Calgary Skeptic’s Society Blog

Last week I read an article from the CBC about “Raw Milk Crusader” Michael Schmidt, a farmer in Ontario. Schmidt is a proponent of the consumption of raw milk, arguing it is beneficial to your health.

Selling raw milk for consumption is illegal in Canada:

Subject to subsection (2), no person shall sell the normal lacteal secretion obtained from the mammary gland of the cow, genus Bos, or of any other animal, or sell a dairy product made with any such secretion, unless the secretion or dairy product has been pasteurized by being held at a temperature and for a period that ensure the reduction of the alkaline phosphatase activity so as to meet the tolerances specified in official method MFO-3, Determination of Phosphatase Activity in Dairy Products, dated November 30, 1981.

According to several websites I read, Canada is the only G7 nation to ban unpasteurized milk sales (though more than half of the States have also outlawed raw milk sales).

Of course, you may have noticed that the law only pertains to the sale of raw milk – it’s perfectly legal to consume raw milk. Thus, a loop-hole: Michael Schmidt managed to get around the law by selling not the milk of his cows, but the privilege to look after the cows themselves. You can “sponsor” a cow – the food and care it needs is covered by you, and you therefore have a right to its milk. You can consume it any way you want. You have to hand it to Schmidt; this is creative. And sneaky.

According to www.naturalmilk.org, there are two types of raw milk supporters. First, the Michael Schmidt type of “cow sharing” whereby you can sneak past the laws and provide raw milk to people. And second, “official recognition” – petitioning the courts to legalize the sale of raw milk based on its health benefits. The website considers itself to be pushing for official recognition which is, in my books, a much more commendable effort. They’re using evidence to build their case (though some of the evidence is admittedly sketchy – the website’s author states that his partner has noticed that her breasts are larger and firmer when she drinks raw milk, and a couple of her friends have said the same. These are anecdotes, not evidence!).

The process of pasteurization is meant to remove harmful bacterium from milk, such as listeria, E. coli, and salmonella. However, it also removes several types of bacteria and enzymes that are either helpful or harmless to humans. This is why some people prefer raw milk (though some just like the taste of it more than processed milk). According to the FDA, though, “Research has shown that there is no significant difference in the nutritional value of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk”. The vitamins and “good bacteria” that the raw milk advocates claim are done away with through pasteurization are only slightly reduced – more than 90% of the naturally-occurring vitamins in milk survive pasteurization. It is true that most enzymes are removed from raw milk during processing, but that has little effect on humans: the enzymes in milk are useless to people because they’re cow enzymes.

As for the claims that raw milk “boosts your immune system” and “has healing qualities”, these are the same vague, nonsense claims made of many alternative health products. There’s no proof that raw milk can cure illness, nor will it help build your immune system. Any such claims are just confirmation bias in action.

Not only are there no benefits to drinking raw milk, it has also been very harmful in many cases. According to the FDA website, over 200 people became sick in the US in 2002 (sorry, most recent data I could find) as a direct result of drinking unpasteurized milk products. People can contract tuberculosis, salmonella poisoning, and many more illnesses from drinking milk that has not been properly processed. So, raw milk should be avoided. That’s why Canada outlawed the sale of unpasteurized dairy products, to protect its citizens from negative health effects.

But back to Michael Schmidt. Schmidt was first convicted in October 2008 for contempt of court, after violating a court order to stop selling or distributing raw milk. He was fined $55,000 altogether – not an insignificant amount for him, but not nearly enough to break the bank. However, contempt of court is not his most devious crime – last week, the trial began for 20 other counts against Schmidt after his farm was raided by police a few years ago.

Schmidt has stated that this case has more to do with human rights than with the sale of milk – “When it comes to our own body and what we put in our body as food, the government should respect what people want to do.” Normally I would agree with that statement, but when the substance in question is harmful to one’s health, and with such misinformation floating around, there needs to be some sort of governmental regulation around it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did find several reputable sources claiming that raw milk, when “done right”, is not much more harmful to humans than pasteurized milk. This means more stringent controls on the cattle’s food, higher standards of veterinary care, and more rigorous testing for harmful bacteria in milk. If all these criteria were fulfilled, I would agree with raw milk advocates – in this case the government doesn’t have any right to withhold natural milk from the public. If it’s not harmful, why not? If it’s subjected to the same tests for bacteria and contaminants as all other foods, and as long as people understand the risk associated with its consumption, the government has no business prohibiting the sale of raw milk.

Humans aren’t really meant to drink milk anyways – we are the only species to continue to drink milk after early childhood, and the only species to drink the milk of a different species. That’s why lactose intolerance is so prevalent in humans – about 25% of North Americans are lactose intolerant – our bodies didn’t evolve to digest milk after we’re weaned.

I’m sure many people have heard of, if not seen, the new show The Mentalist, which premiered this September on CBS. To give a quick synopsis of the show, it stars Simon Baker as Thomas Jane, a man who used to present himself as a psychic, doing cold readings and talking to people “on the other side”. After a tragedy in his personal life which was related to his fraudulent career, he turns a new leaf and admits he was faking it. He gets a job with the California Board of Investigation as a homicide detective. He has an exceptional talent in “reading” people – he uses their subtle body language and inadvertent hints in  conversation to narrow down his suspect list.

First, a quick review: I really like this show. It’s a solid drama, with the obligatory funny bits and a good-looking lead actor. The supporting cast is also excellent, especially Robin Tunney, playing Thomas Jane’s boss Lisbon. The show follows the one crime per episode style, typical of all crime dramas, and each episode includes a small bit about Jane’s personal life and history. The writing is decent, not brilliant by any means, but it kept me interested. The crimes are always interesting, and each episode has the plot twist we’ve all come to expect in hour-long programs. Though the structure is nothing new, the characters, storylines, and concepts are fresh material. Overall, I’d give it 4 stars out of 5.

Now the skeptical part. Thomas Jane openly declares that not only was he simply pretending to be a psychic for all those years, but that all psychics are fake. In the pilot episode, he gets into a debate with Grace, one of his fellow investigators. She asks “when you get together with a real psychic, do they know that you’re just faking?” to which Jane responds “there’s no such thing as a real psychic” - point one for the skeptic! I was a little worried in this part about a cop-out – that Thomas wouldn’t defend his skepticism in order to respect Grace’s beliefs. He gives a quick cold reading about Grace, stating that he knows her father is a football coach, that it’s obvious by her whole demeanor.

Later in the episode, she says, “I think you are a real psychic, you just won’t admit it” - the classic defense of many true believers. Thomas just laughs.

The one major let-down in the show is its rather constant talk of hypnotism. Thomas Jane hypnotizes one witness, instructing her to tell him the truth about what she knows about a victim. In another episode, Jane suggests hypnotism in order to remember little details that your conscious mind may have forgotten, but your subconscious mind can recall. In this case he doesn’t actually hypnotize the witnesses, just pretends to – I’ll let you watch the episode to see why. However, his talk of hypnotism is quite unskeptical, since to date no evidence has been found to confirm the idea that hypnotism can help an individual recall memories – think of the “repressed memory” hypnotists of the 1990s, who got themselves in quite a lot of trouble by implanting memories in a patient as opposed to helping the patient recall their real memories. See the Skepdic article on hypnosis for more information.

Hopefully the talk of hypnotism will subside in future episodes. Right now, I give the show an A- for a skeptical rating – it uses humour and logic to poke fun at psychics and show that they’re frauds. Let’s hope the audience will take this thought to heart. So far IMDB doesn’t have many ratings or reviews, and the ones I’ve found elsewhere were mostly positive, though not glowingly so. I’ll follow up when more people have reacted to the show.

I believe mainstream media is the best way to educate people on critical thinking and skepticism – up to now, it hasn’t been doing its job. Hopefully we’ll see more prime time shows such as The Mentalist that encourage people to think for themselves, demand evidence, and reject pseudoscience.

Rebecca wrote a post for the The Rogue’s Gallery yesterday about an incredibly unfortunate article-slash-advertisement at CNN. Basically, CareerBuilder.com wrote an article for the site that states you can find the ideal career for you based on your Zodiac sign. It’s like a horoscope combined with career advice. It’s BS.

Before you read the CNN article, read the blog post - Rebecca listed all the characteristics of each Zodiac sign, but took out the name of the sign - choose the characteristics that most describe you or the job description that’s close to your own, and then see if you’re right by reading the article!

Mine was totally off, but then again I was in more of an Aries mood today than a Capricorn mood. That must be it.

This article is unbelievable. Of course it’s true that (most) people choose their career based on their characteristics, skills, and values, but unfortunately for true believers, none of these things corresponds with your Zodiac sign. I’m sure you instinctively know why this is ridiculous, but for more details, check out the Skeptic’s Dictionary entry or the one in the JREF encyclopedia. Basically, horoscope writers come up with the most typical characteristics possible, and spout the most generic advice which could apply to anyone.

James Randi once debunked horoscopes in a University class of about 60 people by handing everyone a horoscope (he first asked for their signs first so they thought it was a legitimate one) and asking them to read it. He then asked anyone who felt their horoscope was accurate to raise their hand, and everyone present did. Then he asked everyone to hand their horoscope to the person behind them, and read the one from the person in front of them. It turned out everyone had been handed the same one, and everyone felt it applied to them.

The CNN article is very similar. There were several signs that seemed to describe me, but I chose the one that most closely matched (and even it wasn’t 100% accurate).

Doing a quick Google search for horoscopes and astrology, I came across this article at a website called Star IQ: The Future of Astrology. It describes a reading done on Michael Shermer, based on his birthdate and place (to determine which constellations were where at that time). Apparently the author is appalled that Shermer rejected this description of his character, since it so clearly describes him. Honestly, though, this is one of the most obvious fakes I’ve ever seen - if you’re going to do an astrological “reading” on someone, choose someone who doesn’t have a biography plastered all over the internet, it’s much more impressive! Clearly this person read up on Shermer, chose his most prevalent characteristics, and attributed them to “the sign Leo (the regal lion) ascending on the eastern horizon”, or to “Angular Saturn”, whatever that means. If someone asked you the number one descriptor for Michael Shermer, assuming you didn’t know him personaly, you’re likely to say “skeptical”. This is, according to the article, because “Shermer’s natal Sun lies in Virgo, an earth sign and one of the most skeptical signs of the zodiac.” Every characteristic you’d expect Shermer to have, being a popular author, outspoken skeptic, and excellent public speaker, is covered in this article and attributed to some sort of astrological phenomonon.

Astrology isn’t science, period. It’s made-up woo that’s accurate most of the time only because they take advantage of universal human traits. I think I’ll stick to Monster.ca or Craigslist to jobhunt from now on - CareerBuilder is just too insane.