronaut he set up the Institute for Noetic Science that investigates the powers of consciousness, including areas that do not fit into the conventional scientific methods – in other words such questionable things like psychic abilities, consciousness surviving death, and alternative medicines, just to name a few.

Given his apparent belief in many alternative ideas and the conspiracy around the Roswell incident, I am surprised that he has not jumped on the bandwagon and stated that the moon landings were false as well.

Paranormal Investigation in New Zealand Part Three

In part three of this three part series that examines paranormal investigation groups, Christiaan checks out some of the instruments used to detect the paranormal.

Now having read the first two articles you may have at this point dismissed some of my rationalisations of the ghost hunters claims. Why? Because these investigation groups use all of these scientific instruments like EMF detecters, infrared cameras and temperature gauges (and in the case of Christchurch’s Spooks Paranormal Investigations – dowsing) to detect ghosts don’t they?

There does appear to be variability between the different groups in the emphasis placed upon instruments in the detection of the paranormal. Brad Scott at the Wellington Based NZ Paranormal has stressed that his investigations do not rely upon instruments, whereas looking at the Spooks Paranormal Investigations videos, they do appear to place some importance on their use.

What is it that these instruments do? What do they measure? And how does this relate to ghosts? Lets look at some of the more popular instruments:

Night vision cameras are often employed at various locations around the premise in question. Active infrared cameras are the most likely cameras to be used, probably because they are the cheaper (NZ$125 – $350) compared with thermal imaging cameras (NZ$400 – $1000’s). Active infrared cameras have near infrared lights fixed to them, so they illuminate the vicinity of the camera in infrared spectrum rather than actually detecting warm and cold areas of the room, which is what a thermal imaging camera does. With this in mind it would probably serve the investigator no better if they were to invest in a normal camera with a light attached to it. What they appear to assume is that a ghost may not be detected in the visible light spectrum, but it can be detected in the near infrared spectrum. Why is this when traditionally ghost photos have been taken using normal cameras? There is also often an assumption that ghosts effect the temperature, so if paranormal investigators are operating under this hypothesis then a thermal imaging camera would be more appropriate.

Thermometers (Both laser and local). As previously seen in the Spooks video, they used infrared thermometers to measure the temperature to look for hot and cold spots that may indicate the presence of a ghost. Once again the issue arises that there is no scientific link between temperature and spirits. Furthermore, every time they take a measurement with one of these devices they are measuring the temperature of what ever they are pointing at, which in most cases would be the walls. The thermometers cannot measure the ambient air temperature. If there happened to be hot water pipes running behind a wall, or the other side of the room contained a wall that was heated, or if the house was cooling from the days warmth, there is going to be variation in the various surface temperatures in different parts of the buildings. With that in mind if you are constantly moving and pointing a thermometer at different parts of the room the reading will be variable. This in turn could be misinterpreted as evidence of the paranormal.

EMF meters are often seen being waved around a haunted location. Once again there is no scientific evidence to suggest that ghosts will emit or interfere with electromagnetic fields. Most EMF meters on the market are designed to measure in the 50/60Hz range as this is usually the range of mains electricity, although due to the unsupported fear of electromagnetic radiation causing cancer a range of meters are on the market. Spooks appear to use a product called ‘Cell Sensor’ which is an EMF meter that can measure a wide range of electromagnetic radiation and for added effect it has a red light and beep that is reminiscent of a Geiger counter from the movies. However, there are a vast range of electrical products that may emit electromagnetic fields and you are likely to detect a phenomena such as a ‘ghost’ kettle (or in the case of paranormal investigators a ghost infrared camera). A range of sources would need to be eliminated before you could then conclude that there was a field from an unknown origin – but then it would just be that – a field of an unknown origin. You could not then conclude it was a ghost. If one believes that the soul/spirit/ghost emits electromagnetic fields, then taken to its logical conclusion, if you were to agree that a soul was contained in a person when they were alive that subsequently became a ghost, then paranormal investigators could try to detect their own soul with an EMF meter. Would it be possible to differentiate between the small EMF field that the body emits and the soul that is floating around inside? If ghost hunters were looking for one way to provide evidence to validate the claim that paranormal entities emit EMF’s then that could be a hypothesis worth testing.

Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP’s) are often touted as evidence for the supernatural and paranormal investigators are no stranger to their detection. Only a tape recorder is required. This subject is lengthy and complicated due to the multiple environmental, psychological, and perceptive variables involved. But simply the most likely explanation of EVP’s is auditory pareidolia, which is where the brain incorrectly interprets random patterns as having being a familiar pattern , or apophenia, which is the brains tendency to find meaning in random patterns. To demonstrate the brains ability to make meaningful representations out of random patterns listen to this sine-wave speech (make sure that you listen to this one first!):

Click me first (Requires Quicktime)

What did it say? If you have not heard it before it probably sounded like a whole lot of random noises.

The following is the original speech prior to it being degraded:

Click me second (Requires Quicktime)

Now go back and listen to the first recording again. It just seems so clear now doesn’t it? (For more examples check out this Sine-Wave speech website and this website). Research into sine-wave speech has found that the more a person is exposed to it, the better they get at identifying the voices. A paranormal investigator who spends hours listening to the static and background noise of their audio recordings are unconsciously training themselves to improve their ability to construct meaning out of random noise. They in turn can then isolate these random noises and then communicate the meaning to another person who will immediately ‘hear’ the voice.

The general theme of these instruments is that the underlying assumptions for their usefulness are not particularly compelling. Even if one was to accept that there were spirits or energies that existed after death, none of these instruments have a scientific basis for their efficacy.

Discussion:

People all over the world believe that their homes are haunted or subject to paranormal influences. They often do seek explanations for the phenomena that they experience, so to just write off paranormal investigation groups is not a constructive approach. However, like any field there is always room for improvement based upon constructive criticism. So how could such groups improve the robustness of their investigations?

An open mind is important and one should start at the position of not knowing what has caused the phenomenon rather than going in as believing the location is haunted or being a hardline debunker.

The background research of the address is very important. Interviews with witnesses need to be detailed and only open ended questions should be used. It may be very tempting to use leading questions (particularly if you are trying to angle towards a preconceived bias). Ideally they should be interviewed as soon as possible after an event, and the facts of the event should be focussed upon, not the witnesses opinion. Interviews should be recorded with an audio device and then transcribed. If appropriate, the witness should be questioned about any medication they are taking and also whether they are suffering from any medical or psychological illness.

There are a number of psychological considerations when interviewing that relate to the tainting of memory through the repeated telling of the narrative, the impact of ones worldview, and how an event fits into the popular culture. Corroboration, where possible, of a witnesses account is important as it provides a little more weight to their anecdotal account.

If particular myths are identified then they should be thoroughly researched to establish their veracity. It is not unusual to find in cases of alleged hauntings where the person who was supposed to be the ghost either never existed or did not live at the location in question.

The investigation needs to focus on replicating as closely as possible the environment and circumstances that a paranormal event was witnessed. Then the goal of the experiment would be to see if the paranormal phenomenon as described by the witness occurs as they described it (i.e. replication is being sought). This is where items like cameras or temperature gauges could come in handy depending on what is to be observed. For example if it is alleged that there is a cold spot in a certain location, then this could actually be measured.

If a phenomenon is identified, then ideally it should be independently replicated (where possible) to boost the probability that there was an unexplained event initially observed or measured.

Depending on the paranormal event being measured, baseline measurements should be taken. Continuing with the cold spot example, then the temperature should be measured at a range of times throughout the day and night, not just at the time of the replication of the environment.

There should be standardized note taking to assist with the comparison of investigations.

When weighing up results, do not fall into the trap of deferring to a paranormal conclusion simply because it cannot be explained. If a phenomena cannot be explained, then the conclusion should be that it is unexplained. The conclusion that a phenomena is paranormal is going to require positive proof or evidence.

Finally, do away with EMF meters, dowsing rods, EVP’s, infrared cameras, and temperature gauges, unless they are going to be used to assist with measuring or recording of the replication of a previously described environment.

Happy ghost hunting!

NZ Skeptics Conference

Those people who follow skepticism internationally will only just be recovering from all the great interviews and articles that came out of the Amaz!ng Meeting in Las Vegas in June 2008. On the horizon is the New Zealand Skeptics meeting that is due to run for three days starting on the evening of Friday the 26^th of September 2008 in Hamilton at the Waikato Diocesan College. The speakers they have lined up will touch upon a variety of topics including magic, immunisation, and sexual abuse. For further information click here and here.