linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/basismay.91

Text File | 1997-06-27 | 39KB | 852 lines

-----------------------------------------------------
May 1991 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
-----------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 10, No. 5
                Editor:  Yves Barbero



JOHN R. LEE, M.D. -- REPORT CARD
by Bob Steiner
Copyright (C) 1991 Robert A. Steiner

[There was a considerable amount of debate surrounding Bay Area
Skeptics' invitation to Dr. Lee to speak at our January meeting.
This publication took criticism for printing Dr. Lee's words (see
Dr. Thomas H. Jukes's letter, and letters in previous issues). But
Bay Area Skeptics does its research, as exemplified by Bob
Steiner's article.]

Notwithstanding excellent advance publicity, only 28 people turned
out to our January 1991 meeting. That was an unexpectedly high
turnout, considering the fact that most of America was home
watching television on that exciting second night of the Persian
Gulf War.

Readers of "BASIS" are aware of the controversy surrounding the
talk of John R. Lee, M.D. He addressed our January meeting, taking
a strong stand against fluoridation, claiming that it does not help
the teeth and that it is harmful in many ways. Many professionals
in the dental and health fields considered it to be a mistake for
Bay Area Skeptics to host Dr. Lee's talk. Their reactions were
strong: one expressed amazement that we would have Dr. Lee speak;
another said that we were retrogressing, and called us naive.

Many of these critics of Bay Area Skeptics have lengthy credentials
in the field of fluoridation: they have written and spoken on the
topic, and some were in the forefront of the fight to get fluoride
into our water. I respect them; some I know personally and consider
them friends. Many expressed their willingness to address Bay Area
Skeptics on the topic of fluoridation. But none would appear on the
platform WITH Dr. Lee!

They took an interesting position: They warned us that we skeptics
were unqualified and unprepared to evaluate the claims of Dr. Lee,
and made dire predictions about how our naive group would be
swallowed up by his presentation ... and yet they refused to appear
to refute his claims. They urged us not to allow him to address Bay
Area Skeptics.

Although we have hosted a wide variety of speakers, including
self-proclaimed witches and psychics, many perceived this as being
different in some fundamental ways.
My background and training are as a CPA and a magician. Could that
background possibly prepare me to evaluate the technical
presentation about fluoridation of our water supply, to be
delivered by John R. Lee, M.D? Strange to report, the answer to
that question is "Yes."

Dr. John R. Lee is intelligent, articulate, charismatic, and
entertaining. He held the audience virtually spellbound for almost
three hours. The considerable amount of information and data he
presented seemed, on the surface, to be quite believable. His
appearance of sincerity and confidence went a long way toward
selling the entire package he was presenting.

And yet, screaming out at me from just below the surface was the
gnawing, persistent message that I was watching a theatrical
presentation. It had many of the trappings of a magic show.
Misdirection was used, probably more times than I was aware of, to
divert the audience from an incisive line of questioning. I had the
uncomfortable feeling that the manipulation of figures and the
drawing of conclusions that opposed prevailing scientific wisdom
were nothing more than an illusion. The underlying theme of the
entire presentation had all the earmarks of deception. In defense
of a magic show, I must point out a fundamental distinction in the
analogy I have drawn: A properly presented magic show is harmless
entertainment and a joy to behold; Dr. Lee's talk was not harmless
-- it was dangerous.

As Dr. Lee spun his web, my mind was spinning, attempting to keep
up. I am pretty good at numbers. However, fluoridation is not my
field. Few in the world can make an instantaneous evaluation of
complex statistics relating to a study unknown to them, in a field
unfamiliar to them.

Procter & Gamble had done extensive testing of its addition of
fluoride to Crest Toothpaste. They concluded that it was beneficial
to the teeth of the users. The American Dental Association endorsed
that conclusion. Dr. Lee took Procter & Gamble's figures, massaged
them, put them on a slide, and ended up "proving" that they fail to
demonstrate any beneficial effect.

Perhaps you may recall the Kingston-Newburgh study. Newburgh, N.Y.,
had fluoridated its water supply. The neighboring community of
Kingston, N.Y. had water that was fluoride-deficient
("fluoride-deficient" is the term used in many studies and
articles). It was quite a comprehensive study, evaluating the
effect on subjects over the course of decades. It was the basis for
further studies, as well as part of the foundation for fluoridating
water throughout the world.

One study concluded: "The cost for corrective care for children
with life-long exposure to fluoridated water is less than half of
what it costs in a nonfluoridated area, and incremental care is
just about half." (1) Similar studies elsewhere confirmed that
finding.
Dr. Lee claims: "When ALL the children (rather than a small subset)
are examined in the two communities, it is obvious that Newburgh
shows no advantage over Kingston."

The literature of dentistry, medicine, and science have ongoing
glowing reports about the wonderful benefits of fluoridation of
water. One example states: "The literature demonstrating the
beneficial effects of water fluoridation on dental health is
voluminous.  For example, studies have shown decreases in the
incidence of caries ranging from 35% to 80%. The prevalence of both
periodontal disease in young adults and malocclusion in children
has been found to be lower in fluoridated areas.

Englander has demonstrated that these beneficial effects of
fluoridation continue into early adulthood. In another study in
which populations at ages 18 to 59 were compared, Englander and
Wallace showed that these effects persist at least to the age of
60. These investigators found that the prevalence of dental caries,
evaluated by teeth and surfaces, was roughly 40 to 50 percent
higher among 896 native white residents of fluoride-deficient
Rockford, Ill, than in optimally fluoridated Aurora, Ill." (2)

Dr. Lee claims that "All studies of the past two decades find that
fluoridation provides no discernible dental benefit."

Some of our readers who have a tad of gray mixed in with their
colored hair may remember the day when there were strong battles
about the fluoridation of water. As more and more studies
proclaimed the enormous benefits of fluoridation of water, the
battles substantially subsided. The benefits were accepted as
proven.  Nonetheless, the studies continue ... and so do
conclusions of positive results.

Dr. Lee authoritatively told us that dentists are not allowed to
speak out against fluoridation of water. If they do, according to
Dr. Lee, they will be expelled from the dental society. When some
of the attending skeptics questioned this, Dr. Lee assured us that
it was in the bylaws of the American Dental Association, as well as
in the bylaws of the local dental societies.

Dr. Lee further told us that if a member of the dental society
speaks out against fluoridation of water, that member will lose his
or her pension.

The above alleged pressure brought by the dental societies on their
members was central to Dr. Lee's presentation.

All right, fellow skeptics, are you ready to evaluate all of this?

Are we to accept as truth that the American Dental Association and
all of its subsidiaries routinely violate the First Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States by prohibiting the free
speech of members? Are we to believe that part of the punishment
for exercising the right to free speech is expulsion from the
Association and all subsidiary dental societies?

And must we further believe that the American Dental Association
and its subsidiaries will, as additional punishment, commit an act
of outright theft by denying vested retirement benefits to the
members? Do you believe that all of this is in the bylaws of the
American Dental Association, as well as in the bylaws of all of the
state and local dental associations and societies?

Are we to swallow, on the spot, uncritically, that the studies on
Crest Toothpaste, which were subsequently endorsed by the American
Dental Association, are completely invalid, as Dr. Lee states?

Many scientists evaluated the Kingston-Newburgh study over several
decades. With extraordinarily few exceptions, all who evaluated the
study hailed it as a significant breakthrough for improved health.
Were all of those scientists wrong? And, in the past 20 years, has
there not been even one single study supporting the advisability of
fluoridation of our water supply, as Dr. Lee claims?

Dr. Lee glibly told us of one study evaluating the effects of
fluoridation of water on children up to age five. Kim Cooper, a
dental hygienist in the audience, exclaimed, "Those are baby
teeth!" While I do not pretend to be able to evaluate the technical
exchange that followed, I can comment on the personal exchange. Dr.
Lee requested that Cooper explain, which she did. Lee immediately
dropped all discussion of that study, changed the subject, and went
on to wow us with a report on another study. Since no one was
familiar with the latter study or the data contained therein, Lee
proceeded with his assertions. Among magicians, that tactic is
called MISDIRECTION.

I obtained and read every single word in the Bylaws of the American
Dental Association, the California Dental Association, the Contra
Costa Dental Society, and the San Diego County Dental Society. In
addition, I read every word of the "American Dental Association
Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct".

There was not one single word about expulsion for speaking out
against fluoride. There was not word one about loss of retirement
benefits because a dentist exercised the right to free speech.
There was not a hint of any pressure put on anti-fluoride dentists.
Ready for the grabber? The words "fluoride" and "fluoridation" do
not even appear in the pages and pages and pages of bylaws and
codes that I combed.

How about Dr. Lee's glib use of statistics, confidently employing
them to dismiss the conclusions of thousands of scientists in many
fields over half a century?

The reports on the details and statistics for most of the studies
tend to be a tad more voluminous and complex than we can analyze
here. However, I believe it would be instructive to analyze in
depth a relatively simple presentation made by Dr. Lee.
Following is a "Comparison of Dental Costs" that was submitted by
Dr. Lee.

Although it will take a bit of concentration on your part to follow
this analysis, I promise you that your patience will be rewarded.

Each of the figures will be analyized, starting with the figures in
the "Fluoridated" column.

The word "Average", as used in this context, generally refers to
the arithmetic mean. "Average Net Income" would be arrived at by
totaling the Net Income of all dentists in the population studied,
and dividing that figure by the number of dentists in that
population.

"Net Income" is the bottom line. You start with Gross Revenue; then
you subtract all Costs, Expenses, and Losses. Net Income is what is
left after deducting such things as Depreciation, Telephone, and
Auto Expense. To use that Net Income figure as a measure of Dental
Costs makes no sense. How can your dental costs be computed by
taking into account the depreciation on the car that your dentist
happens to drive?

The Average Net Income was then multiplied by the Number of
Dentists, resulting in a figure called "Dental Costs". We are back
at the total Net Income for all Dentists in the population studied,
but that is NOT "Dental Costs."

Next, the Dental Costs figure was divided by the Population Served,
in order to arrive at a figure called "Cost/Person". Cost per
person indeed! Do you really believe that the Average Dental Costs
Per Person for an entire year was only $13.01?  Were it not for the
fact that Dr. Lee presented this in a serious manner, we could
dismiss it as an attempt at humor.

Please follow me down the "Non-Fluoridated" column.

If you take the $17,000 "Average Net Income of Dentists" and
multiply it by the "Number of Dentists" (156), you arrive at
$2,652,000

The figure presented as "Dental Costs" is $2,262,000

There is an error in multiplication in the amount of $390,000

That is a 15 percent error!

Using Average Net Income figures, the assertion was made that
Dentists' Fees are 16.9 percent higher in Fluoridated Communities.
I am at a loss to understand how anyone can believe that ANY
conclusion can be made about comparative Dental Fees when the only
figures known are the Average Net Income of Dentists.

The concluding statistic on this page indicates that the "Dental
Cost Per Person" is higher in the Fluoridated Communities by 19.8
percent After adjusting for the $390,000 error in the computation,
we learn that the so-called Dental Cost Per Person is merely 2.1
percent higher. The difference of 17.7 percent represents an 843
percent error in the computation and in the conclusion. Please bear
in mind that, in addition to an 843 percent error in computation,
the figures would be meaningless even if they were correctly
computed.

As I mused about the figures, it occurred to me that maybe ... just
maybe ... the American Dental Association might not have published
such an unkempt presentation of data in its professional journal.

We will now compare Dr. Lee's data with the actual data in the
source he cited (Yes, I tracked it down).

In the article cited by Dr. Lee (2), Table 1 gives the population
data for "Fluoridated" and "Fluoride-deficient" communities for
Calendar Year _1967_. ("Fluoride-deficient" is the term used in the
article.)

Several pages later, and not directly related to Table 1, Table 8
gives the "Median Net Income" of dentists in the communities for
Calendar Year _1965_. "Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary"
defines "median" as "a value in an ordered set of values below and
above which there is an equal number of values." To multiply the
"Median Net Income" by the total population is enough to make a
person who has lived with numbers all his or her life scream.

Let us conclude by reviewing our evaluation of the reliability of
data on which Dr. Lee based his conclusions.

He took the "Median Net Income" (after Depreciation, Telephone,
Auto Expense, and all other Costs, Expenses, and Losses) of 96
Dentists in Fluoride-deficient Communities, for Calendar Year
_1965_, and renamed it "Average Net Income". He multiplied that
figure by 156, which was the number of dentists in active practice
in those communities for Calendar Year _1967_, to arrive at a
figure he called Dental Costs. In addition to ONE, making a
meaningless computation, TWO, renaming "Median" as "Average", and
THREE, crossing a time zone of two years, he made a mathematical
error of $390,000. In presenting his data, he deleted all reference
to years. Following through, the $390,000 error resulted in an 843
percent error in the concluding figure in the presentation. Then
Dr. Lee cited an article in the "Journal of the American Dental
Association" as if it were the source of his data.

------------------------------------------------------------------
|                            TABLE 1:                            |
|                                                                |
|                   COMPARISON OF DENTAL COSTS                   |
|                       FLUORIDATED AND                          |
|                       NON-FLUORIDATED                          |
|                         COMMUNITIES                            |
|                                                                |
|                                  FLUORIDATED   NON-FLUORIDATED |
| Average Net Income of Dentists     $19,875        $17,000      |
| Number of Dentists                     162            156      |
| Dental Costs                    $3,219,750     $2,262,000      |
| Population Served                  247,000        208,000      |
| Cost/Person                         $13.01         $10.86      |
|                                                                |
| In Fluoridated Communities:                                    |
| Dentists' fees   16.9% higher                                  |
| Cost/Person      19.8% higher                                  |
|                                                                |
| Source: Douglas, et al., "Impact of water fluoridation on      |
| dental practices and dental manpower"; "JADA", Vol. 84, Feb.72 |
------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Ast, C.B., and others. "Time and cost factors to provide
regular, periodic dental care for children in a fluoridated and
nonfluoridated area: final report." "JADA" ("Journal of the
American Dental Association"), 80:770, April 1970.

(2) Douglas, Bruce L., and others. "Impact of water fluoridation on
dental practice and dental manpower." "JADA", Vol. 84, February
1972. (Citations for all studies cited in the quoted portions are
available upon request.)

[Bob Steiner is a founder of Bay Area Skeptics.]



BAY AREA SKEPTICS ON CALL
by Kent Harker

In the first week of March, the Bay Area Skeptics's 24 hour hot
line, (415) La-Truth, received a call from the Harvard Club (Palo
Alto chapter.) We were invited to supply a speaker on their
Wednesday, March 20 meeting and I was assigned to address the
group. The Harvard Club is an association of Harvard alums who meet
monthly for intellectual discussion. The March topic was
extraterrestrial intelligence.

There were four invited speakers: an engineer from the SETI
project, a clinical psychologist, a physicist, and me. The format
was a dinner-table discussion. Each speaker had twenty minutes at
a table of about ten diners. After twenty minutes each speaker
moved to another table.

The engineer talked about the need for funding the SETI project.
The psychologist related that increasing numbers of her patients
had experienced UFO abductions, all of which had persuaded her to
consider "alternate realities." (She had learned about her
patient's travails by regressing them hypnotically.) The physicist
had been studying "quantum interconnectedness" and how our minds
determine reality. He mixed his discourse with biblical numerology,
which, he said, had great significance for what the ancients knew.
I focused on the March 1970 "Cradle Hill UFO incident" that
happened in Westminster, England.

What I said is not the significance of this note in "BASIS" about
the event. What is significant is that the Harvard Club had some
organization -- Bay Area Skeptics -- to contact for a view of "the
other side." And those in attendance expressed near unanimity in
that sentiment. Most had not heard pointed counters to some of the
drivel we hear and read in the media and they are too busy to have
to search for it.  Several people told me that they were just
grateful that we (BAS) are "out there" to do what we do, and they
thought it wonderful that we have an $11,000 offer for a successful
demonstration of paranormal ability under controlled conditions.

The real significance is that Bay Area Skeptics is widely enough
known that citizens' groups and various agencies of the media know
that they can quickly reach a responsible counter to the nonsense
in which society swims. This fact is not lost on the various
organizations that purvey psychic phenomena as reality, either.

This is the raison d'etre for Bay Area Skeptics.

[Kent Harker is the former editor of "BASIS" and is currently
typesetting books for the skeptical and humanist communities. He
has been silent for too long.]



Letters to the Editor
CODESH -- CSICOP
by Michael Roesch

Although the two essays concerning organized skepticism in the
March issue of "BASIS" [Moen, Barbero] were insightful, the concern
over the juxtaposition of CODESH and CSICOP seems overstated.
First, the organizations have long been connected geographically,
administratively, and philosophically -- there is little
justification to now expect harmful inbreeding. Second, placing
both under the "Center for Inquiry" banner should actually help to
promote efficiency and intellectual honesty. I do not mean that all
secular humanist and skeptic groups walk the same road -- but they
should at least admit to be heading in the same general direction.

Environmental groups have achieved success, not by denying their
basic common philosophy, but by creating organizations that achieve
that philosophy by different paths (Audubon, Sierra Club, Nature
Conservancy). CODESH and CSICOP, though originating at a common
source, maintain adequate distance in publications and
perspectives. In fact, the point where the groups connect presents
more of an intellectual vista than a program. It is only a problem
for humanists and skeptics who have set limits on their own area of
inquiry.

You [the editor] state skepticism "is a methodology with no fixed
parameters." I agree. A skeptic's intellectual explorations should
not be limited by tradition or dogma. It is this commitment to
skepticism that has caused many skeptics to accept a few of the
basic principles of secular humanism.

A hundred years ago Robert Ingersoll commented: "If the people were
a little more ignorant, astrology would flourish -- if a little
more enlightened, religion would perish." A skeptic with no `fixed
parameters' may eventually even tug at the threads of scientific
ignorance that weave the New Ager and Christian fundamentalist
together. All untested claims to knowledge, whether from scripture,
s<130>ance or science, should be equal in the eyes of a skeptic.
The "Center for Inquiry" project needs our support, and it
certainly does not deserve our censure.

[Michael Roesch is co-editor of the Siskiyou Humanists' newsletter,
an entertaining and informative publication. For a sample copy,
write P.O. BOX 223, Weed, CA 96094]



POLITICS?
by Poul Anderson

The recent introduction of political advocacy into "BASIS" is
disturbing. It has destroyed quite a few worthwhile organizations
in the past. The reason is that where politics is concerned,
emotions are apt to run high, while at the same time there is
little or no possibility of applying scientific method. For
example, many a person who is perfectly sound where it comes to
evaluating claims about ESP or UFOs still retains faith in the
wisdom and beneficence of government -- and would regard my
skepticism about this as unfounded. Many who revere the
Constitution of the United States think that it has been undermined
by the Supreme Court rather than, say, the Reagan administration --
and yet agree that Velikovsky promulgated nonsense. Et cetera, et
cetera. Let CSICOP concentrate on pseudoscience and its kin.

SOME political and historical objectivity is possible, and shows
the danger of dogmatism in this area. For example, your [the
editor] assertion that no democracy has ever declared war on
another is simply false. Consider the Boar War. True, the Blacks in
South Africa were disenfranchised and oppressed, but so were most
of the Irish, not to mention other subjects of the British Empire.
As far as their electorates were concerned, both the English and
the Boars were pretty free people. Then there was the United
States, overrunning Indian tribes, most of which were run on
democratic lines, and suppressing a Philippines independence
movement that had at least the potential of establishing a real
republic. Ancient Greece provides several more examples.

If collisions between democracies have been rare, it seems likely
that this is just because they themselves are rare and usually
short-lived.



DOWN SYNDROME
by Thomas H. Jukes, Ph.D.

Apparently you [The Editor] have decided that it is your
responsibility to edit my text and you are apologizing for your
oversight in not doing so ("BASIS", March). Many thanks, but I
assure you that I accept responsibility as an author.

There is another question: Why do you not perform the same
editorial pruning for others whose writings appear in "BASIS"? For
example, some editing (see my comment on this point, "BASIS", page
three, Feb.) was needed on the piece by John R. Lee in the Dec.
issue? And why did you feel (as you told me) that you "couldn't
change a word" in the letter by Molleen Matsumura when her last
sentence asked a question that I had already answered? She asks
that if I have "evidence that water fluoridation does not affect
the incidence of birth defects, "BASIS" readers should certainly
hear about it". I had said ("BASIS" page five, Feb.) that there was
no evidence for any such effect, and I repeat this. The rest of her
letter is excellent, except that it was my antifluoridationist
source, not I, who "picked on Down Syndrome" -- see my letter in
March "BASIS".



THE SKEPTIC'S ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD
2400 Baud, 415-648-8944
24 hours, 7 days a week
Rick Moen, Sysop



FLYING SAUCERS
by Yves Barbero

Some time back, I filled in for Robert Sheaffer at the last minute
on a radio talk show. I had no better credentials than the fact
that I was geographically close. The show originated from the
planetarium of the California Academy of Sciences and I was
employed on the second floor of CAS.

I was, frankly, unprepared. With a week's notice, I considered
reading up on the matter but that would have meant an expenditure
of time on what I considered a fairly worn-out topic. "How do you
explain that?" I would have been asked by the proponent of UFOs and
I would have given the standard answers. No one would have been
convinced one way or the other. Anyway, how could I possibly get
the knowledge in just a week that Sheaffer had accumulated over the
years? If the proponent were half-way knowledgeable, he could
easily trip me up.
I hit on a novel solution. Having a decent background in the field
of science fiction (1) since I've read it all my life, I decided to
put myself in the place of an alien visitor and describe how I'd
approach the exploration of Earth.

First of all, if my goal were study, I'd hardly waste my time
kidnapping specimens when all I had to do was disguise myself as a
human being, join academia, and grab as much information as I could
(I might even be able to do it remotely by tapping into computer
networks). Being from a civilization which invests considerable
time and treasure to traverse between stars, I would undoubtedly be
prepared for all sorts of contingencies. These would include faking
identities and gaining access to morgues and laboratories of all
sorts. After all, these activities can be done with contemporary
techniques by Earthlings. And if I did grab some allegedly
intelligent specimens, I would certainly have the tools to
completely wipe their memories clean if I bothered to return them
at all.

I certainly wouldn't have to hide out near a convenience store and
suddenly shine bright lights at motorists to the accompaniment of
weird electronic music.

This solution seemed to delight the small live audience. Even the
proponent, who seemed a decent and civilized man, began asking me
questions rather than challenging me. He concluded that he believed
and I said, "show me!"

This difference of opinion, I am assured, is a matter of individual
wiring since it's all speculation. Even my scenario, despite its
entertainment value, is flawed. It assumes a shared desire on the
part of a completely different species to satisfy curiosity. Carl
Sagan delights in pointing out that we have more in common with a
petunia, genetically, than we could ever have with any alien. So
why should we assume that they'd share anything human with us?

Now I personally think, given the untold number of stars and
galaxies, that the odds favor life existing on millions -- if not
billions -- of other planets. But (assuming they exist at the same
time we are existing) ...

=> Are they close enough to make it here?
=> Are they motivated to come here?
=> Do they have the technology?
=> Why would they want to keep their visit secret?

These questions raise plenty of problems. Still, it must be
acknowledged that just because we haven't seen any credible
evidence does not mean that they didn't come in the past. They
could certainly have been smart enough not to leave any beer cans
or other alien litter. And it's also true that their peculiar
psychology might lend itself to their examining half-literate,
sexually frustrated couples on back country roads while these
unfortunates returned from the local road house. Maybe the country
music blaring from old Ford pickups attracts them. There's no
reason to assume that an alien culture must resemble that of the
middle-income technocrat who mistakes his cultural bias for
rational thinking.

My limited cultural bias only permits me to look at problems within
the narrow parameters of late twentieth-century ideas. It's good to
remember that the best thinkers in other ages looked at things
differently. Could we have convinced a Revolutionary American that
his novel idea of the mass manufacture of the flintlock, using
like-parts for easy repairs in the field, to fight the British,
would lead to the demise of his agrarian economy. Unidentified
flying objects in biblical times were undoubtedly interpreted as
spiritual manifestations. Being of a technical bent, we've
interpreted UFOs as craft from other worlds or dimensions. Even
skeptics look for mechanical counter-arguments first. If those
fail, they fall back on psychological arguments, since psychology
is the catch-all we fish with when clear answers aren't immediately
apparent.

It could be that our current state of learning simply cannot supply
an answer. That's happened in past ages. Why not now?

The same common-sense speculative filter which allows me to
conclude that there's probably life aplenty in the universe leads
me to conclude that we probably have not been visited. But I think
I'd have a good laugh at myself if we were suddenly to find a
flying saucer in the middle of the White House Rose Garden and see
little green men in a photo-opportunity with the President.

(1) I even had a science-fiction novel published, "The CTZ
Paradigm" (Doubleday, 1975) under the pen-name Yves Regis Francois.



---------------------------
| TOLL-FREE NUMBER TO THE |
|      OTHER SIDE         |
|                         |
|                         |
|                         |
---------------------------



Book Review
SCIENTOLOGY'S ROOTS
"Bare-Faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard", by Russell
Miller, Penguin Books Ltd., 1987.
by Charles Shapiro, Secretary, Georgia Skeptics

L. Ron Hubbard achieved fame and wealth as the founder of two large
pseudoscientific movements: Dianetics and Scientology. He and his
followers have written much about his life, little of which is
true. This "unauthorized biography" tells the real story, which, as
Russell Miller says in his introduction, "is much more bizarre,
much more improbable, than any of the lies."

Miller is well qualified to write about Hubbard. He started
reporting at twenty-one, and has been doing it for more than 30
years. Miller's other books include a biography of Hugh Hefner and
a book about the millionaire J. Paul Getty. The book was written in
spite of threats of libel suits and defamatory letters to his
publisher from the Church of Scientology.

Much of "Bare-Faced Messiah" was gathered from face-to- face
interviews, and the eye-witness accounts make the book exciting
reading. Quotes are footnoted, and the book also has a full
bibliography and index. This care is needed, since miller has a
definite theses -- that L. Ron Hubbard was "one of the most
successful and colourful confidence tricksters of the twentieth
century."

Miller's book chronicles Hubbard's life from his "Navy Brat"
childhood, through his undistinguished Navy career, his three wives
and five children, and his pulp writing and messianic periods. It
is truly an amazing story. One fascinating sidelight was the
prodigious amount of work Hubbard invested in telling lies. Hubbard
didn't just lie -- he lied a lot, and all the time.

The story also illustrates the down side of this lifestyle: Hubbard
was desperately unhappy for much of his time as the guru of
Scientology, convinced that a myriad of people and organizations
were conspiring to kill him and take his power. He also apparently
started to believe some of the things he said, with predictably
disastrous results. The stories of the presentation of the first
person to be made a superman by Dianetics, and of untrained
landsmen trying to pilot a seagoing trawler in the Mediterranean
are by turns harrowing and hilarious.

"Bare-Faced Messiah" has some weaknesses. Miller accepts at face
value a story about a "cruel, post-hypnotic trick" which Hubbard
was said to have played early in his career. The trick, which
involved hypnotizing someone to believe that he was unable to let
go of a red-hot railing, "only later came to light..." in a session
with a "professional hypnotist". Given the extreme suggestibility
of hypnotizing people, the entire incident may well have been
fabricated under hypnosis. This is an interesting lapse, because a
hypnotic process called "auditing" lies at the heart of much of
Scientology's doctrine. I would also have liked to hear more about
the neologisms and ideas that Scientologists use, which seem to
have grown up in response to the extremely confused and improbable
doctrine expounded by Hubbard.

"Bare-Faced Messiah" is an entertaining and frightening tale. The
book makes a good gift to anyone who has contact with Scientology.

-THE GEORGIA SKEPTIC (4:1)


VOLUNTEERS FOR 1991 CSICOP CONFERENCE IN BERKELEY

The following have kindly volunteered their services to help make
the conference a success. In alphabetical order, they are ...

=> Yves Barbero
=> Lucinda Ben-David
=> Ralph Carmichael
=> Judy Daar
=> Keith Dabney
=> Don Henvick
=> Dan Dugan - Sound and Audio
=> Stan Isaacs - VIP Limousine Services
=> Rick Moen  - Chair, Steering Committee and Volunteer Committee
=> Kathy Pinna - Usher Supervisor
=> Francis Rigney
=> Wilma Russell
=> Jerry Schwartz
=> Gil Shapiro - Vice-Chair, Steering Committee
=> Terry Simmon
=> Kate Talbot
=> Laurel Tuck
=> Quentin Tuck
=> Ray Westergard - VIP Limousine Services
=> Tom Woosnam



LASER PRINTER?

Does anyone have a working laser printer he'd like to donate to
"BASIS"?

We've always been fortunate in having first-rate computing
equipment available to us for final drafts from our dedicated
subscribers. But it'd be really nice to have even a basic machine
available at the editor's office to view working drafts without
traveling across town.

Contact Yves Barbero at 415-285-4358.



Make plans now to join us at the
1991 CSICOP CONFERENCE
Hosted by the Bay Area Skeptics, and co-sponsored by CSICOP
and the University of California at Berkeley Physics Department
CLAREMONT RESORT HOTEL
Berkeley/Oakland Hills, California
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, May 3-5, 1991

Keynote Address:  "In Search of Our Origins", by Donald C.
Johanson, President, Institute of Human Origins, Berkeley

(See the Spring 1991 issue of the "Skeptical Inquirer" for details
and registration information. Volunteers are still needed. Time is
short. Call Rick Moen, the head of the volunteer committee, by
dialing LOGICAL, or drop by the registration table. It's never too
late.)




BAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Chair: Larry Loebig
Vice Chair: Yves Barbero
Secretary: Rick Moen
Treasurer: Kent Harker
Shawn Carlson
Andrew Fraknoi
Mark Hodes
Lawrence Jerome
Eugenie Scott
Norman Sperling
Kate Talbot



"BASIS" STAFF:

Yves Barbero, editor; Sharon Crawford, assoc. editor;
Wilma Russell, distribution; Rick Moen, circulation



BAS ADVISORS

William J. Bennetta, Scientific Consultant
Dean Edell, M.D., ABC Medical Reporter
Donald Goldsmith, Ph.D., Astronomer and Attorney
Earl Hautala, Research Chemist
Alexander Jason, Investigative Consultant
Thomas H. Jukes, Ph.D., U. C. Berkeley
John E. McCosker, Ph.D., Director, Steinhart Aquarium
Diane Moser, Science writer
Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.,U. C. Berkeley
Bernard Oliver, Ph.D., NASA Ames Research Center
Kevin Padian, Ph.D., U. C. Berkeley
James Randi, Magician, Author, Lecturer
Francis Rigney, M.D., Pacific Presbyterian Med. Center
Wallace I. Sampson, M.D., Stanford University
Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., Anthropologist
Robert Sheaffer, Technical Writer, UFO expert
Robert A. Steiner, CPA, Magician, Lecturer, Writer
Ray Spangenburg, Science writer
Jill C. Tarter, Ph.D., U. C. Berkeley



CALENDAR
May meeting...
1991 CSICOP CONFERENCE
DONALD C. JOHANSON
President, Institute of Human Origins, Berkeley
Keynote Speaker

Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, May 3-5, 1991
Claremont Resort Hotel
Berkeley/Oakland Hills

Directions: Ashby Avenue Exit, Highway 80, west until you see a
huge white Art-Deco building to your left.

Watch for coming events in the BAS Calendar, or call 415-LA-TRUTH
for up-to-the-minute details on events. If you have ideas about
topics or speakers, leave a message on the hotline.


                             -----

Opinions expressed in "BASIS" are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of BAS, its board, or its advisors.

The above are selected articles from the May, 1991 issue of
"BASIS", the monthly publication of Bay Area Skeptics. You can
obtain a free sample copy by sending your name and address to BAY
AREA SKEPTICS, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco, CA 94122-3928, or by
leaving a message on "The Skeptic's Board" BBS (415-648-8944) or
on the 415-LA-TRUTH (voice) hotline.

Copyright (C) 1991 BAY AREA SKEPTICS. Reprints must credit "BASIS,
newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco,
CA 94122-3928."

                             -END-