Being a blogger who writes about skepticism can be frustrating. After reading yet another “Never eat <whatever>! It’s a poison! THEY don’t want you to know!” article, I had this grand plan of writing something similar, but satirical. I was going to write an article that warned about something many people love – chocolate. This was going to be similar to the hilarious “dihydrogen monoxide” hoax from a bunch of years ago. I chose chocolate because it’s something that is enjoyed by many people but few know much about what’s in it or how it’s made. Could there be toxic chemicals used in the manufacture of chocolate? Sure, maybe, I don’t know.

I was going to do some research into the chemical make-up of chocolate, the growing and manufacturing process, packaging, marketing, all that kind of stuff. Anything even remotely negative was going to be blown out of proportion. Facts would be exaggerated. I wasn’t going to add outright lies, but maybe stretch the truth a little here and there. I’d stress that chocolate contains chemicals and genetically modified foods. I’d point out alternate uses for some of the chemicals in it. The longer the chemical name, the better. I’d point out things in chocolate that were “chemically similar” to some actual toxin, as if that means anything. And I’d make sure to use the word “chemicals” a lot.

Then I’d add some stories about “people I knew” or had heard of. So-and-so got really sick and stopped eating chocolate and got better. Hell, I could even use my own experience – I had some chocolate the morning of my pancreatitis attack (true) and spent the next two months in the hospital (true). But then after two months without chocolate (true), I went home and I’m totally fine today (true)! All of those things marked “true” are true, even if they’re completely unrelated. And there you have it – a compelling story that is completely true! Totally misleading, but true!

Finally, I’d point out that many people know that chocolate is toxic to dogs and cats (and this is completely true), so how can something toxic to them be safe for humans? (Answer: easy, we’re not the same.)

The result was going to be an article that would make people think that chocolate was a horrible toxic product, child slavery was used to make it (though this may not be far from the truth, unfortunately), companies that made it were hiding the truth, and the FDA was in on the whole conspiracy. It was going to be fun! Then at the end I’d explain how I’d stretched the truth and exaggerated things and such, thus making the point that when you see articles talking about how toxic aspartame is (or high-fructose corn syrup, or genetically modified foods, or whatever) you should think twice about what you’re reading, and realize that these types of articles routinely use misleading wording to scare people.

But I can’t write such an article for one simple reason: people already have, and theirs isn’t satirical. It’s full of the same half-truths and scary-sounding words and stuff that I was going to use, but these people actually believe it.

Skeptical writers have known about this type of situation for years, and even have a law called Poe’s Law describing it. Poe’s Law states:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.

Poe’s Law was originally coined to refer to Creationism, i.e. you can’t write a parody of Creationism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing. It was then modified to include any other “extreme ideology” like alternative medicines or (especially) conspiracy theories but it applies just the same. No matter how wacky you write your parody or satire, someone believes something that’s wackier than that.

Discovering this article scuttled my whole idea, since mine was going to be essentially the same. So not only are these people publishing half-truths and deliberately misleading stuff to try to play on people’s fears (not to mention scientific illiteracy), but now they’re screwing with my blog. I won’t stand for it. I’m going to eat some chocolate right now. That’ll show ’em.

The Flamborough Santa Claus parade was a little over week ago. Gail and Nicky were on the Scouting float, and Ryan and I went to watch the parade with some friends. One of them bought some cotton candy for her kids but rather than buying the one bag each they asked for, she bought one that they all could share. This was partially because it was $5 per bag (which probably contained 35¢ worth of sugar and 2¢ worth of food colouring) and partially, she said, because she didn’t want her kids bouncing off the walls all night. I almost spoke up to tell her that sugar doesn’t affect behaviour and that there’s no such thing as a “sugar rush”, but I didn’t. I said nothing at all. Why? Because I remembered the avocados.

A little while ago, Gail bought a couple of avocados, something we don’t eat very often, and made some guacamole. Once we finished it (mmmmmm), she bought some more avocados, and when we finished those she bought some more again. I mentioned that she seemed to be enjoying the avocados lately and she said yes, but part of the reason she had bought them was because she’d heard that they’re a “superfood”. Before I could say a word, however, she added “but I don’t want to argue with you over whether they really are a superfood”. I wasn’t planning on arguing about it or even talking about it, but I had to wonder why she felt she had to head me off.

(Aside: Please don’t take this as a criticism of my wife. If the “superfood” thing had any bearing on her decision to buy the avocados, I know that it was a distant second to “They’re yummy”. She’s not as into the skepticism thing as I am but she doesn’t get caught up in this kind of hype.)

I realized that since I started getting sort of caught up in the skeptical movement about a year and a half ago, my skepticism has become a defining part of me. I am not embarrassed or ashamed of this at all; I’m proud to be a skeptic. Each of my last few blog articles has been skeptical in one way or another, it inspired the first piece of fiction I’ve written in decades, and I listen to no less than four different skeptical podcasts every week. But I did not realize that this might have a negative effect on my friends and family. Perhaps I have become “that guy” – the one that nobody wants to talk to because he argues with everything. I certainly don’t try to argue with everything, and I wouldn’t in general call myself an argumentative person.

But when someone talks about how they had acupuncture the other day and how it made them feel better, I want to point out that it was almost entirely due to the placebo effect, i.e. the belief that what the acupuncturist is doing will help. This is a well-known and well-documented, if not entirely well-understood, effect. In addition, here was a caring and helpful person who was making an effort to help you relieve your pain – that interaction with the acupuncturist likely played a role in the pain relief as well.

But as you can imagine, explaining this to the acupuncture patient isn’t likely to get the desired response of “Oh really? I’ll have to do some research into that before I spend money on it again. Thanks for the information!”

Yes, going to the acupuncturist probably did relieve some of your pain. But the truth is that it’s only partial relief, it’s only temporary, and it doesn’t relieve the actual cause of the pain in the first place. The truth is that the needles themselves serve no purpose. Alternative medicine is a pet peeve of mine, leading to one of my favourite quotes:

There’s a name for alternative medicine techniques that have been proven effective. They’re called “medicine.”

Acupuncture is just one type: the truth is that your homeopathic remedy relies entirely on the placebo effect. The truth is that your plastic power bracelet does nothing. The truth is that most products prescribed by doctors work even if they’re not all-natural and contain (gasp) chemicals.

This applies to a lot of other things too: the truth is that sugar doesn’t make kids hyper. The truth is that being outside on a cold day with wet hair will not make you sick. The truth is that taking vitamin C (in large or small doses) will not prevent you from getting a cold. There are plenty of other things that everyone “just knows” that are patently false.

But people don’t always want to hear the truth, and the guy that is always pointing out the truth is “that guy” – the annoying guy who doesn’t believe in anything.

Why is the search for truth annoying? I’m not trying to be a know-it-all. I’m not trying to argue for the sake of arguing. I want to know how the world actually works, not how people think it should work, or how people used to think it worked. My assumption is that others want to know how it works as well. If my wife is buying avocados because she likes them, great. But if she’s buying them because of some magic property that they don’t have, she’s wasting her – our – money. If you’re getting acupuncture and it’s making you feel better, great. But I strongly believe that you deserve to know that the needles themselves are not doing anything. If you know that and still decide to go, that’s fine. You’re making an informed decision.

This is not a rant about “why doesn’t everyone believe what I believe?” There are many things that are unproven (and unprovable). On these issues, some people believe one way and others believe another. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind on anything.

But when numerous clinical studies show that some herbal remedy does not work, and reliable, unbiased studies showing that it does work are few and far between, you have to start believing that maybe it doesn’t actually work, even if you think your own experience has shown the opposite. Human memories are far from perfect, and without controls, there are too many variables. Good scientific studies eliminate the variables, and are not subject to imperfect memories or things like confirmation bias. Science is the search for truth. Trust the science.

I’m not trying to be “that guy”. I’m not trying to be irritating. I just want the truth. I tell others because I assume they want the truth as well.

We can handle the truth.

Natural News is the best. The absolute number one, no question. If you are looking for the biggest source of bullshit on the internet, Natural News is the place to go.

There are all kinds of crazy stories on that site, mostly about how the healthcare industry is a huge conspiracy to keep people sick and how there are natural and “chemical-free” remedies for everything from indigestion to cancer (and of course the healthcare conspiracy is covering them up). But this article takes the cake. This is the granddaddy of them all – the one that combines all the different conspiracy theories together.

It’s called “Everything is rigged – health, politics, finance and more – but here’s how to beat the system”. The author says that multiple industries – food, health, government, banking, justice, news, even war – are “rigged to cheat you, to suppress you, and ultimately to suppress your human potential“. Nowhere does he say why, other than the generic and evidence-free claims of corporations maximizing profits by taking advantage of their customers. He also implies that corporations and banks are in control of the government, though again he doesn’t say how or why. There are almost no links in the article that don’t go back to Natural News itself, so all of these conspiracy claims are just stated as if they’re common knowledge (they’re not) and don’t need evidence (they do).

What’s the author’s way to beat the system? Don’t play. Don’t send your kid to “government-run indoctrination centers known as public schools, home school them.” Right, because everyone has that option. Don’t watch cable news propaganda, get your news from Natural News. Just a touch self-serving, no? Don’t vote for any president at all, since “voting for a presidential candidate legitimizes the corrupt system“, but “it’s definitely important to vote for local candidates“. So the federal system is corrupt but the local one isn’t?

He doesn’t even seem to realize the conflicting claims he’s making. He claims that the “food system is rigged with GMOs* that actually poison you while spreading genetic pollution across farms and fields everywhere.” He also says that “Government regulators are completely rigged. The FDA looks out primarily for the interests of Monsanto* and drug companies, not the safety of the American people.” Then later, he suggests we “buy organic and avoid the GMOs“. Because you know that food marked organic meets all the standards for that label. You know that the organic farm isn’t being doused with “genetic pollution”. You know the farmer isn’t using pesticides and such and just claiming it’s organic so he can charge three times as much money for the same apples. How do you know these things? Because the government regulates use of the term “organic” and won’t let – but wait! These guys don’t trust the government or their regulators!

* – Monsanto is a huge American biotech company that is pioneering research into genetically modified crops, also known as genetically modified organisms or GMOs.

They state that the government is trying to poison everyone. If that’s true, what better way for them to do it than to come up with a word that tells people “this product is SAFE!” and then just slap that word on stuff whether it’s safe or not? And while they’re at it, they should triple the price of organic things so they make more money at the same time! Unless you personally go to the farms and watch the entire farming process from beginning to end, you kind of have to trust the government regulators, don’t you? Assuming the government is corrupt and trying to poison us almost guarantees that the organic industry is part of it.

Finally, the author comes up with five levels of “awareness / awakening” numbered, oddly enough, from 0 to 4. Level 0 is “Zombie”, someone who is ignorant of all of the conspiracies previously discussed. This is apparently 90% of people. He then lists some “keywords and concepts that typically relate” to such Zombies: “Football, sports scores, TV sitcoms, processed junk food, vaccinations, playing the lotto, following doctors’ orders, submitting to apparent authority, going along with the status quo.” Wow. Not too judgmental.

Level 1 is “Awakened”, and this describes people who are just starting to ask questions about all of these conspiracies. These people “read ingredients on foods” and watch “documentaries instead of sports”. But if the food industry and government regulators are both corrupt, what good does reading the ingredients on foods do? They’re obviously mislabeled so the Zombies don’t find out about the mind-control chemicals the government puts in everything. Except organic stuff, of course. And the bit about documentaries makes total sense because once you realize that government and Big Pharma control the entire food and healthcare industries, obviously you lose your interest in something unrelated like sports.

Level 2 is “Informed”, consisting of people who have “taught themselves a significant amount of real history and the way the world really works“. (The emphasis on “real history” is his, not mine.) They even mention that these people should have a knowledge of “basic science“. Obviously he’s hoping nobody that reads Natural News has reached this level or they’d realize what a load of crap it is.

Level 3 is “Mastery”, which is people with great influence – the “innovators, creators and often communicators“. The idea is “achieving relevance in a world largely populated by utterly irrelevant people“. Since he’s already said that this is less than 1% of the population, he just called over 99% of the world’s population irrelevant.

Level 4 is “Enlightenment”, and “far less than one in a million” people ever get here, and only through “the highest dedication to spiritual awakening“. At this level, “individuals become withdrawn from the material world and really have no interest in interacting with individuals of lower levels of awareness“. He says this like it’s the pinnacle of human achievement, but I don’t think I’d want to be there. I kind of like interacting with my fellow Zombies.

The author never states which group he considers himself a part of, but it’s obvious he thinks he’s at the top. One of the scariest parts of the article is the list of facebook comments below it. It’s filled with people who also consider themselves at level 4 and honestly say things like “It can be so difficult and lonely at this level” and “it’s lonely at the top of the mountain”. First off, if far less than one in a million people reach level 4, then there are less than 7,000 level 4’s in the world today. We should feel honoured that a bunch of them all decided to interact with us Zombies. But these are people who “really have no interest in interacting with individuals of lower levels of awareness” – and they’ve joined facebook? If reaching level 4 turns you into a holier-than-thou douchebag, I definitely don’t want to get there – especially if you’re a lonely holier-than-thou douchebag.

On his “levels of awakening” scale, I’d call myself a level 2, since I’m making an effort to be informed on “real history” and basic science. I listen to a number of science-based podcasts and follow science news on the internet, I do read ingredients on food, and I do enjoy watching documentaries. But I also watch sports and I’m skeptical of pretty much everything on Natural News, so that probably pushes me back down to level 0. If that’s the case, so be it. I’d much rather hang out down here with my fellow Zombies than with people who consider themselves in a group that’s better than everyone else just because they believe the same bullshit.