A suggestion for James Randi and the JREF

[Exposer]

I have read the controversy over James Randi's (hilarious) refusal to test a man who claims he has not eaten food since 1998 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19874).

Every now and then, one of these clowns pops up in the news. Take this guy for example...


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/11/26/offbeat.india.fast/vstory.mystic.afp.jpg

Mystic's fast baffles doctors

Thursday, November 27, 2003

Prahlad Jani says his fasting ability is divinely inspired.

The magician's recent stunt of going 44 days without food is child's play compared with the alleged efforts of India's Prahlad Jani.

This 76-year-old Indian mystic claims to have survived the past 68 years -- yes, years -- without eating, drinking or going to the toilet.

It's an astonishing claim, and one which is being investigated by a team of doctors at the Sterling Hospital in Ahmedabad in India's of the state of Gujarat.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/11/26/offbeat.india.fast/


Now, I don't know if this particular guy has been debunked or not, but here's my suggestion: Absurd as the claims might be, I think James Randi should test one of these guys -- the highest profile case he can find -- and debunk him.

I would suggest teaming up with a news magazine show like 20/20 or DATELINE to get more public exposure for the JREF, its mission, and to publicize the humiliation of the exposed claimant to millions of regular folks.

I'm sure James Randi can come up with a great testing facility and methodology. Perhaps some hidden nightvision cameras might catch the guy wolfing down chocolate donuts or something. :D

Really, if the controls are tight enough, there are only two possible outcomes for this test: 1) The guy breaks down and is rushed to the hospital. 2) He gets caught red-handed trying to eat something.

It could make good TV, a PR score for the JREF and skeptics in general, and deal a temporary blow to kooks, charlatans and fools worldwide.

[coalesce]

If I'm not mistaken, Randi has already said that he wouldn't test pople like him because of the health issues involved.

Perhaps someone else knows for sure and can provide the link.

Thanks!

Michael

[Exposer]

Obviously legal waivers and strict medical supervision would be necessary.

[reprise]

From memory, Randi also said that he's tested a couple of people making these claims before. I guess the question because is the JREF obliged to test EVERY diviner and EVERY psychic or should we at some point say "OK, lets give a different type of claim ago until some new evidence comes along which would justify continuing to test more of the same"?

[Exposer]

I know. I have read Randi's comments about testing these types of characters. I understand where he is coming from, but I think he should test one, then he can be done with this for at least ten years.

I mean, Randi continues to expose the "blindfolded girls reading newspapers," even though they are exactly the same as cases he debunked more than 20 years ago.

[CFLarsen]

There are deep ethical problems with testing such a claim, the most severe is the consequences of prolongued famine and dehydration. When Breatharian Jasmuheen was tested, they had to stop the experiment after 4 (IIRC) days, because she showed symptoms of physical breakdown.

The only way to "prove" such a claim is to go on, until the brink of death. I would not even begin entertaining such an idea - just think of the legal and moral repercussions by letting an applicant for the million bucks starve to death.

One way of testing such a person is to say: Can you stop radiating heat (that is, energy) for x hours? That means, no sweat, no heat. It's easy to test, just put him in an insulated box with oxygen and a lot of thermometers. If the temperature goes up, he obviously cannot go on forever. Ergo, he cannot have gone for 68 years without eating or drinking.

If he sweats, he drinks. It's that simple.

[Exposer]

CFLarson, that is much too logical of a test -- they will never go for it!

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by coalesce
Perhaps someone else knows for sure and can provide the link.
Sure. (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/QuotesPages/ClaimsNoLongerConsidered.html)

[Pantastic]

The simple test for anyone who claims not to eat is furring of the tongue. The papillae of the tongue are constantly being shed when you eat, much as skin is shed. If a person does not eat, their tongue becomes furred. This gets past any excuse about getting 'energy from spirits/the sun/God' etc. People fed intravenously for long periods develop furred tongues.

PS. this is my first ever post here. Be gentle.

[Exposer]

Welcome, Pantastic.

[Marian]

As much as I hate to agree, because I'd love to see such claims debunked, the ethical question is the problem.

Let's say I claim I'm immortal. So I ask someone to shoot me in the head to prove my claim. No takers? Okay then I'll shoot myself in the head to demonstrate my immortality.

While I'm certain that I could sell tickets to such an event, the reality is that it's ethically uncool. I know that such a claim is false, therefore allowing someone to demonstrate it by killing themselves is unethical. I don't need to be right that badly. :\ A more simple test in such a case would be to merely take a DNA test, and wait for the inevitible to occur.

It reminds me a bit of people who claim they can levitate, and to demonstrate it, they jump from the highest rooftops. Why the hell can't they start from the ground?

Anyway a 'better' test (just off the top of my head) would be to manage input and output. If you can subsist without food and water, then let's give them food and water. Measure the output, it should equal the input if they don't need food and water. Easy enough, right? And safe since they're not undergoing dangerous dehydration or starvation.

[Ladewig]

An additional problem with these kinds of test is that when the person is on the brink of death and is rushed to the hospital to be given the glucose IV drip, the person (upon recovering consciousness) will say, "you violated the rules of the test, I was fine and could have kept going for weeks. You obviously broke the rules because you knew I was going to win."

[Gaga]

I won't be the one administering the latest test proposed... digging the byproduct of one's digestion is not my idea of a nice afternoon.

to be realistic I'd say that this specific claim is a bit too crazy to justify the time and money spent on a debunking (not to mention the crap-digging, as above)

[Zep]

Personally, if the right protocol was agreed, I would say it is easy. And the operative parts, among others, would be:

"That the claimant is housed at all times under 24-hour surveillance and without clothes in a cell without any plumbing facilities. There will be no access to the claimant by any person whatsoever at any time during the test. "

"That the claimant is provided on demand only with water tested by the tester or his agents to be free of all human nutrients. Suitable comfortable bed and bedclothing will be supplied by the tester or his agents. No other items will be exchanged with the claimant at any time by any person."

"That a chamber pot will be provided for urination, which will be emptied and cleansed on demand only by the tester or his agents."

"That if the claimant has a bowel motion AT ANY TIME after the start of the test then the test is over and the claim is lost."

Think about it... I await the first urging... :D

[Exposer]

I personally have no problem with letting one of these clowns earn himself a Darwin Award in pursuit of the million bucks. :D

Really, engaging in this sort of test is no more dangerous than, say, entering a sanctioned boxing match.

[KAW143]

I, too, would love to see something along these lines tested, but I can think of no real way to do so. First of all, these people are not claiming that they *can* do something; they are making claims about what they don't do. And it is very difficult to prove a negative. Essentially, you would need to watch them 24/7 until they die or you catch somebody slipping them a ding-Dong. But wait! It get a bit more wierd when you realize that many of these people (I'm thinking, especaially, of Jashumeen here, and she cites several other non-eaters on her website and in her book "Living on Light") do not claim to take in no nutrients whatsoever. Quite the contrary. The *do* take in nutrients all of the time, but they get all of their nutrients from the air and from the sun. These sources, they claim, are simply so rich and bountiful that they have found that they need no physically eaten food source. Well, if they are taking in nutrients, anyway, any and all kinds of biological functions will be going on -- heat, sweating, what have you. I even imagine that one could explain away a bowel movement with little effort ("Well, I haven't gone to the bathroom for 68 years, but I got a bit more sun today than I usually do and it made me a might gassy. . . "). And we would still be no closer to determining the source of their nutrients. Further, some of these people even claim that they *do* occasionally eat (once, again, Jashumeen), but only becuase they *want* to, not becuase they *must*. So even if you caught somebody throwing them a HoHo, it would just be because they wanted something sweet, not because they needed to eat. Frankly, these guys have left themselves SO MANY outs as to make any attempt at actually testing them impossible. They would literally have an answer for anything.

(edited to correct a couple of glaring type-os. . . .)

[Exposer]

Originally posted by Ladewig
An additional problem with these kinds of test is that when the person is on the brink of death and is rushed to the hospital to be given the glucose IV drip, the person (upon recovering consciousness) will say, "you violated the rules of the test, I was fine and could have kept going for weeks. You obviously broke the rules because you knew I was going to win."

You could make it a "to the end" test. If they request medical intervention, they fail. If not, let nature take its course.

You can tell the applicants, "The good news is, you're guaranteed to one of two prizes: Randi's million or a Darwin Award."

;)

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Exposer
I know. I have read Randi's comments about testing these types of characters. I understand where he is coming from, but I think he should test one, then he can be done with this for at least ten years.

If you've spoken to enough believers you'll know that just because one of these goons is exposed as a fraud, that won't convince them that the NEXT one isn't the real deal.

[Tricky]

Jeez, it's so obvious. You don't have to make him fast until he dies. You simply agree in the protocols that after a certain amount of weight loss (enough to verify that is is not just a random fluctuation, but not enough to be dangerous), the test is declared over.

Obviously, a breathairian could not continue to lose weight all his life, so determining that he does in fact lose weight due to fasting should be enough.

[Exposer]

Originally posted by Tricky
Jeez, it's so obvious. You don't have to make him fast until he dies. You simply agree in the protocols that after a certain amount of weight loss (enough to verify that is is not just a random fluctuation, but not enough to be dangerous), the test is declared over.

Obviously, a breathairian could not continue to lose weight all his life, so determining that he does in fact lose weight due to fasting should be enough.

This is probably the best answer.

[KAW143]

Originally posted by Tricky
Jeez, it's so obvious. You don't have to make him fast until he dies. You simply agree in the protocols that after a certain amount of weight loss (enough to verify that is is not just a random fluctuation, but not enough to be dangerous), the test is declared over.

Obviously, a breathairian could not continue to lose weight all his life, so determining that he does in fact lose weight due to fasting should be enough.

I don't see how this would prove anything to a believer. The subject being tested could simply say that he or she was simply "taking in less sun than usual", or trying to lose weight or some such. Even if lack of weight loss was a requisite for the test, they could still weasel out of it with the true believers. "I caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror and changed my mind. I was so big, I had to lose weight!"

[kedo1981]

a simple blood test that takes about an hour would do

[Tricky]

Originally posted by KAW143


I don't see how this would prove anything to a believer. The subject being tested could simply say that he or she was simply "taking in less sun than usual", or trying to lose weight or some such. Even if lack of weight loss was a requisite for the test, they could still weasel out of it with the true believers. "I caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror and changed my mind. I was so big, I had to lose weight!"
As I said, the amount of weight loss would have to be stated in the testing protocol to preempt "believer" objections. The applicant would also have to agree in advance that he was not going to try to intentionally lose weight.

[LFTKBS]

I'm going to vote for the "let them die" option.

[tim]

Originally posted by Pantastic
The simple test for anyone who claims not to eat is furring of the tongue. The papillae of the tongue are constantly being shed when you eat, much as skin is shed. If a person does not eat, their tongue becomes furred. This gets past any excuse about getting 'energy from spirits/the sun/God' etc. People fed intravenously for long periods develop furred tongues.

PS. this is my first ever post here. Be gentle.

Welcome, Pantastic.
Do you have a link on this please? My tongue gets furred when I drink too much........................
:D :D :D

[KAW143]

Originally posted by Tricky

As I said, the amount of weight loss would have to be stated in the testing protocol to preempt "believer" objections. The applicant would also have to agree in advance that he was not going to try to intentionally lose weight.

Don't get me wrong here. I agree with you. However, whereas a loss of weight might convince you and me that this guy is lying, I don't think that it would convince anyone who truly believes. Why? Because I don't think that the people who buy this are truly with us, on this world. This is so far beyond the pale, it is invisible. So far on the edge of the fringe, it is on a different rug entirely. This is not a normal claim of some supernatural ability; this is not a man claiming to be able to bend or even break one or two laws of physics. This is a man who is claiming to be supernatura personified, capable of breaking every single law of physics and biology to boot! (With the possible exception of reproductive laws, but I'll stop before this gets too scatological. . . ) What scientific "proof" could stand up, when everything science has ever learned has already been rejected so that the believers could believe?

[Pantastic]

I think that the problem with ignoring claims, even utterly ridiculous ones such as this, is that it leaves skeptical people open to criticism.

'You only test people you know are frauds. What about that guy who lives on nothing but faith in God - you never tested him because you know he's for real'.

We should be open to testing any claim as far as we are able to do so. Otherwise we get labelled as selectively ignoring stuff we know is 'genuine'.


As for a link on furred tongues, it's kinda in my brain, not sure how to link to that...
I'll see if I can dig up something on it. Not eating is not the only cause, and sometimes vitamin deficiencies can cause the tongue to become very smooth. But someone who claims to be well nourished through a method other than taking nutrients orally (whether intravenous fed, a tube into the stomach, through 'sun rays' or whatever) will get furring of the tongue.

[CurtC]

I thought about googling for "tongue furring", but then realized that pages linked probably wouldn't be the ones I want on my office computer.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Exposer
Obviously legal waivers and strict medical supervision would be necessary.

I just don't buy that reasoning. In what way could Randi be held responsible if some idiot starves himself to death?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by billydkid


I just don't buy that reasoning. In what way could Randi be held responsible if some idiot starves himself to death? I don't know if he could.

However, I think (but have no proof) that the Guinness World Records Book changed policy a few years ago and stopped accepting new records in some areas involving 'how much xxx can you eat in two hours' and such. IIRC, they were worried about deaths and law suits.

[T'ai Chi]

There's a reason why the guy is called a mystic and not a scientist.

[Zep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There's a reason why the guy is called a mystic and not a scientist. OK, I'll bite.


What is that reason, TC?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Pantastic
I think that the problem with ignoring claims, even utterly ridiculous ones such as this, is that it leaves skeptical people open to criticism.

'You only test people you know are frauds. What about that guy who lives on nothing but faith in God - you never tested him because you know he's for real'.

We should be open to testing any claim as far as we are able to do so. Otherwise we get labelled as selectively ignoring stuff we know is 'genuine'.

#1. They're going to say that anyway. They have and they do.

#2. Unless we test every claim on the planet at our expense. That's a lot of money and a lot of manpower. I couldn't afford to quit my job and become a globe trotting sceptical test doer. (Although it would probably be a cool experience.)

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I don't know if he could.

However, I think (but have no proof) that the Guinness World Records Book changed policy a few years ago and stopped accepting new records in some areas involving 'how much xxx can you eat in two hours' and such. IIRC, they were worried about deaths and law suits.

I'm not that familiar with the law, but I do know that you can't sign away your life with a wavier. For example, no matter how many forms I sign, I can't give you a legal excuse to shoot me in the head.

Any test taker would probably have some responsibility for health issues and any possible deaths. Do we have any legal eagles on the board who know for sure?

[Exposer]

Originally posted by KAW143


Don't get me wrong here. I agree with you. However, whereas a loss of weight might convince you and me that this guy is lying, I don't think that it would convince anyone who truly believes. Why? Because I don't think that the people who buy this are truly with us, on this world. This is so far beyond the pale, it is invisible. So far on the edge of the fringe, it is on a different rug entirely. This is not a normal claim of some supernatural ability; this is not a man claiming to be able to bend or even break one or two laws of physics. This is a man who is claiming to be supernatura personified, capable of breaking every single law of physics and biology to boot! (With the possible exception of reproductive laws, but I'll stop before this gets too scatological. . . ) What scientific "proof" could stand up, when everything science has ever learned has already been rejected so that the believers could believe?

That's why I am saying just test one guy -- the most high profile case you can find -- and truly debunk him on national TV in front of millions. Of course, no matter what you do, certain fools will never stop believing. Still, doing nothing, as Pantastic pointed out, leaves skeptics vulnerable to charges of "See, they won't test this guy who lives solely on sunlight, because they know he's for real!!"

Just one test, that's all I ask. :D

[CurtC]

But Exposer, it ain't gonna happen. I'd love to see it just as you would, but you have to realize that if you have a deal with someone to pay them money to do something stupidly dangerous, then you have "put them up to it" and will have some liability. And in this case the deal would basically be "either die or collect a million dollars."

His relatives could sue Randi and win. A contract can't get around this fact. It wouldn't even surprise me for there to be criminal liability, along the lines of manslaughter. Randi will not be testing a Breatharian. You'll just have to explain this fact to any believers you run across.

[Exposer]

Originally posted by CurtC
But Exposer

but you have to realize that if you have a deal with someone to pay them money to do something stupidly dangerous, then you have "put them up to it" and will have some liability. And in this case the deal would basically be "either die or collect a million dollars."



Oh you mean like climbing Mt. Everest?

No, he will have two choices:

1) Admit he's a fraud and call for medical attention.

2) Starve.

[CurtC]

It's more like this. Go down on the street corner and find an insane person who believes he can take a gunshot to the head and not get hurt. Hand him a gun, and offer to give him a hundred bucks if he survives. Make sure the TV cameras are rolling. Get him to sign a legal document that you're not responsible if he gets hurt.

Then see how long it takes you to get sued.