What's The Harm?

[Luke T.]

I think it would be a good idea to archive here in this topic some clearcut examples of when belief in the paranormal actually causes harm. Over time, I think we can build a substantial case file so when someone suggests psychics and other paranormal beliefs are harmless, we can direct them here.

Please provide links to news items and such. And since these news items may not remain on their host sites forever, quotes from the salient parts of the articles.

Brevity is the key. Let the items speak for themselves.

I'll start with an example that was provided by Lavie Enrose in Community and Da Chew here in General Skepticism and the Paranormal:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1285693.html?menu=news.quirkies

Clairvoyant 'sacked' workers

A supermarket chain in Hungary has fired dozens of shop assistants for stealing - on the evidence of a clairvoyant.

According to a report by the Hungarian Trades Union Federation, managers at Penny Market took the personnel files of employees to the clairvoyant and fired more than two dozen she identified as thieves.

[Ashles]

I think psychics who meddle with Police investigations are incredible harmful. Not only to the deperate and vulnerable relatives, but to the actual police investigation.

There are many examples of this but I'll first offer up Dennis McKenzie as a 'psychic' who likes to get involved in high profile cases.

Dennis McKenzie involving himself in the hunt for a Killer in Wichita (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46071)

He tried to solve a really unpleasant widely reported series of murders over in Wichita.
Haven't heard a peep since.
A short follow up thread about Dennis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46358&highlight=dennis+mckenzie)

There are also links on that page to anotgher case where Dennis tried to solve the case where a six year old boy named Elliott Forde was hit and killed by a hit-and-run driver.
Dennis involved himself in the case and actually said he 'saw' a vehicle that was different from the one described by an eyewitness.

That case also remains unsolved.

But what damage might his interference have done to the case? And what did he put the parents through? False hope, then... failure.
These people should be prosecutable for wasting police time.

[Loki]

A queensland boy has been missing since December 2003. The TV program "Australian Story" ran this interview with the parents on Monday April 19, 2004 : Into Thin Air (http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2003/s1091347.htm)

DENISE MORCOMBE – DANIEL’S MOTHER: The last few weeks, I've received a few letters from psychics. Some of them have been very distressing. They say that Daniel may be in a local barn in the area close by, or in a country town. I've had one letter saying that Daniel's head's been shaved and he hasn't got many days left. Bruce tells me to put them aside and don't look at them, but they do go through my mind, what if it is true?

[Loki]

And another similar story : He Who Waits (www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2003/s1042100.htm)

DON SPIERS (Father of murdered girl): Our situation's a little bit different to the Glennons' and the Rimmers', because their two girls have been found. We still haven't had either of the questions answered as to where Sarah is and what's actually happened to her. Another big problem that we've had has been clairvoyants. They have been a huge torment to myself and my family in giving cryptic clues as to where Sarah might be. I remember one night in the early days I was down Salter Point, you know, thrashing around the swampy areas down there at 11 o'clock at night. Um...probably walking around bawling my eyes out and getting nowhere. I mean, a lot of times I've known I shouldn't have listened, but I've always thought that maybe they're using that excuse of being a clairvoyant to give me some honest facts.

[JimTheBrit]

QiGong Show - Sima Nan battles QiGong master Hu Wanlin in China by Donald L. Mainfort

Taken from Swift, newsletter of the JREF, vol. 3 no. 4 2000, with permission.

Part 1 (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/WheresTheHarm/WheresTheHarm1-Swift-3-4.jpg)
Part 2 (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/WheresTheHarm/WheresTheHarm2-Swift-3-4.jpg)
Part 3 (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/WheresTheHarm/WheresTheHarm3-Swift-3-4.jpg)
Part 4 (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/WheresTheHarm/WheresTheHarm4-Swift-3-4.jpg)
Part 5 (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/WheresTheHarm/WheresTheHarm5-Swift-3-4.jpg)
Part 6 (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/WheresTheHarm/WheresTheHarm6-Swift-3-4.jpg)

[Loki]

A dead Infant from homeopathy (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/26/1069825838204.html?from=storyrhs)
(link requires registration)

Isabella Denley, 13 months, died at her home in Kew on October 19 last year.
...
The inquest heard that Isabella was diagnosed with epilepsy by Mark Mackay, a neurologist with the Royal Children's Hospital and was prescribed anti-convulsant medication. But Mr and Mrs Denley refused to treat their daughter with the drugs, citing harsh side-effects such as sleep loss and hyperactivity.
...
In his police statement tendered to the court, Mr Denley, an information technology contractor, said Isabella was "purely" on homeopathic medicine in the weeks before her death. "This was the happiest and healthiest she had been since the seizures had started," Mr Denley said.
...
Bruce McTaggart, for the Royal Children's Hospital, said the evidence of Dr Mackay and another doctor, Richard Leventer, had given Mr Byrne "irresistible" evidence that Isabella died from an epileptic seizure.

[Loki]

A dead 10 year old girl after failed "rebirthing" (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2001/candacenewmaker.htm)

Some extracts from a video of the "rebirthing" procedure that lead to her death :

17:07 -- (Labored breathing) Get off. I'm sick. Get off. Where am I supposed to come out? Where? But how can I get there?

Watkins: Just go ahead and die. It's easier . . .It takes a lot of courage to be born.

18:26 -- You said you would give me oxygen.

Watkins: You gotta fight for it.

19:50 -- (Candace vomits) OK, I'm throwing up. I just threw up. (Vomiting) I gotta poop. I gotta poop.

21:24 -- Uh, I'm going in my pants.

Ponder: Go ahead.

Watkins: Stay in there with the poop and vomit.

23:22 -- Help! I can't breathe. I can't breathe. It's hot. I can't breathe.
...
32:25 -- 33:44 -- Jack McDaniel repositions himself on a pillow over Candace's head.

Ponder: Candace? (No response) (Takes another pillow from Newmaker.) She needs more pressure over here so she can't. . .so she really needs to fight.

Watkins: Getting pretty tight in here.

Ponder: Yep. . .less and less air all the time.

35:39-40:00 -- Ponder and McDaniel reposition themselves again.

Ponder: She gets to be stuck in her own puke and poop.

Watkins: Uh huh. It's her own life. Quitter.

40:01: No. (This is Candace's last word.)

Ponder: Quitter, quitter, quitter, quitter, quit, quit, quit, quit. She's a quitter.

(Watkins leaves, Newmaker leaves. McDaniel takes Watkins' place. Watkins returns.)

McDaniel: This baby doesn't want to live. She's a quitter.

(Watkins tells McDaniel and St. Clair to take a break.)

(Ponder and Watkins discuss someone who is stressed, then chitchat about their dream homes and a million-dollar property nearby that is being remodeled.)

Watkins: Let's talk to the twerp.

(They unwrap Candace.)

01:09:53 - Watkins: Oh, there she is sleeping in her vomit.

[Beth]

I would like to point out that what you are collecting here is anecdotal evidence. That doesn't make it invalid, nor does it mean that no harm occurs, but I think it wise to consider the opposite side. If someone were to be collecting similar evidence regarding the benefits of the paranormal, how would you respond? Would you consider it equally valid? Or would you dismiss such evidence as unreliable and unconvincing?

[Ashles]

Beth, I can assure you that Dennis McKenzie's behaviour is not anecdotal - the links and facts are fully checkable.

And psychics repeated involvement in police cases and the way they are reported in the media is exactly the problem I am complaining about.

Also you have to remember that anecdotal evidence of paranormal abilities is highly suspect as the abilities have never been shown to actually exist.

Whereas sadly, fraud, stupidity, deception, misperception, ignorance, stubbornness, dogmatism, vulnerability and delusion are fairly certainly known to exist.

But if you can cast doubts on any of these stories please go ahead and do so. But please do it it a different thread and link there so as not to clog up the purpose of this thread.

Many paranormal beliefs ARE actually harmful, and we would like to be able to create a list of examples of such instances without having believers try to muddy the waters.

Most people, believers included (I would have thought) ought to be quite positive about a thread such as this as a useful warning about the potential dangers of these beliefs.
Edited for clarity

[coalesce]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
I would like to point out that what you are collecting here is anecdotal evidence. That doesn't make it invalid, nor does it mean that no harm occurs, but I think it wise to consider the opposite side. If someone were to be collecting similar evidence regarding the benefits of the paranormal, how would you respond? Would you consider it equally valid? Or would you dismiss such evidence as unreliable and unconvincing?

May I ask what evidence would you require to show that there are instances of fraud in the paranormal?

Insofar as first-hand evidence for the benefits of the paranormal, I can give you two. Both involved psychics here in Brooklyn. I asked them both about my only sister, whom I haven't heard from in years. They assured me that she's fine and living a normal, healthy life.

Not bad, except that she died five years before I was born, when she was six months old, of pneumonia. Now I admit I asked this question to both of them as a control, knowing full well that she died. I figured if they could accurately see that she died in 1960, then we have a winner. Neither of them did. Now if I were someone who accepted what the psychics had told me and didn't know that she died, how would that be beneficial? They proved that they didn't know that she died, and yet were willing to tell me that she was fine.

So where is the benefit of knowingly lying?

Michael

[Beth]

Ashles, I am not doubting the veracity of the stories that have been posted. I am pointing out that rejecting anecdotal evidence in one direction and accepting it in another is a double standard. Do you really think that is appropriate? If so, what is your justification for accepting anecdotal evidence for harm but not for benefit?

Beth

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
I would like to point out that what you are collecting here is anecdotal evidence.True, and hopefully most readers will take this into account when viewing the material.
[...] I think it wise to consider the opposite side. Any chance this can happen on a separate thread? Thx. :)

[Ashles]

Well anyone who reads this thread and wishes to disregard the ones they consider to be anecdotal is welcome to do so. We are not trying to scientifically prove anything here.

In fact, we would actively encourage anyone who doubts any of these stories to do their own research into the subjects.
That's the spirit of scepticism and critical thinking.

Don't take our word for it. Read as much as you can from as many respectable scientific sources as you can.

And some stories on this thread are clearly not anecdotal. For example could anyone doubt that Dennis McKenzie has involved himself in Police cases and has subsequently produced no useful results?

Anyway, let's not debate this any further here - if you wish to start a new thread about it please do.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
Ashles, I am not doubting the veracity of the stories that have been posted. I am pointing out that rejecting... evidence in one direction and accepting it in another is a double standard. So it would be.

If, for example, you were to post a link to a well-verified story from a reliable source of an occasion where a psychic has brought benefits to some person or persons commeasurate with the amount of money paid, and we were to "reject" it (how? refuse to look at it? say it wasn't true despite the authenticity of the source?) --- then that would be applying a double standard.

However, you have posted no such link to no such story.

Are you going to?

That way you could find out if we apply a double standard, rather than assuming we do and complaining about it. That's not polite, or clever.

Ashles, for example, has given instances of "psychics who help the police" being worse than useless. Can you post one authentic case of a psychic successfully helping the police? As attested to by, say, the officer in charge of the case? Then fire away.

And... "anecdotal"? If you say that all primes are odd, is citing 2 as an even prime an "anecdote", which therefore doesn't count? In order to refute the idea that "psychics and other paranormal beliefs are harmless", what else can one do except cite particular cases in which individual bogus psychics have caused harm? What other evidence could there be against this proposition? How does one refute a general proposition except by producing counterexamples?

Hey?

Any ideas?

[JimTheBrit]

Exercise caution when thinking about taking your loved one to see entities channelled from other plains of existence.

Vid clip (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/WheresTheHarm/TopTenWays-JZKnightAsMafu-23Aug03.avi) (.avi, 2mins, 22Mb, DivX 5.2.1 encoded).

If you want to see the clip and the link's broken, pm me.

[plindboe]

Perhaps this isn't paranormal, but alternative medicine is a close cousin, and can prove quite dangerous as well:

http://www.cancer-talk.com/Netherlands_to_crack_down_on_complementary_medicin e-97046-3-a.html

The Netherlands is considering tougher laws on practitioners of
complementary medicine after government health inspectors who were
investigating the death from breast cancer in 2001 of the actress and
comedienne Sylvia Millecam severely criticised her treatment.

The investigators found that alternative practitioners contradicted the
diagnosis of breast cancer made by her doctors and offered her instead
the prospect of a cure with "unfounded methods of treatment."

The report concluded that "various individual carers" had "offered such
irresponsible care" that disciplinary action or criminal proceedings are
likely. Their role prevented a cure or an extension of Ms Millecam's
life, and she died from untreated breast cancer.
The investigators' report found that between September 1999 and her
death nearly two years later, when she was aged 45, Ms Millecam was
treated by 28 different practitioners and institutions. Though
mainstream care was available she exclusively chose alternative
treatments.

Her general practitioner had first identified a lump of 1 cm radius in
her breast. She was referred to a hospital radiology department, but the
tests were inconclusive. She was referred to a surgeon, but instead she
chose a doctor who practised alternative electro-acupuncture. She was
assured that nothing was the matter.

The next May breast cancer was diagnosed, and surgery was recommended.
Instead she saw a popular faith healer who said she did not have cancer
and advised against chemotherapy. She then began regular visits for
"healings." Over the next year she sought various cures, including "cell
specific cancer treatment" at a Swiss clinic and "salt therapy," and
visited a psychic healer. She was told on at least two occasions that
she did not have cancer but a bacterial infection.

[Rolfe]

If you're including paranormal "medicine", read about Richard Edwards' experience (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/vettimes5.html#edwards1). People bringing animals back for years for ineffective treatment, and paying through the nose for it. People being "brainwashed" into believing that their animals were better when they actually weren't. People being charged £10 for a handful of sugar pills that cost "pence" to produce.

Rolfe.

[IIRichard]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
I would like to point out that what you are collecting here is anecdotal evidence. That doesn't make it invalid, nor does it mean that no harm occurs, but I think it wise to consider the opposite side. If someone were to be collecting similar evidence regarding the benefits of the paranormal, how would you respond? Would you consider it equally valid? Or would you dismiss such evidence as unreliable and unconvincing?

My wife and daughter (who both should know better) frequently ask, "what's the harm?" These reports are being collected to show the harm that "psycics", faith healers, homeopathy and "alternative" medicine do.

It is bad enough but unavoidable that some people are unscientific, superstitious and mistrustful of science. However, they never seem to be able to keep their ignorance to themselves. If the anti-vaccination crowd have their way, for instance, public health would be set back not decades but centuries.

[hodgy]

Loki's post is awful. Its played on my mind for a couple of days now. How any believer can want or dare to post anything after it is beyond me. I don't even want to quote it becuase it would mean reading it again.

Beth, Janice, etc... read it and consider please...

[dmc]

This page of the Skeptic's Dictionary is devoted to this topic:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/harm.html

[JimTheBrit]

Reginald Gill, unlicensed to kill (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3314749.stm)

[Dr Adequate]

On healthypages yesterday (http://www.healthypages.net/forum/tm.asp?m=168921) : Sorry to change the subject but...when a tarot reader reads the cards for someone, is it usual to tell the person that someone is going to die?

I ask because a while ago after a recomendation, i had a tarot reader come to my house. I heard that she was very good and i must admit she was spot on with a lot of things.

What surprised me most was that she knew that my sister was very ill and said that she had a neurological illness. She also said that eventually she would be listened to and get help. I couldn't help but cry with relief, and she then went on to other things.

After a while, after looking again at the cards she said, 'You do know that her illness is going to eventually kill her don't you?'. I was in a state of shock and just nodded yes, but to be honest, it had never entered my mind.

I was glad when she left and i would never want to see her again. I could hardly talk on the phone to my other sister as i was crying so hard. It took a long time for me toput this tothe back of my mind..which i had to do as every time that i looked at my sister who's ill, i couldn't fight back the tears. I had to make up excuses why i was so upset as i didn't want her to know.

Aura

[JimTheBrit]

"Two Kenyan boys, horribly mutilated in the mistaken belief that their genitals could be used in the treatment of HIV/Aids, have told the BBC of their ordeal."
BBC article dated Wed 2 March 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4309553.stm)


"Horror as terrified dogs are spun from twisted ropes to bring luck to village"
Daily Express article scan dated Tues 8 March 2005 (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jimmy13/WheresTheHarm/DailyExpress-Dogs-8Mar05.jpg)
Caution 1: Pics included.
Caution 2: Source is Daily Express.

[rppa]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
I would like to point out that what you are collecting here is anecdotal evidence. That doesn't make it invalid, nor does it mean that no harm occurs, but I think it wise to consider the opposite side. If someone were to be collecting similar evidence regarding the benefits of the paranormal, how would you respond? Would you consider it equally valid? Or would you dismiss such evidence as unreliable and unconvincing?

I'm a little confused about your point. The original request was for "examples" of where belief in the paranormal has caused harm. If posting case histories where belief in the paranormal has caused harm is not a response to a request for "examples", then what is?

What's the other side? Oh, are there people who felt that paying money to a psychic was worth it, caused benefit to them? I wouldn't be surprised if you can find a great deal of such testimony.

How does that affect the claim that there have been deaths directly attributed to belief in the paranormal? Would you offer evidence that Dr. X, MD was a wonderful guy as counterevidence in the malpractice trial of Dr. Y, MD, who kills a patient through incompetence?

[Beth]

Originally posted by rppa
I'm a little confused about your point. The original request was for "examples" of where belief in the paranormal has caused harm. If posting case histories where belief in the paranormal has caused harm is not a response to a request for "examples", then what is?

My point was that if you don't consider personal testimony or case histories as evidence for one side (i.e. benefits) then you can't consider it to be any more valid for the other side (harm). Generally, most people posting here do not consider anecdotal evidence valid, so why set up thread collecting evidence that isn't typically considered valid?

What's the other side? Oh, are there people who felt that paying money to a psychic was worth it, caused benefit to them? I wouldn't be surprised if you can find a great deal of such testimony.

Exactly. While I have no doubt there is evidence of harm, there is equally valid and compelling evidence of benefit. For example - consider all of 'John of God's' satisfied patients. If you don't consider thier case histories as evidence of benefit, you can't turn around and consider similar stories as evidence of harm.

How does that affect the claim that there have been deaths directly attributed to belief in the paranormal?

I don't think it affects that claim at all, any more than examples of harm affect the claim that benefits occur. Few things are entirely good or bad, it's a matter of degree. Does the benefit outway the harm? For example, it's a documented fact that many people die every year due to errors committed by doctors and nurses working in hospitals. Does that mean that hospitals are not a good place to get care when ill?

Beth

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
While I have no doubt there is evidence of harm, there is equally valid and compelling evidence of benefit. For example - consider all of 'John of God's' satisfied patients. If you don't consider thier case histories as evidence of benefit... If satisfaction was proof of benefit, then you'd have to believe that all sorts of things were beneficial. People used to be "satisfied" by the medical effects of kerosene, radium, mercury... satisified enough to go on taking them until the cumulative dose was lethal. But these substances are not beneficial. Nowadays, quackery's less likely to kill you, but something like homeopathy, say, has satisfied customers in their millions --- and no evidence at all that it's beneficial. It's just not the same thing.If you don't consider thier case histories as evidence of benefit, you can't turn around and consider similar stories as evidence of harm. But these are not similar stories. We're not talking about people who visisted a medium, fortune-teller, psychic, quack, or whatever and were merely dissatisfied. We're talking about actual harm. Candace Newmaker was not dissatisfied with her quack therapy --- she was murdered by it. A similar but opposite story would have to involve a quack psychotherapist returning a dead child to life. If you have "valid and compelling evidence" for this ever happening, let us know.

[Ashles]

Beth you are actually being a bit of an idiot now. It is once again clearly obvious that you have a desire to believe in these things and this is causnig you to become overly defensive about all things paranormal.

Most of these stories have perfectly clear backed up evidence and links. They are not anecdotal. Most aren't examples of someone posting "This happened to my cousin" etc.

example, it's a documented fact that many people die every year due to errors committed by doctors and nurses working in hospitals. Does that mean that hospitals are not a good place to get care when ill?
This is a ridiculous and tired argument. Without hospital and doctors care people often will die or be in severe pain or any number of unpleasant situations. The choice is go to the doctor or stay at home and get worse.
The same cannot be said for paranormal treatments.
Also if doctors and nurses cause deaths due to mistakes or incompetence they should expect to be held accountable for it.
So should these peddlers of the paranormal.
Or is it only Doctors and nurses who should have to answer for their mistakes?

And if someone is lying to recently bereaved parents about their child you think that's acceptable do you?

The question was where's the harm. We are providing examples of the harm, but you really don't want to see it.
Fine don't read this thread. But these things aren't as harmless and fluffy as people often make out.

It is people who deny it, like you Beth, that can put other people at risk.

I suggest you look at the advice provided in the homeopathy forums if you want to see real risks to life that can be prevented.

That you can read some of these stories and question this thread only goes to show that you are so committed to finding something magical, paranormal and exciting that you would willingly ignore the negative aspects of these issues.

[Dr Adequate]

Nongqawuse --- "She killed our nation." (http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/people/nongqawuse.htm)

[rppa]

My point was that if you don't consider personal testimony or case histories as evidence for one side (i.e. benefits) then you can't consider it to be any more valid for the other side (harm).

Since I believe you have scientific training, I find your pretending to misunderstand "anecdotes are not evidence" disingenuous.

In a murder trial, testimony about the murder, an actual videotape of the murder, is clearly evidence. It's also clearly an "anecdote" in the sense in which you're trying to use it. After all, we're just talking about one victim and one alleged murderer. So how can we use those "anecdotes" as "evidence"?

Generally, most people posting here do not consider anecdotal evidence valid....

I think you have the training to complete this sentence. "Most people posting here do not consider anecdotal evidence valid for proving....".

We have a case cited above where a person was videotaped murdering a child. Do you really think that's invalid as evidence for the murder? Do you really think anyone would so claim?

...so why set up thread collecting evidence that isn't typically considered valid?

The evidence is clearly valid for establishing that the people cited committed harmful acts. Are you really contesting that?

For example, it's a documented fact that many people die every year due to errors committed by doctors and nurses working in hospitals. Does that mean that hospitals are not a good place to get care when ill?

Hospitals where a statistically significant number of patients die due to errors, beyond the norm, are indeed bad places to get care when ill. That's why there are mechanisms to decertify hospitals and doctors with such records. Anecdotes of gross malpractice on the part of a doctor can indeed function as evidence that THAT PARTICULAR DOCTOR might need his license revoked, even if he has hundreds of satisfied patients.

The original poster asked for case histories where psychics committed harm. The stories collected are clearly evidence that these particular people committed these particular harmful acts. If somebody similarly asked for stories about criminally negligent malpractice in hospitals, and got them, those "anecdotes" would certainly be evidence that the hospital committed those acts.

In other words, the phrase "anecdotes are not evidence" should not be deliberately misconstrued in the way you're trying. And I think you know it.

[Ashles]

Several times I have seen the claim that India uses a lot of homeopathic and 'alternative' medicine (particularly from Gavinmurthy).

Here are some health figures for India that I have posted before:
Originally posted by Ashles
Do they live longer?
Life expectancy figures (http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/espvie2.html)

Hmm no, it seems not.
135th on the list? Seemingly below every Western country? Not too good. In fact for its wealth it's an extremely poor performance.

Infant mortality in Asia (http://www3.who.int/whosis/country/compare.cfm?country=IND&indicator=MortChildMale,MortChildFemale&language=english)
About 90/1000. Relatively high even for the region.

Let's compare with Europe
European infant mortality (http://www3.who.int/whosis/country/compare.cfm?country=GBR&indicator=MortChildMale,MortChildFemale&language=english)
So it's higher even than the worst European figures, and much worse than most (eg the UK is about 7/1000).

Well okay, so infant mortality is very high, life is short, but maybe Indians are healthy throughout life?

Healthy life expectancy figures (http://www3.who.int/whosis/hale/hale.cfm?language=en)
If I sort the data by male life expectancy lost with the countries with the least life expectency lost from ill health at the top (Denmark as it happens) then India comes.... 60th.
60th in the world, again quite a way below just about every western country.

If I sort for FEMALE life expectancy India rates...
160th.
One hundred and sixtieth!

Below Nigeria. Below Sudan and Senegal. Below Uganda.

So a relatively rich country like India has a shockingly low level of health.
India is not a poor country. These health statistics are very poor.
We ask what's the harm. There could be a country of a billion people suffering because of their beliefs in false treatments.

Maybe those treatments give them comfort. But they don't appear to help their health.

[jambo372]

Homeopathy/Alternative medicine isn't considered paranormal.

Also sceptics keep mentioning psychics being hired by the police. Some psychics have actually helped solve murderers and point out the guilty.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by jambo372
Homeopathy/Alternative medicine isn't considered paranormal.

Also sceptics keep mentioning psychics being hired by the police. Some psychics have actually helped solve murderers and point out the guilty.
Sigh.
You have an example of this?

Was it
A) In Russia
B) On a documentary you once saw?

[jambo372]

Originally posted by Ashles
Sigh.
You have an example of this?

Was it
A) In Russia
B) On a documentary you once saw?

What has Russia got to do with anything ? Have sceptics got a problem with Russians or something ? As a matter of fact it wasn't in Russia, it was in my hometown, less than a mile from my house. I started a thread about it previously but it was removed because of accusations it made.

To cut a long story short and not get into gory forbidden details a girl named Moira Anderson went missing in the fifties. A medium named William was called in to help with the investigation 50 years on and lead them to a place. A local pervert recently made a deathbed confession and said that the body was ... exactly where the medium previously said it would be. He also accused another pervert of being involved ... this second paedophile denies accusations but his own daughter thinks he did it and wrote a book about it. Even his own father believes he did it, when he died he told him to own up. He still denies it and no charges have been brought against him to date. The confession also accused an unnamed party ... most people suspect this third anonymous offender was high up in the local police force ... this would explain why the police did so little to help at the time. They suspect he was a police officer because of this and because one of the other child fiddlers was friends with many of the police.

For more details you can read 'Where There Is Evil' by Sandra Brown.

[rppa]

To cut a long story short and not get into gory forbidden details a girl named Moira Anderson went missing in the fifties. A medium named William was called in to help with the investigation 50 years on and lead them to a place.

Was there a body there when he took the police there?

A local pervert recently made a deathbed confession and said that the body was ... exactly where the medium previously said it would be.

And was it?

Why does the Moira Anderson Foundation consider her case still to be unresolved?

http://members.aol.com/sandra7510/pics/brochure.JPG

[jambo372]

Originally posted by rppa
To cut a long story short and not get into gory forbidden details a girl named Moira Anderson went missing in the fifties. A medium named William was called in to help with the investigation 50 years on and lead them to a place.

Was there a body there when he took the police there?

A local pervert recently made a deathbed confession and said that the body was ... exactly where the medium previously said it would be.

And was it?

Why does the Moira Anderson Foundation consider her case still to be unresolved?

http://members.aol.com/sandra7510/pics/brochure.JPG

The pond is very deep and full of plant debris and junk, they sent divers in but they could only go down so far. Also the body will have been decomposing for decades.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by jambo372
The pond is very deep and full of plant debris and junk, they sent divers in but they could only go down so far. Also the body will have been decomposing for decades.
So the body hasn't been found, the case hasn't been solved, no-one has been prosecuted and a psychic has come up with the old "body of water" prediction.

And that's the best you can do is it Jambo?

Thanks for providing another example of the harm mediums can do.

And I remember your original thread - all the claims were thoroughly disposed of.

[Beth]

Originally posted by rppa
Since I believe you have scientific training, I find your pretending to misunderstand "anecdotes are not evidence" disingenuous.

I'm not claiming that anecdotes are not evidence. I'm saying that if you don't accept anecdotal evidence for one side of an argument (and most posters here do not accept such evidence in regard to the benefits of such beliefs), it's a double standard to turn around and accept it as evidence for the other side.

The evidence is clearly valid for establishing that the people cited committed harmful acts. Are you really contesting that?

No, I'm not.

The original poster asked for case histories where psychics committed harm. The stories collected are clearly evidence that these particular people committed these particular harmful acts. If somebody similarly asked for stories about criminally negligent malpractice in hospitals, and got them, those "anecdotes" would certainly be evidence that the hospital committed those acts.

But they would not be evidence that belief in standard hospital practices was dangerous. That seems to me more analogous to the situation here.

In other words, the phrase "anecdotes are not evidence" should not be deliberately misconstrued in the way you're trying. And I think you know it.

I think you are mistaken about the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I expressed myself poorly, but I was not trying to misconstue anything.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
I'm not claiming that anecdotes are not evidence. I'm saying that if you don't accept anecdotal evidence for one side of an argument (and most posters here do not accept such evidence in regard to the benefits of such beliefs), it's a double standard to turn around and accept it as evidence for the other side. But in what sense is this anecdotal? If someone asks for evidence that airships aren't always safe, and they are directed to the R101 disaster, in what sense is this an "anecdote"? It happened. It's a fact.

The R101 really crashed. It's a well-documented historical fact. This is indeed solid evidence that airships aren't always safe.

The Xhosa really killed their cattle at the behest of Nongqawuse. It's a well-documented historical fact. This is indeed solid evidence that belief in the supernatural is not always harmless.

Will you give an example of a well-documented historical fact which sceptics dismiss as "anecdotal evidence"?

[SFB]

Here's a particularly jaded view of psychic detectives, but I suppose if you lost your daughter and had these folks hanging around you might develop such a view. This was written by one of Polly Klaas' parents:

http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-hazards.htm

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
I would like to point out that what you are collecting here is anecdotal evidence. That doesn't make it invalid, nor does it mean that no harm occurs, but I think it wise to consider the opposite side. If someone were to be collecting similar evidence regarding the benefits of the paranormal, how would you respond? Would you consider it equally valid? Or would you dismiss such evidence as unreliable and unconvincing?

How would I respond to "similar evidence regarding the benefits of the paranormal"? Show me some, and I'll let you know.

"[W]ould you dismiss such evidence as unreliable and unconvincing?"

Perhaps. If the evidence were unreliable and unconvincing, why yes, I'd call it that, and dismiss it.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
But they would not be evidence that belief in standard hospital practices was dangerous. That seems to me more analogous to the situation here.

Have you ever wondered why there is much more litigation in scientific medicine than there is in alternative medicine? That's because scientific medicine is always held up to extremely high standards - there are evidence-based standards of care that have to be met, or else the doctor risks being litigated against for doing a slightly less efficient job that he/she ought to have done.

On the other hand, when it comes to alternative medicine, the only times one ever hears of legal action is when the practitioners commit horrific acts - like in the 'rebirthing' tragedy. That's because there's simply no evidence-based standard of care, the reason being that there's no evidence. Alternative medicine is an 'anything goes' kind of field. The fact that homeopaths routinely ask diabetics to stop their insulin doses (which have been repeatedly proven to be extremely effective at reducing morbidity and mortality) and take instead their homeopathic medications (which have never been shown to pass a proper trial) is something that seems to escape those who feel that 'standard' alternative medicine is harmless.

In my opinion, the best thing in the world would be for alternative medicine to be exposed to the same kind of litigative stress as scientific medicine. That seems like the only way to force it to put up or shut up. When that happens, either there'll be flurries of wondrous and astonishing studies and publications, proving that crystal therapy and reiki and energy auras were real after all. Or quacks will be forced to draw the shutters once and for all. Forgive me for taking a wild guess - I think it'll be the latter.

Even if we decide to ignore the cases mention here and talk instead just of 'standard' alternative medicine, we are still left with the fact that it is dangerous and downright unethical to expose a patient to a form of medicine that is untested and unproven when there are tested and proved medications available - unless the patient provides complete consent to participating in an experimental drug study. And how many homeopaths have we seen who tell their patients, "You know Stephen, we've been trying for 200 years but haven't been able to ever actually show that this pill works. Anyway, take two in the morning and two in the evening and see me in a fortnight."?

[rppa]

I'm not claiming that anecdotes are not evidence.

OK.

I'm saying that if you don't accept anecdotal evidence for one side of an argument

And there's where you're twisting things again. I think you realize perfectly well that what is being collected here is not "anecdotes as evidence for one side of an argument". But perhaps you don't.

What is being collected here is evidence about PARTICULAR pychics causing harm in PARTICULAR cases. The question of "are all psychics full of baloney" is not being addressed here, and we are not collecting anecdotes as evidence to test that hypothesis. If we were attempting to bolster that claim, you would be correct that this set of case histories was anecdotal evidence.

But you are wrong to imply that there is a double standard in collecting stories as evidence of harm by INDIVIDUALS, since as I pointed out exactly the same procedure is used to collect evidence of harm by INDIVIDUALS when what is being investigated is murder, conventional fraud, or medical malpractice.

So there is no point to be made about "why are you guys accepting anecdotes as evidence when you don't..." since exactly the same standard of evidence applies here as in those other cases.

But they would not be evidence that belief in standard hospital practices was dangerous. That seems to me more analogous to the situation here.

Yes, it is. In which case nobody would argue that videotapes and personal testimony were "anecdotal" evidence that was invalid.

So again, since we'd accept such evidence against hospitals for exactly the same purpose, your claim that we are applying a standard to psychics that we wouldn't apply to hospitals is wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong.

Agreed?

[Ossai]

Vikram
In my opinion, the best thing in the world would be for alternative medicine to be exposed to the same kind of litigative stress as scientific medicine. That seems like the only way to force it to put up or shut up. When that happens, either there'll be flurries of wondrous and astonishing studies and publications, proving that crystal therapy and reiki and energy auras were real after all. Or quacks will be forced to draw the shutters once and for all. Forgive me for taking a wild guess - I think it'll be the latter. Any ideas on how this could be brought about? I’m not volunteering to go do something stupid, but if a homeopathic expert were to ‘prescribe’ a course of action to cure a mild ailment and it failed – in comparison to one prescribed by a physician, time limit, severity, etcetera – would that be a strong enough basis to start a legal action?

Ossai

[Harlequin]

Originally posted by rppa
And there's where you're twisting things again. I think you realize perfectly well that what is being collected here is not "anecdotes as evidence for one side of an argument". But perhaps you don't. Actually, I think there is something to this point. What do you think this thread will be used for? I predict;) that skeptics will take this list of particular instances where woo-ism caused great harm and use it to argue against believers. This would really be somewhat of a double-standard.
The only way I see it being valid to use this in an argument would be to say
"Hey, that's a nice story about the psychic who found a body in a pond. Unfortunately, it isn't true and here's why. Also, here's another kind of anecdote, only this one is supported by numerous verifiable facts and it shows how much damage psychics can do."

Basically, I think this list could be really useful for discussions with believers but it has the potential to be used instead of real evidence - which would be a double-standard.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Harlequin
Basically, I think this list could be really useful for discussions with believers but it has the potential to be used instead of real evidence - which would be a double-standard.
I'm just not getting this. A lot of these stories are verifiable fact.

If believers had stories with as much checkable fact as many on this thread then they would be in a much stronger position to argue for the existence of paranormal abilities.

We argue that anecdotal evidence from believers is useless as we have no way of checking it. Most of the stories on this thread can be checked and verified.

These stoies absolutely can be used as evidence to show the harm that has arisen as a result of certain paranormal beliefs.

Believers are welcome to challenge the facts if they doubt any of the stories.

Sceptics often contact newspapers, reporters, official organisations etc, to find out the truth behind stories.
Believers tend not to (almost by definition). We actually wish they would do it more.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Ossai
Any ideas on how this could be brought about? I’m not volunteering to go do something stupid, but if a homeopathic expert were to ‘prescribe’ a course of action to cure a mild ailment and it failed – in comparison to one prescribed by a physician, time limit, severity, etcetera – would that be a strong enough basis to start a legal action?

I don't know. Any lawyers here who could comment on the legal validity of such a claim?

[Harlequin]

Originally posted by Ashles
Sceptics often contact newspapers, reporters, official organisations etc, to find out the truth behind stories. That's what I was thinking about, too. Then I realized that with all our discussions of bias in the media, it seems likely that you can pull out newspaper stories, reporters, official organisations, etc. that will confirm all kinds of woo-ist beliefs.

Look at all the insurance companies that cover homeopathy! Why would they do that if it doesn't work? I've read lots of articles in several reputable newspapers about how well homeopathics help you get over a cold faster. There are even sientifik studies (not scientific, but close :D ).

How is our "evidence" better than theirs? Obviously, ours is right and theirs isn't, but this is not always easy to prove. If you don't really understand how to properly set up an experiment, you'll never understand why one experiment is "more valid" than another one.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Harlequin
That's what I was thinking about, too. Then I realized that with all our discussions of bias in the media, it seems likely that you can pull out newspaper stories, reporters, official organisations, etc. that will confirm all kinds of woo-ist beliefs.
But could you? That there are beliefs aren't in doubt, and those beliefs are widely reported. But how many examples can you provide of the media actually saying some paranormal ability has actually happened?
It doesn't seem like it but the media is surprisingly careful about not looking too stupid and reporting something as fact that may well turn out to be a hoax, fraud, mistake etc.
They couch these stories in opinions and claims.

Look at all the insurance companies that cover homeopathy! Why would they do that if it doesn't work? I've read lots of articles in several reputable newspapers about how well homeopathics help you get over a cold faster. There are even sientifik studies (not scientific, but close :D ).
But in those cases we can provide scientific evidence (reams of it) that directly contradicts those claims.
It should become obvious to anyone without a vested interest what the mvast majority of evidence nidicates.
And if someone is going to take an insurance company's attitude towards something as scientific evidence then there is no way you ever going to convince them otherwise.
Insurance companie refer to "acts of God" - is this to be taken as proof that God must exist?
This thread will not provide any guidance to people who would take such things as evidence.

How is our "evidence" better than theirs? Obviously, ours is right and theirs isn't, but this is not always easy to prove. If you don't really understand how to properly set up an experiment, you'll never understand why one experiment is "more valid" than another one.
I would hope we can describe the relative merits of scientific experiments.
But some people aren't going to accept contrary evidence at all. There's nothing you can do to convince those people and there is no point in trying.

But I notice that there hasn't been any actual criticism of any of the specific posts on this thread. Just a generalised vague generic claim that it must be wrong somehow.

If anyone has issues with any of the stories I wish they would deal with them on an individual basis (as the sceptics have done on these forums over and over again) rather than just dismissing them all equally for no good reason.

[Beth]

Originally posted by Ashles
These stoies absolutely can be used as evidence to show the harm that has arisen as a result of certain paranormal beliefs.

I don't doubt the veracity of the stories reported here, at least no more so than I would for any other similar story. The problem is in accepting these stories as evidence of harm due to belief in paranormal stuff. They are the same quality of evidence as verifiable stories of someone healed by John of God or cured by a homeopathic medicine.

If you don't accept such stories as evidence for the benefits of belief, discounting them as due to other causes such as placebo effect or spontaneous remission, then how can you accept the stories here as evidence of harm rather than discounting them as being due to other causes as well?

You can accept such anecdotes as evidence if you like - they do constitute evidence of a sort - but I don't think you can accept them for one side but not the other without applying a double standard to what evidence you consider valid.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
I don't doubt the veracity of the stories reported here, at least no more so than I would for any other similar story. The problem is in accepting these stories as evidence of harm due to belief in paranormal stuff. They are the same quality of evidence as verifiable stories of someone healed by John of God or cured by a homeopathic medicine.
They are absolutely not. But this has been explained to you in this thread Beth and you are choosing to ignore the difference. You are actually clearly obviously playing stupid.
'Other causes'? You really are clutching at straws now.

But if you don't doubt the veracity of any of the stories then there isn't a problem, is there.

You are arguing against the validity of stories whose validity you don't doubt. Strange behaviour. I wonder why that would be?

It is not a double standard and you know this full well.

You are providing a perfect example of someone who claims to understand the potential problems with these claims, then wants to try to totally hide or ignore them when they happen.
You are almost endorsing the cases we have outlined here.
As a result I find your additions to the thread actually quite useful as an illustration of how defensive people get when their fantasy belief systems are questioned.

It's one of the reasons these beliefs end up getting propogated so much. Believers' pretense that it is all good and never bad.

[Azrael 5]

Ashles Ive PM'd you.

[Harlequin]

Originally posted by Ashles
I'm just not getting this. A lot of these stories are verifiable fact. I guess the problem is that this is exactly the same thing as the believers say about paranormal events. Obviously their wrong, but I think it is still a useful caveat to say be careful how you use this list, as you could come across similar to this:
"How can you argue with this, it's a fact, Sylvia already passed the JREF test, but Randi refused to pay. Look here are six kooky websites that back me up. Randi is just playing dumb when he denies it."

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
If you don't accept such stories as evidence for the benefits of belief, discounting them as due to other causes such as placebo effect or spontaneous remission, then how can you accept the stories here as evidence of harm rather than discounting them as being due to other causes as well? Please suggest the causes for the death by suffocation of Candace Newmaker other than her prolonged suffocation at the hands of woowoos. Please suggest other causes for the starvation of the Xhosa other than that they destroyed their herds and crops at the behest of a woowoo. Would you like to explain it through "the placebo effect", or "spontaneous remission"?

Or what "other causes" did you have in mind?

Personally, I only offer "other causes" for any suggested phenomenon when I can think of "other causes" which I know to exist and be operative in that area. For example, the placebo effect and remission, not to mention regression, apply to the field of medicine, which is why in medicine we always require proof which exludes such possibilities as the source of encouraging data.

Knock yourself out. Was Candace Newmaker killed by hours of torture, or by being given a placebo? Or perhaps, through a "spontaneous remission" of life, she was going to suffocate at that precise moment anyway, and it's just coincidence that at the moment she died of suffocation she just happened to be being tortured by suffocation. Are these the "other causes" you had in mind?

I don't think the defense counsel offered up anything so flimsy to defend the torturers, but do you want to have a go? Maybe they're innocent after all... condemned by unwillingness to consider the possibility that Candace Newmaker died of "the placebo effect". I'd be interested to hear your arguments.

(Oh, and please suggest causes for the deaths of the people in the R101 disaster other than that it crashed. Placebo? Spontaneous remission?)

Feel free.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
I don't doubt the veracity of the stories reported here, at least no more so than I would for any other similar story. The problem is in accepting these stories as evidence of harm due to belief in paranormal stuff. They are the same quality of evidence as verifiable stories of someone healed by John of God or cured by a homeopathic medicine.

If you don't accept such stories as evidence for the benefits of belief, discounting them as due to other causes such as placebo effect or spontaneous remission, then how can you accept the stories here as evidence of harm rather than discounting them as being due to other causes as well?

You can accept such anecdotes as evidence if you like - they do constitute evidence of a sort - but I don't think you can accept them for one side but not the other without applying a double standard to what evidence you consider valid.
You still seem to be missing the point. Look again at the thread title. These references and citations (they are not anecdotes) are not intended to be part of a body of evidence or proof of a claim, they are a series of refutations of the common believers' claim that "even if doesn't really do anything, what's the harm in it?" Believers often say that when backed into a corner about whether their pet concept is real or not. They claim that there is no harm in practicing homeopathy or folk remedies even if it has no real effect, without considering the consequences of people refusing proper medical treatment (in the case of homeopathy) or young boys having their genitals brutally torn off and then left to die in an attempt to make (or more likely) sell a worthless folk remedy. They claim that there is no harm in what so-called mediums and psychics do even if they aren't real, without considering the grief and suffering caused to parents of missing children or the wasted time of legitimate law enforcement investigators. These examples show that they are wrong. They are not evidence to support some claim that skeptics are making. They debunk the false notion that "there is no harm" in bizarre practices and rituals or pseudoscienfic procedures.

If you don't know the difference between an anecdote and a description of a factual event, look at that article about the dog-twisting ritual in the Bulgarian village. Those villagers will say "When we do this, it brings us luck. Last year, after the dog-twisting, my butter churn worked much better than before," or whatever. That's an anecdote, and its worthlessness should be painfully obvious. On the other hand, what's taking place in that village is real. Look at the disturbing photographs. What we are saying with this example is that animals are indeed being harmed for the purpose of a misguided folk ritual. That is a fact, a datum, not an anecdote.

And please learn the difference between a tried and tested useful medical procedure or drug that carries a certain level of risk, and irrational chicanery that can have [i]only harmfull effects if any at all. The two are not the same.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Harlequin
That's what I was thinking about, too. Then I realized that with all our discussions of bias in the media, it seems likely that you can pull out newspaper stories, reporters, official organisations, etc. that will confirm all kinds of woo-ist beliefs.

Look at all the insurance companies that cover homeopathy! Why would they do that if it doesn't work?
You're not going to start going on about 100,000 doctors can't wrong are you? The answer wrt why insurance companies (and the UK's national health) cover alternative remedies, is, of course, money.

If popular demand is "proof" of homeopathy's efficacy, then why is it that McDonalds "restaurants" don't have any Michelin stars?

[Loki]

Yet another parent tells of the pain that psychics delivered. (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2004/11november.htm)

The following passage is a quotation from John Tate, whose daughter Genette disappeared 25 years ago and has never been found. It says all that has to be said about these fraudsters who exploit grief.
...

"Many people came to us offering threads of hope. We clutched at them desperately in the early days … But the promises of the psychics were all lies. They raised false hopes in us. At times we really believed we were onto something. The suggestions and ideas preyed on our minds … But always, when it came to the crunch, the so-called leads and ideas led absolutely nowhere but into a pit of despair ...

We soon found that the psychics who came up our garden path were ‘foot-in-the-door’ types who, once they had wormed their way in, were very reluctant to leave again. They were strong characters who were not afraid to assert themselves. They rode rough-shod over our feelings – which were in a desperate state already. In one week, our emotions and normal grip on life had gone through a wrenching upheaval, and the influence of psychics started to have an unpleasant effect. Even when we didn’t want them they were there, on our doorstep, always expecting to be met with an open door ...

We discovered that the work of the psychics was not just ludicrous and laughable. It was sinister and evil. Once we got into that web of deceit – and that is what it was – we found it very hard to struggle free. None of it ever led anywhere except to despair and disappointment, misery and confusion. We had become enslaved to the suggestions of the psychics."

[Loki]

Yet another Biblical Interpretation claims a victim (http://neirr.org/cultdeath.htm)

A MOTHER-of-five in an extreme Christian fundamentalist movement is dead and her newborn baby is in hospital after she refused medical treatment. The 31-year-old woman was following Born in Zion principles that destiny should be controlled by God alone when she refused help at the unassisted home birth of her fifth child five weeks ago. She died three weeks later. ... The Coroner has not handed down a finding on the woman's death but has told a member of the family that the woman would have been in excruciating pain for the three weeks after the birth when she refused medical attention. It is understood her body was disfigured as a result of the medical complications.

The Born in Zion principles are preached by Carol Balizet, the American founder of the Home of Zion Ministries in Tampa, Florida. The dead woman's mother said her daughter had appeared seriously ill straight after the birth. ... "I asked (her daughter) what would happen if she died and she said it would be God's will and she was adamant," the woman's mother said.
...
Before she became pregnant with the couple's fourth child, which was born at home without complications, she began to investigate the teachings of Ms Balizet. Ms Balizet has interpreted the Bible to mean that humans should not interfere with the will of God. ... Her teachings have been linked to a sect in Attleboro, Massachusetts, which is under criminal investigation into the deaths of two sect children. Ms Balizet made two trips to Perth and the woman met her on both occasions. Soon after learning about the Zion movement, the woman decided to turn her back on medical treatment.
I guess god just wasn't quite clear enough... (and Carol Balizet is quite a story on her own... more on that in a moment).

[Loki]

Another Infant pays the ulimate "harm" for their parent's beliefs (http://www.courttv.com/trials/taped/robidoux/background.html). (Carol Balizet continues to spread the 'good word')

When the infant son of an obscure cult died after being denied solid food for almost two months, the father said he believed he was following God's will.

But prosecutors called it murder.

Prosecutors say that Jacques Robidoux intentionally starved his son to fulfill a religious vision that his sister said she had regarding the baby's diet.

The defendant's sister, Michelle Mingo instructed Robidoux's wife Karen to drink only almond milk in order to eliminate vanity — and told her that she should only feed the child breast milk.

For 52 days, Jacques and Karen adhered to the regimen — only to find baby Samuel dead on April 26, 1999, just three days before he reached his first birthday.
...
Eventually, Roland came across a book, "Born in Zion," that was written by Carol Balizet, a former nurse who became a spiritual midwife. She urged a complete withdrawal from society because it was dominated by what she termed "Satan's seven counterfeit systems" — education, medicine, commerce, banking, entertainment, schools, and government. Balizet proposed living life according to God's directions, to obey God without objections or concerns with the outcome.

The book also says that women should shy away from the established medical system when giving birth.

[jambo372]

Originally posted by Ashles
So the body hasn't been found, the case hasn't been solved, no-one has been prosecuted and a psychic has come up with the old "body of water" prediction.

And that's the best you can do is it Jambo?

Thanks for providing another example of the harm mediums can do.

And I remember your original thread - all the claims were thoroughly disposed of.

Finding the body is irrelevant to this - Galogley CONFESSED to sexually abusing and strangling her and claimed Alec Gartshore ( another well known pervert ) assisted him. He said they had dumped her remains in the tarry burn (Witchwood Pond), exactly where the psychic said it would have been. A thorough search of the pond would be impossible ( I should know, I only live round the corner from it ). It has all the junk and gunk of the day dumped in it - rats, toxic waste, furniture and plant debris.

William didn't simply predict the body was near a body of water. The police drove him around the whole of Coatbridge in a car ( he is not at all accustomed to the area ), the police nearly passed by a street ( Gartgill Road ), William stopped them and told them to drive along it, at the other end of the isolated street was the pond, he told them to stop, her body was in the pond, he vomited and said he felt a STRANGLING sensation.

He didn't just say a 'random body of water' - he directed them straight to the place ( in an area he had never set foot in before ).

Even if he didn't help solve the Moira case ( and he did give evidence later confirmed by Galogley's deathbed confession ), he has still done no harm.

[Loki]

Some of the details of what Miss Cleo was up to (http://courttv.com/news/feature/misscleo2_ctv.html)

Subcontractors, referred to as "bookstores" by insiders, recruit, train and manage thousands of psychics who handle the calls spurred by Miss Cleo's commercials.
...
Each psychic reader is paid by the subcontractor on a call-by-call basis
...
As the South Florida psychic reader who has worked with Feder since 1996 told Courttv.com, calls are distributed according to a priority system (explained more here), a high-pressure tactic that sends customers to the psychic with the highest average.
...
According to the Florida psychic, the pressure placed on psychic readers is passed on to the customer. "Most psychics don't even look at the cards," he says. "With so much pressure to keep people on the line and get their information, you need to tell the customer a lot of ********. But you can hurt people. You can hurt people very very deeply."

Still, the psychic admits to manipulating customers into staying on the phone. One effective way to keep callers on the line, he says, is to reveal a tidbit that piques their curiosity. One failsafe topic: Tell them their loved one is cheating.

"If you say there is cheating, there are a ton of questions they will want to ask," the psychic said

Do you think that accusing spouses of infidelity simply to keep the caller on line might cause some harm to the relationship???

[Ashles]

Please direct all posts that are not examples of what we are talking about to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53785) .

I.e. Beth and Jambo.

[Soapy Sam]

The pond is very deep and full of plant debris and junk, they sent divers in but they could only go down so far. Also the body will have been decomposing for decades.-Jambo372

On the contrary, Jambo. It can't be both very deep and full of junk. It's full because it's fairly shallow. Most of the ponds in the area , of which Witchwood is by far the smallest, are remnants of periglacial kettleholes. None is more than thirty feet deep, most less than ten feet.

This pond could be dredged - indeed entirely removed- using easily available commercial pumps and a bulldozer, inside 48 hours.

And at 1.3km long, in a town about 3-5km across, Gartgill Road is one of the longest roads in Coatbridge, leading out of town into part wooded countryside - just the place to dump a body. It's hard to believe the police would overlook it if they were serious in driving the man around.

As for him not knowing the area., Jambo. There are such things as maps. (You'll find the pond on OS Landranger sheet 64, at Ref 723666. )
Link:- http://www.getamap.co.uk/getamap/
Click the Get A Map button, then type Coatbridge in the search box. The pond is near the top, above the word "Depot". (A container depot- it would not have existed in 1957)

Edit to fix the link.

[Azrael 5]

Thats one way of saying "You talk sh*t jambo" Lol:D

[jambo372]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
The pond is very deep and full of plant debris and junk, they sent divers in but they could only go down so far. Also the body will have been decomposing for decades.-Jambo372

On the contrary, Jambo. It can't be both very deep and full of junk. It's full because it's fairly shallow. Most of the ponds in the area , of which Witchwood is by far the smallest, are remnants of periglacial kettleholes. None is more than thirty feet deep, most less than ten feet.

This pond could be dredged - indeed entirely removed- using easily available commercial pumps and a bulldozer, inside 48 hours.

And at 1.3km long, in a town about 3-5km across, Gartgill Road is one of the longest roads in Coatbridge, leading out of town into part wooded countryside - just the place to dump a body. It's hard to believe the police would overlook it if they were serious in driving the man around.

As for him not knowing the area., Jambo. There are such things as maps. (You'll find the pond on OS Landranger sheet 64, at Ref 723666. )
Link:- http://www.getamap.co.uk/getamap/
Click the Get A Map button, then type Coatbridge in the search box. The pond is near the top, above the word "Depot". (A container depot- it would not have existed in 1957)

Edit to fix the link.

There's a fly in your ointment.
You still haven't debunked him. Galogley confessed to dumping the body there after he, along with Alec Gartshore and an unidentified third party gave her chloroform, felt her up and strangled her to death.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by jambo372
There's a fly in your ointment.
You still haven't debunked him. Galogley confessed to dumping the body there after he, along with Alec Gartshore and an unidentified third party gave her chloroform, felt her up and strangled her to death.
Jambo, for the last time, the psychic has solved nothing. Anyone can guess at the location of the body in a murder investigation. Even if they guess right it proves nothing.

In this case we don't even know if they have guessed right as thy haven't found the body.
So the psychic has not solved the case or provided any evidence.
As per usual the case is going through a perfectly normal process of investigation, and suspect interrogation and confession.

And, irrelevant to anything an attention seeking 'psychic' buzzes away on the periphery adding no knowledge, evidence or useful information.

So you claim some psychics have helped solved murders. And we still ask, name one. Because you haven't yet.

And please respond on this other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53785).

[Kopji]

I knew Dennis Avery when he was alive.
He and his entire family are dead.
I do not consider this 'anecdotal' evidence.

The Kirtland Slayings (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/lundgren/why_16.html?sect=8)

And maybe surprisingly, not a life changing event either.
This did not shock me into unbelief.

It bothered my parents more than me, they were close friends of the Avery's parents. Dad was the one who voiced aloud if our beliefs did not sow the seeds of this tragedy. 'Not monsters, but nurturers of monsters'.

[Skepiroth]

http://www.cancure.org/homeopathy.htm There is some harm... a website marketing homeopathy as legit treatment for freaking cancer!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by jambo372
Homeopathy/Alternative medicine isn't considered paranormal.



I beg to differ. Randi qualified homeopathy for The Million Dollar Challenge on Horizons. Read the transcript here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml).

[Vikram]

Originally posted by new skeptic
http://www.cancure.org/homeopathy.htm There is some harm... a website marketing homeopathy as legit treatment for freaking cancer!

Aaargghhhh! That website made my blood boil! :mad:

[Ashles]

Another two examples:

On this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54629)

[Throg]

Originally posted by Beth
I would like to point out that what you are collecting here is anecdotal evidence. That doesn't make it invalid, nor does it mean that no harm occurs, but I think it wise to consider the opposite side. If someone were to be collecting similar evidence regarding the benefits of the paranormal, how would you respond? Would you consider it equally valid? Or would you dismiss such evidence as unreliable and unconvincing?

I believe Beth has a valid point here, in a number of respects.

Firstly that this is a collection of anecdotal evidence in the sense that it is evidence which has not been collected as part of a controlled sceintific study (though it is not all evidence in the form of anecdotes.

Secondly, these examples in no way show that it is generally the case that paranormal beliefs are harmful.

As a means to answer questions of the form, "what harm could it do?" I think these examples have a purpose but let us not be careful not to think that they help us to win the argument that belief in the paranormal is generally or necessarily harmful.

[Ashles]

Throg, we're discussing whether or not this is anecdotal on this other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53785), or on the thread about anecdotal evidence. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53793)

[Hastur]

Originally posted by Vikram
I don't know. Any lawyers here who could comment on the legal validity of such a claim?

It could be made, either as malpractice if the healer holds him/herself out as a professional or standard negligence if not. The alternative medicine crowd like to include disclaimers prospectively limiting their liability if/when the victim finds out the "cure" doesn't work, however. Lawyers generally cannot do it; I don't know how doctors view the practice (Thirdtwin, any info you can contribute?). If a liberal judge is hearing the case, one could use unconscionability to get around that.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Hastur
It could be made, either as malpractice if the healer holds him/herself out as a professional or standard negligence if not. The alternative medicine crowd like to include disclaimers prospectively limiting their liability if/when the victim finds out the "cure" doesn't work, however. Lawyers generally cannot do it; I don't know how doctors view the practice (Thirdtwin, any info you can contribute?). If a liberal judge is hearing the case, one could use unconscionability to get around that.

I am not a lawyer. It occurs to me however that in order for the alternative medicine practicioner to be found guilty of mdeical malpractice we would have to allow that what they are practicing is actually medicine (quite distinct from alternative medicine). There may be an inherent paradox of the form "if it works it's medicine and you can sue for malpractice, if it doesn't it it's not and you can't".

In England, a disclaimer would be irrelevant if the way in which the service is offered and advertised makes it clear that it is claimed to work (and if there is no such claim, what exactly is the service being offered?) Given this, if it could be shown that as of a matter of course an alternative medicine practice does not work and a reasonable person given access to the information the practitioner has would conclude this then the practitioner could be sued for obtaining money by deception, fraud, false advertising etc.

[Hastur]

Originally posted by Throg
I am not a lawyer. It occurs to me however that in order for the alternative medicine practicioner to be found guilty of mdeical malpractice we would have to allow that what they are practicing is actually medicine (quite distinct from alternative medicine). There may be an inherent paradox of the form "if it works it's medicine and you can sue for malpractice, if it doesn't it it's not and you can't".

In England, a disclaimer would be irrelevant if the way in which the service is offered and advertised makes it clear that it is claimed to work (and if there is no such claim, what exactly is the service being offered?) Given this, if it could be shown that as of a matter of course an alternative medicine practice does not work and a reasonable person given access to the information the practitioner has would conclude this then the practitioner could be sued for obtaining money by deception, fraud, false advertising etc.

Thay may very well be in England, I'm talking about US law. In regards to malpractice, I said if the AMP held him/herself out as a professional (i.e. claiming to have medical education), then maybe a plaintiff can sustain a malpractice claim. If the healer wants to be so stupid as to claim to be a doctor, s/he can be treated like one when s/he screws up. And if the judge won't allow it, there is bog standard negligence for any actual harm incurred, and yes, there could also be claims of fraud and false advertising.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Throg
I believe Beth has a valid point here, in a number of respects.

Firstly that this is a collection of anecdotal evidence in the sense that it is evidence which has not been collected as part of a controlled sceintific study (though it is not all evidence in the form of anecdotes.

Secondly, these examples in no way show that it is generally the case that paranormal beliefs are harmful.

As a means to answer questions of the form, "what harm could it do?" I think these examples have a purpose but let us not be careful not to think that they help us to win the argument that belief in the paranormal is generally or necessarily harmful.

I can live with that. :)

Swallowing a hundred homeopathic pills all at once is probably harmless. But taking homeopathic pills in place of seeking real medical treatment for a treatable disease is harmful.

But my saying it is harmful to forego real medicine in favor of homeopathy is just an intellectual exercise. So what I am looking for are actual illustrations of the harm paranormal beliefs have wrought.

Taking homeopathic pills as a preventative medication probably does no harm. Watching John Edward talk to someone's dead grandma probably does no harm most of the time. One could argue these things plant seeds which could later blossom into harmful behavior.

The most harm paranormal beliefs cause is to the wallet and to the mind, in my opinion.

[zakur]

My original post on this subject is long gone, disappearing in one of the forum database crashes of yore, but...

In the book Alive : The Story of the Andes Survivors (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038000321X), author Paul Piers Read relates how several of the families of those missing spent their own money to hire airplanes to continue the search long after the official search had concluded. Upon the advice of a 'psychic,' they concentrated their search in an area hundreds of miles from where the plane had actually crashed.

For those who have not read the book or seen the movie, out of the 45 original passengers and crew, only 16 made it off the mountain alive.

So to the question 'What's the harm?', in this case the answer would be starvation, cannibalism, and death.

[The Mighty Thor]

What's the harm with folk that believe in vampires?

Salinas (BCN) - A Salinas woman who claimed she was a vampire was sentenced Wednesday to six months in county jail for molesting a family friend, according to Monterey County Deputy District Attorney Gary Thelander.

Erin Shatraw, 18, was convicted on March 5 of one misdemeanor count of child molestation.

http://www.kcba.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=C518F8FB-3484-4B33-A64A-344C9A6339D5

[The Mighty Thor]

What's the harm with homeopathy?

Reader Gard Simons in The Netherlands, writes:

We too, in the Netherlands, cannot escape the frauds. I would like to bring to your attention a particularly annoying person, Joke Damman, who goes under the name of "Jomanda." She's a "healer." She conducts so-called healings which draw large crowds of sick and impaired people.

Recently she made a huge mistake. A well-known Dutch television personality, Sylvia Millecam, was diagnosed with breast cancer. Ms. Millecam, not being overly intelligent, wanted to have nothing to do with regular doctors. The tumor was relatively small and very well treatable with a large chance of success, as is common in the treating of "mammacarcinome," today. Ms. Millecam, however, turned to the "alternative circuit."

I quote from the report of the Dutch Healthcare Inspector:

Important in this is, that from the ranks of the alternative community, the diagnosis of breast cancer was contraindicated, and the patient was told she could be cured with unproven methods of treatment.


http://www.randi.org/jr/042205modern.html

[Ashles]

How about people being refused jobs after the interference of a psychic, tarot reader or numerologist in their interview procedure:

Psychics in recruitment (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56013)

Once a psychic deludes themselves far enough they may often feel there is nothing they can't pass judgement on, including deciding whether random strangers have secret drug problems, criminal records, psychological problems etc.
And denying them jobs as a result.

[Mojo]

Here's a recent news story illustrating the consequences of people not undergoing effective treatment for infectious diseases:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4528543.stm

OK, there's no evidence that this particular patient was coming off his treatment because he was using CAM, but it illustrates that there can be consequences for people other than the patient if effective treatment is not sought.

[songstress]

The problem is, paranormal events are ALWAYS reported in a negative light by the media - it has to be. A former friend of mine who is a journalist told me that 'if newspapers and TV began reporting the paranormal in a favourable light, it might undermine Christianity.' A woman whom I know (who is not a practising medium) had a strong premonition that she shouldn't board a ferry from Zeebrugge in 1987. She could not explain her complete reluctance to board the ship, even though to not board it would mean that she'd miss her footie match. She didn't, and the ferry sank. It was 'The Herald of Free Enterprise.' We never hear stories like this reported in the media, where a psychic experience has actually saved lives.

My friend has never had an experience like this, either before or since.

Nobody has ever looked at paranormal events with a scientific, open-minded view. Whether we like it or not, there is a whole lot more to being human than simply a flesh-and-blood body.

Patsy.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by songstress
Nobody has ever looked at paranormal events with a scientific, open-minded view.
Yes they have, many, many times.
Open-minded doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean accepting any story you are told unquestioningly and calling that research.
Pretending otherwise won't make it true.

And paranormal events are forever being potrayed positively in the media - animals have sixth sense, so-and-so can predict events thriough paintings, Nostradamus predicted XY and Z, psychics are helping police finding missing children...

Baldly stating untruths does not make them true Patsy.

Paranormal reporting is being repressed for fear of damage to Christianity... you really do come up with some utter nonsense don't you.

Would this be the same paranormal that hasn't won a certain challenge?
I guess Randi's in on the conspiracy too. Probably so are we. Maybe your friends are too...


Jeez, conspiracy nuts...

[songstress]

I am sorry Ashles, but I don't speak with utter nonsense. It's pure fact - media bods will not report the paranormal favourably. I know this to be the truth, first-hand.

And....as far as I am aware, no serious scientific studies have ever been done on paranormal topics. Closed-minded scepticism is not proof that the the paranormal does not exist. I know that research into quantum physics could be the 'gateway' into it, but I haven't seen anyone here even consider it, let alone talk sensibly about it. Saying that 'it isn't so' doesn't mean that it isn't.

And as for that stupid 'challenge' - don't get me started on that...if you want me to provide evidence that that is fraudulent nonsense, I will publish and be damned..!

Patsy.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by songstress
I know this to be the truth, first-hand.

And....as far as I am aware, no serious scientific studies have ever been done on paranormal topics. Closed-minded scepticism is not proof that the the paranormal does not exist. I know that research into quantum physics could be the 'gateway' into it, but I haven't seen anyone here even consider it, let alone talk sensibly about it. Saying that 'it isn't so' doesn't mean that it isn't.

And as for that stupid 'challenge' - don't get me started on that...if you want me to provide evidence that that is fraudulent nonsense, I will publish and be damned..!

Patsy.

You can not extrapolate to universals from your personal experience. It is illogical. Convenient, but illogical.

Please, post your evidence. I'll be over here holding my breath waiting for all of my illusions to be crushed.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by songstress
I am sorry Ashles, but I don't speak with utter nonsense. It's pure fact - media bods will not report the paranormal favourably. I know this to be the truth, first-hand.
I know this not to be truth first hand, as I have access to newspapers, TV, radio, all of which love a psychic story as in the examples I provided above.
It's not 'pure fact' - the media reports positive psychic stories all the time, and the number of psychic shows, haunted house shows, UFO shows etc. is collossal.
Honestly, claming otherwise is just plain stupid and flies in the face of evidence that everyone can observe themselves.

If you're going to make things up, why invent claims that are so obviously and demonstrably not true? It makes no sense.

And....as far as I am aware, no serious scientific studies have ever been done on paranormal topics. Closed-minded scepticism is not proof that the the paranormal does not exist.
Have you ever even read any of this site?
I could list people like Wiseman and Blackmore, but no doubt you would consider them biased or not "serious scientific studies".
Still, at least it implies that you agree that Sheldrake hasn't done anything serious either.

What exactly constitutes serious scientific research to you Patsy? The people currently carrying out their studies might be interested to know what they are doing wrong. Please enlighten us all...

I know that research into quantum physics could be the 'gateway' into it, but I haven't seen anyone here even consider it, let alone talk sensibly about it. Saying that 'it isn't so' doesn't mean that it isn't.
Oh I'd really love to know what you think you know about quantum physics and how it applies to parnormal abilities.
Please tell me you didn't just watch "What the bleep do we know" and subsequently assume you understand Quantum Physics.

And as for that stupid 'challenge' - don't get me started on that...if you want me to provide evidence that that is fraudulent nonsense, I will publish and be damned..!

Patsy.
Er, go ahead. I'm sure you've been keeping to yourself all this time for purely altruistic reasons.

Let's hear it Patsy.

[songstress]

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/jamesrandi.htm

Illogical?

In case I get thrown off this forum, I want to say that I have enjoyed engaging with you all....

Patsy.

[songstress]

Seems like I'm still here (for the time being) so here's another reason why genuine mediums won't have any truck with the 'Challenge':

http://www.rense.com/general50/james/htm


So, if a medium isn't famous, Mr Randi's not interested.....


Patsy.

[songstress]

Ashles,

I certainly have seen Wiseman's and Blackmore's experiments, and whilst convincing, aren't giving the whole picture. In the interests of balance, I recommend that you also read Professor Sir Oliver Lodge, eminent physicist who did much more in the way of research into the paranormal, as well as paving the way for Einstein's theory of relativity. I'd also recommend you read Sir William Barrett FRS and Gary Schwartz.

Yes, I am familiar with quantum mechanics, which seem to have been given very short shrift here. Since nobody seems remotely interested in discussing it with a modicum of sense, I won't elaborate on it.

Patsy.
xxxxx
edited - spelling mistake.

[Darat]

Originally posted by songstress
Seems like I'm still here (for the time being) so here's another reason why genuine mediums won't have any truck with the 'Challenge':

http://www.rense.com/general50/james/htm


So, if a medium isn't famous, Mr Randi's not interested.....


Patsy.

Er have you done any fact checking on the article your link leads to? (By the way your link is wrong it should be: http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm )

[Darat]

Originally posted by songstress
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/jamesrandi.htm

Illogical?

In case I get thrown off this forum, I want to say that I have enjoyed engaging with you all....

Patsy.

And what are these links meant to demonstrate or prove?

[Darat]

Originally posted by songstress
Ashles,

I certainly have seen Wiseman's and Blackmore's experiments, and whilst convincing, aren't giving the whole picture. In the interests of balance, I recommend that you also read Professor Sir Oliver Lodge, eminent physicist who did much more in the way of research into the paranormal, as well as paving the way for Einstein's theory of relativity. I'd also recommend you read Sir William Barrett FRS and Gary Schwartz.

Yes, I am familiar with quantum mechanics, which seem to have been given very short shrift here. Since nobody seems remotely interested in discussing it with a modicum of sense, I won't elaborate on it.

Patsy.
xxxxx
edited - spelling mistake.

Thanks - I needed a good chuckle, I was reading through this page and at first thought you were being serious! (I know I'm slow on the uptake!) :)

(Edited for "at first".)

[Ashles]

Originally posted by songstress
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/jamesrandi.htm

Illogical?

In case I get thrown off this forum, I want to say that I have enjoyed engaging with you all....

Patsy.
Why would you get thrown off the forum? If you think that is really a serious critique of the million dollar challenge then we want to keep you around just for humour potential.

Like Montague Keen hasn't been repeatedly thoroughly shown for the clown he is. (Just do a search)
Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it.
Of course anyone with half a brain should see instantly that the second sentence does not follow logically from the first.
What will constitute a successful result has already been agreed between the JREF and the claimant.

The first sentence means that the JREF retains all rights to use and publish the data as required.

This is your idea of evidence Songstress? One man's incorrect opinions? Oh dear oh dear...

Why not go the whole hog and link to Victor Zammit too.

Frankly, Keen is a bit of a joke from the past now.

Randi answers Keen (http://www.randi.org/jr/091903.html)

And feel free to start a thread about Quantum Physics - there are some posters here who know it very well.
But I very much doubt you do.

By the way in what way are Blackmore and wiseman "not giving the full picture"? because their results disagree with your beliefs and opinions?

And then to quote Schwartz to "balance" things up!

Hehehe.

[Luke T.]

Bump.

[Complexity]

Songstress - Publish and be damned.

I'm all aquiver with anticipation! Please tell us what you know about quantum mechanics...

[Euromutt]

A dead 10 year old girl after failed "rebirthing" (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2001/candacenewmaker.htm)

Some extracts from a video of the "rebirthing" procedure that lead to her death :I hadn't come across that before. That is one of the most sickening things I have ever had the displeasure to read, and given that I spent over three years working at a war crimes tribunal, that's saying something. Section 18-3-102 of the Colorado Criminal Code states that a person is guilty of murder in the first degree if he:(d) Under circumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally, he knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person, or persons, other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another;Had I been the prosecuting attorney, with that video as evidence, I would not only have gone for a charge of murder one for Ponder, Watkins, McDaniel and St.Clair, but demanded the death penalty (even though I'm against the death penalty in principle, and even though I'm aware of the high standard Colorado sets (http://www.denver-rmn.com/news/0625deat3.shtml) before imposing it). The only reason I wouldn't request a chorus of volunteers to yell "quitter" at all four while they were dying by lethal injection is that would probably be deemed "cruel and unusual punishment." Given the contents of that video, I can't imagine any jury having any hesitation in passing a "guilty" verdict. Frankly, I think the prosecution wimped out.