Australian Skeptics Challenge Ellen Allen - video

[Richard]

Australian Skeptics Challenge Ellen Allen

Ellen Allen uses energy therapy. By clicking her fingers, she claims to diagnose all sorts of ill See:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/secondopinion/txt/s1381039.htm

To see our challenge, see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLz01EFH6ig

[Richard]

Ellen Allen's web site

http://www.ellendallen.com/index.html

[Richard]

Ah, I found my original posting on the ABC web site:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/secondopinion/

Richard Saunders: Energy Therapy

Just to recap, on last night’s show, Ellen Allen, an "Energy Therapist", was shown diagnosing her patient by having him hold bottles of pills and then feeling the ‘energy’ coming out of his other hand.

OK. This is plainly nonsense. You cannot diagnose illness or bodily functions in this manner. It would save a lot of time if you could and we would all benefit. But we live in the real world and this is clearly a deluded fantasy.

Australian Skeptics offer Ellen Allen or anyone else who claims such powers, $100,000 if they can prove their claims in a properly conducted, independently umpired test.

And to the ABC, you must know what Ellen Allen is claiming is nonsense. Why present it as a alternative to medicine? Shouldn’t you be presenting it as an example of what consumers should be wary of? Remember ‘The Investigators’?

[Flange Desire]

Thanks for posting this thread Richard.
So is there any followup regarding her refusal to participate?

"I am not out to prove to anybody what can or can't be done."
A common plea of those who make outrageous claims.

"The Australian Skeptics have a reputation for having won every so-called setup challenge that they have offered, so I am not going to go there."
A compliment for the A.S.! And another commonly used out.

"Kinesiology and much of the scientific journals have published results about blockages, energy testing, (and) different ways that other cultures deal with their medical problems. I suggest that they would do some research."
Funny gramma, but perhaps we can pin her down on some of this.

I will consider emailing her personally tomorrow.
Or would you suggest I go to the 'second opinion' feedback site (i have not been there yet)?

[Richard]

Thanks for posting this thread Richard.
So is there any followup regarding her refusal to participate?

I will consider emailing her personally tomorrow.
Or would you suggest I go to the 'second opinion' feedback site (i have not been there yet)?

We sent more letters to the ABC but heard nothing. The 'second opinion' feedback site is now no longer operational I fear as the show was axed last year. I doubt if Ellen Allen would ever take our challenge, but I bet she is still taking money for her magic.

[Flange Desire]

As usual, I am a bit late on the uptake.
Anyways, just because I am a pest I emailed her this ....

Dear Ms Allen,

I am very interested in your response to The Australian Skeptics' challenge.

You said (and please excuse my transcription here) ...


"I am not out to prove to anybody what can or can't be done."

You would be aware that this is a plea commonly used by those who make quack claims.
You have claimed (by implication) that you can diagnose a patient by having them hold bottles of pills and then feeling the ‘energy’ coming out of their other hands.
Claims such as these require some supporting evidence, or else they must be decried as quackery by thinking people.


"The Australian Skeptics have a reputation for having won every so-called setup challenge that they have offered, so I am not going to go there."

That is a very fine compliment for the Australian Skeptics!
But your un-subtle implication that such a challenge would not be impartial is, of course, incorrect and spurious (unless perhaps you have some evidence to support impartiality).
This is another plea commonly used by charlatans.


"Kinesiology and much of the scientific journals have published results about blockages, energy testing - different ways that other cultures deal with their medical problems."
I suppose you are saying that you have some evidence to back your claims.
Great! This is exactly what is needed.
Please show some evidence regarding the bottle of pills in hand thingumywhatsit.


"I suggest that they would do some research."

That last sentence seems to be some sort of 'transference'.
As you are probably well aware, the onus is always on the claimant to provide supporting evidence, and the more 'out there' the claim is then the more convincing that evidence needs to be.


Thanks in anticipation,

[Richard]

This was posted on the Second Opinion Site last year:

Australian Skeptics’ challenge to Ellen Allen

During the show on 7 June, Ellen Allen claimed she was using ‘Energy Therapy’ to diagnose nutritional deficiencies.

We Skeptics said this was nonsense and offered $100,000 if she could prove us wrong in an independent trial. Ellen wimped out.

Her reply was that she was not going to “go there” because our challenge is a “so called set-up”.

Who says? Our challenge is fair dinkum. Ask the person who created it - Dick Smith. We do not conduct our trials until BOTH PARTIES agree it is a fair test of the claims made.

Ellen added that she was “not out to prove to anybody what can or can’t be done.” Really? Does she say that to the people who she takes money from?

If Ellen was not faking her work, then she should be able to repeat the results. If she can do that a few times to rule out the chance of fluking it, then she can have the money. And if she does not want it, there are plenty of charities who do.

Ellen says she does not want to prove anything but she and her patients described how she measures deficiencies, on a scale of 0-2, of many vitamins and nutrients, and whether specific medicines will help them. The Skeptics ask, using the same patient, can Ellen get the same result twice with masked bottles in random order? Should be a cinch. So it’s over to Ellen. We have details of a fair test waiting for her.

A copy of this letter will be sent to the producers of Second Opinion and also posted on the Australian Skeptics web site.

Ian Bryce
Chief Investigator Australian Skeptics

Martin Hadley
President Australian Skeptics

www.skeptics.com.au

[SimonJ1966]

Thanks Richard for you post.
I actually wrote to her asking if she would reconsider a test.

My point being that she should not fear the outcome, because its better to find out the truth of a therapy than to bave in ignorance and hope it works etc ... i dont know if she will respond - it was only recently sent.

I found it interseting that they all agreed more research was required. This is true of all things, as you can never know everything, but they admitted little research was done, yet they are all too happy to promote and profit from it.

[Moochie]

Thanks Richard for you post.
I actually wrote to her asking if she would reconsider a test.

My point being that she should not fear the outcome, because its better to find out the truth of a therapy than to bave in ignorance and hope it works etc ... i dont know if she will respond - it was only recently sent.

I found it interseting that they all agreed more research was required. This is true of all things, as you can never know everything, but they admitted little research was done, yet they are all too happy to promote and profit from it.

Good points. I suppose being on national TV might have dampened the other panelists' critical faculties, assuming they had any to begin with.

I wrote a highly critical email to the site as well, albeit in response to other ridiculous claims made by another nincompoop-of-the-week.

I am heartened at this program's demise.

M.