I can only stand by helplessly as major magazines like National Geographic, and now Newsweek, tout spiritual woo, misleading people and, in the case of the latest Newsweek issue, even causing harm. Here’s their Special Issue on Spiritual Living, which Newsweek describes this way:

To live a spiritual life is to be better connected with the universe around you. This 100-page, special edition of Newsweek is your guide for all things metaphysical, from focusing the mind for meditation through yoga and more, to healing the body with crystals and essential oils. Featuring insight from notable names in the spiritual sphere including Gail Thackray, William Lee Rand and Brad Johnson, this is the issue for anyone looking to awaken their soul.

Miracle crystals? Essential oils? Holistic foods? Angel numbers? Oy! But perhaps the worst is the article  “John of God, the Miracle Healer,” about a fake and quack of the first water.

John of God, or “João de Deus” is a psychic healer of great renown: Wikipedia reports that every week thousands of people stand in line to receive his numinous ministrations. That, of course, means he’s a very effective charlatan. Here are his methods, which have been debunked by numerous people including James Randi:

When called for a spiritual surgery by De Faria, patients are offered the choice of ‘visible’ or ‘invisible’ operations. If they select an ‘invisible’ operation (or are younger than 18 or older than 52) they are directed to sit in a room and meditate. De Faria also claims that spiritual physicians can perform surgery on the actual patient via a surrogate when the actual patient is unable to make the trip.

A very small percentage of people choose a ‘visible’ operation where De Faria operates without traditional anesthetic. Instead he says he uses “energized” mineral water and the spiritual energies present, the latter which are provided by groups of volunteers who meditate in a separate room called the ‘current room’. These practices such as inserting scissors or forceps deep into a nose and scraping an eye without an anesthetic or antiseptics have been scrutinized by medical authorities and skeptical investigators James Randi, who has called for De Faria to come clean and stop lying to the public about the existence of spirit and Joe Nickell have described these procedures at length as old carnival tricks.

See especially Randi’s takedown, which describes John’s “surgeries” as “carny stunts.”  Naturally, John of God has been touted by Oprah (see Orac’s excoriating remarks on her endorsement). Randi especially decries the forceps in the nosestunt, used to “cure” a variety of ailments. See for yourself:

Here’s a bogus eye-scraping operation, with Newsweek’s caption:

Anyway, Newsweek‘s piece simply echoes the puffery of Gail Thackray, who describes herself on her website as as “spiritual educator, medium”. She also made a film about John of God, and experienced a life changing “conversation with God” while sitting in John’s prayer room. How objective is she in the piece? Well, judge for yourself from her words and this accompanying picture:

And the Newsweek piece describes, completely uncritically, John’s miraculous “healings”. There’s not a word of dissent, not a peep from his many critics. There’s just stuff like this (these are apparently excerpts from a longer piece in the magazine, selected by Newsweek editor Trevor Courneen):

For all the unanswered mysteries the universe presents, few are incredible enough to earn the label of miracle. Hyperbole is often tied to bewildering occurrences and practices, but a closer look can often lessen their profundity. Though tirelessly explored and frequently experienced, the divine-spirit-induced healing work of John of God remains an exception.

“It is hard to believe, but when you experience this, it is profound,” says Gail Thackray, co-creator of the film John of God: Just a Man and author of the accompanying memoir. An insisting astrologer would initially push Thackray to Brazil where she would first pursue and meet the enigmatic man who heals others by becoming inhabited by spirits. Eventually, Thackray discovered her own purpose was sharing the healings of John of God with the rest of world.

and this:

Whether the guidance of God, divine spirits or varying otherworldly beings are truly enacting the healings, the results of John of God’s work have a way of speaking for him. The energies may not be seen, but in many cases, the healings are. “Many times he takes someone out of a wheelchair, and the ailments literally disappear in front of your eyes,” says Thackray.

and this ending:

With his staggeringly vast reach, the degree of John of God’s exceptional nature becomes a resurfacing question. Even those who acknowledge that energy flows within all of us acknowledge that there hasn’t been anyone on Earth quite like John of God in quite some time. “We all have the ability to heal on some level and can develop this,” says Thackray. “But some are born with or receive a very special healing gift. John of God is rare indeed.”

This is absolutely reprehensible: a complete abnegation of journalistic duty. Yes, journalists can write about this faker if they want, but they’re ethically obligated to point out the many debunkings. What we have, instead, is a completely uncritical puff piece, and one that’s dangerous. By encouraging the afflicted to seek out John of God, Newsweek is hurting people. This isn’t Bigfoot, Nessie, or alien abductions: this is the touting of ineffective spiritual healing, something that kills and injures people.

To add insult to injury, the article appear’s in Newsweek’s online “Tech & Science” section. That was pointed out by the reader who sent me the article, a reader who’s created an entire website devoted to taking down the Brazilian Faker: John of God: the CON, and who has written a short piece on the Newsweek travesty.

Want more woo? Read the article from the same issue about “The healing power of Reiki.“

43 of the 50 U.S. states give some kind of civil or criminal immunity to parents who harm their children by relying on religious faith-healing rather than scientific medicine. Many also have religious exemptions from vaccination and testing for disease in newborns. In California, a teacher can even refuse to take a tuberculosis test—but only on religious grounds! And in just the last few weeks, New York has ruled that the disgusting ultra-Orthodox Jewish practice of allowing the mohel (circumcisor) to suck blood from an infant’s injured penis after circumcision is now legal. That practice can and has spread herpes to infants. Under the new ruling, there’s not even pre-testing of mohels: if an infant is found to have herpes, and the strain matches that present in the mohel, only then will he be barred for life from the practice. Again, religious belief is allowed to trump public safety. The infant boy has no choice about whether he’ll be chomped by a herpes-bearing mohel.

Even Canada—as shown by the recent cases of Makayla Sault and “J. J.”, First Nations children with leukemia who were allowed to quit chemotherapy in favor of “ethnically based” healing (Makayla has died; J. J. will follow soon)—has such exemptions.

Such is the unwarranted respect for religion in America—respect so strong that it allows a parent to take action that will surely result in the injury or death of their child, but only if that action is motivated by religion. Since religion is delusional, these kinds of laws are simply insane. Now, with the spread of measles among the unvaccinated raising this problem again, the New York Times has hosted a discussion among five people about the issue of religious exemptions for medical care: “Room for debate: Parents’ beliefs versus their children’s health”

Five people participated by writing brief essays, and four of them, thank goodness, oppose the exemptions. The exception is a Christian Science “healer.” You can read the essays for yourself, but I’ll just name the people and reprise their stands (indented quotes are from the essays).

Kristen A Feemster, “Religious freedom balanced with responsibility”:  Feemster is identified as “a pediatric infectious diseases physician and health services researcher at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.” Feemsters opposes religious exemptions that could cause harm:

In these instances [17 cases of herpes simplex in infants acquired after circumcision and mouth-sucking by ultra-Orthodox Jews], parents may be aware of the risk associated with their decisions, but when it is a matter of life or death or there is potential for severe illness, society has an obligation to stand up on behalf of children who do not yet have their own informed voice.

This does not mean that it is impossible to respect the practice of religious beliefs while preventing harm. While religious belief systems may vary significantly, most share the general principles of respect for life and caring for others, especially for those who are most vulnerable. Our Constitution protects these practices. But that same Constitution has recognized that we are all responsible for ensuring that children have an opportunity for a safe and healthy life.

Alan Rodgers, “Overextending a Constitutional protection”: Rodgers is identified as “a professor of history at Boston College, is the author of “The Child Cases: How America’s Religious Exemption Laws Harm Children.” Reviewing case law and the 1974 Federal law, passed under Gerald Ford, that required these exemptions to be enacted by the states, Rodgers concluded that the exemptions should be withdrawn. He makes no bones about it, and I agree with him 100%:

In Idaho during the past three years at least 12 children have died because their faith-healing parents, members of the Followers of Christ, withheld medical care. Autopsy records show that children died from medically treatable conditions. Of the states that allow religious exemptions, Idaho is one of six states that allow a religious exemption to manslaughter and negligent homicide.

It’s time to repeal all religious exemptions that unconstitutionally protect parents at the cost of a child’s death.

Sharon Slaton Howell, “Let us follow our beliefs in caring for children”: Howell is identified as “a Christian Science practitioner.” It was lobbying by Christian Scientists, a powerful and wealthy group, that led to the 1974 law and much other legislation allowing religious exemptions from medical care. Christian Scientists, of course, believe that disease and injury is a manifestation of bad thinking, and can be cured by prayer and “right thinking.” Many children have died because of their parents’ Christian Science beliefs, and the title of Howell’s article offends me. I’d prefer seeing “Let us follow science in caring for children”.  And indeed, her words are invidious:

I feel this way because as Americans, we live in a country where freedom of one’s religious beliefs is law. And I have seen proof in a lifetime of studying and practicing the teachings of Christian Science that convince me God’s healing power is superior to that of medical practices in maintaining and recovering one’s health.

Howell then gives two unconvincing examples (and says she could cite hundreds more) of the power of Christian Science healing:

My mother, who was a Methodist, turned to Christian Science when kind doctors, after years of trying, failed to restore her health. One day a neighbor spoke to her of Christian Science. Mother began investigating. She was only part way through pondering Mary Baker Eddy’s book, “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” when she was healed — dramatically, completely and permanently. She enrolled my brother and me in the Sunday school and never looked back.

Then one day when I was about 6 years old, I was playing in the backyard and happened to slide down a swing set onto an unsealed tin can. The cut went almost through my foot. My father, though not a Christian Scientist, let mother call a practitioner to pray for me. No medicine was used at all, my foot was cleaned and wrapped up. I can say that I actually felt God’s presence and had no fear at all. As hard as it may be to believe, I could put weight on my foot the very next day, and was back at school in three days, walking and playing as before.

Is it any wonder I feel as I do about Christian Science, and having the continued freedom to rely on it for healing?

Of course she doesn’t mention the hundreds of examples of Christian Science healing not working, many of them involving horrible and gruesome deaths of children (I discuss these in Faith versus Fact). The Church does not document any of these; they are revealed by the press or by disaffected parents like Rita Swan (see below). Howell should talk to Swan, a former Christian scientist who lost her son when she and her husband used prayer and not medicine to treat his meningitis.

Richard W. Garnett, “Parents’ beliefs should be honored, within reason”: Garnett is identified as “a professor of law and political science at the University of Notre Dame.” Garnett genuflects towards religious rights, but compares medical exemptions to beard exemptions for imprisoned Muslims. There’s a bit of waffling here, but in the end I think that all religious exemptions for medical care “compromise the public interest” and “create serious risks of physical harm.” Those include vaccination, tuberculosis- and disease-testing in newborns, and all the laws that exempt parents from prosecution if they harm their children by using prayer instead of real treatment. But this is a mush-mouthed way to say it:

The Supreme Court’s recent 9-0 decision in Holt v. Hobbs provides a good example of a common-sense accommodation. The justices concluded that prison officials in Arkansas needed to exempt a Muslim prisoner from a strict grooming regulation of beards. This exemption respects prisoners’ religious liberty and the prison-management realities alike.

Not all cases are so easy. Some of the most difficult religious-exemption controversies involve public-health interests and the physical well-being of children. These include cases involving parents who rely on prayer rather than necessary medical treatments for their kids, faith-based objections to vaccinations, and certain religious rituals.

It is tempting, but misguided, to search for a neat one-size-fits-all approach to such controversies. Instead, we should treat each case as the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act invites us to do, and ask whether it is really necessary to deny particular exemptions to sincere religious objectors in order to protect an important public interest.

Governments have a compelling interest in protecting children from serious physical harms and in safeguarding the community from dangerous diseases. When parents object to established, effective medical treatments that are necessary to prevent physical harm to a child, even sincere religious objections must be overruled. If a religious exemption would not compromise the public interest or create serious risks of physical harm, it should be respected.

Rita Swan, “Child abuse under the guise of religion”: Rita Swan is a hero of mine. She’s president of Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD), an organization that battles not only religious exemption laws, but laws allowing corporal punishment of children and going easy on child sexual abuse. (She and her husband founded CHILD after, as I noted above, they let their son die of meningitis because they chose Christian Science prayer over medicine. They later left the faith and became activists.) CHILD has been very effective, and you could do worse than donating to the organization. And if you want a palliative for the unfounded views of Sharon Howell, go to the CHILD “victim page”; it will break your heart. And, of course, Swan makes no bones about getting rid of religious exemptions:

Many Idaho children have suffered and died without medical care because of the Followers of Christ beliefs. Arrian Granden, 15, died in 2012 after days of nausea and vomiting so much that her esophagus ruptured. Micah Eells, 4 days old, died in 2013 of a bowel obstruction, which usually causes excruciating pain and vomiting. Pamela Eells, 16, died in 2011, of pneumonia, drowning slowly as her lungs filled with fluid. Cooper Shippy died in 2010 of untreated diabetes shortly before his second birthday.

Idaho public officials take no action about these deaths. Criminal charges are never filed. The legislature is not willing to repeal Idaho’s religious defense to manslaughter and criminal injury. The Canyon County coroner told the press she doesn’t even do autopsies when children die without medical care in faith-healing sects.

Medical neglect may not be as sensational as other religion-related abuses but it has been just as deadly. Religious exemptions discriminate against children, depriving them of protections the state extends to others. They should be repealed.

With four of the five experts arguing that exemption laws harmful to children or the public safety should be repealed, and the sole exception being someone with a personal interest in keeping those exemptions, the sentiment in this debate is clear. And yet all but two of our 50 states still allow exemptions, and exemption from vaccinations based on religion, personal beliefs, or both are allowed in all but two states: Mississippi and West Virginia. This is unconscionable. Here’s the shameful map of exemptions from the National Conference of State Legislatures:

It’s time to put away our childish things and eliminate all religious exemptions that could be harmful to children or the public safety. There is no longer a valid excuse to let the dictates of delusional religion trump the facts of science.

h/t: Greg Mayer

Here’s  some news that is not surprising—it’s of the “dog bites man” variety. But it’s still worth highlighting because it shows the persistence of faith-based woo in our world: not woo of the religious variety, but still woo that is based on faith (i.e., belief without evidence). Indeed, the evidence for the phenomenon at issue—homeopathic medicine—is nonexistent. That is, homeopathy doesn’t work.

I presume most of you know what homeopathy is: a form of treatment that relies on a reverse kind of psychology: if something gives a healthy person certain symptoms, then to cure a sick person with those symptoms, you simply give them the substance that makes a healthy person symptomatic. If ground up toad-skin gives you a fever, for instance, than to cure someone of a fever you give them ground-up toadskin. Not only that, but you give it in such a dilute solution that not a single molecule of toad-skin remains! But that can’t work even in theory, for no curative substance remains in the “medicine.” Homeopaths argue that the solvent (water, usually) retains a “memory” of the substance, but there’s no evidence for that, either.

Nevertheless, homeopathy is used and respected all over the world, even in places where you’d expect people to know better. When I lived in France, for instance, I saw homeopathic pharmacies everywhere, and one of my friends tried to treat his salivary-gland cancer homeopathically. Fortunately, he came to his senses and got effective scientific treatment, and appears to be cured.

Despite the complete lack of evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic treatment, it’s still not only considered useful by many European nations (I don’t know much about other places), and, indeed, is covered by public medical insurance! From Wikipedia (I have put the offending nations in bold):

Regulations vary in Europe depending on the country. In Austria and Germany, no specific regulations exist, while France and Denmark mandate licenses to diagnose any illness or dispense of any product whose purpose is to treat any illness. Some homeopathic treatment is covered by the national insurance of several European countries, including France, some parts of the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Luxembourg. In other countries, such as Belgium and the Czech Republic, homeopathy is not covered. In Austria, public insurance requires scientific proof of effectiveness in order to reimburse medical treatments, but exceptions are made for homeopathy. In 2004, Germany which formerly offered homeopathy under its public health insurance scheme withdrew this privilege, with a few exceptions. In June 2005, the Swiss Government, after a 5-year trial, withdrew insurance coverage for homeopathy and four other alternative treatments, stating that they did not meet efficacy and cost-effectiveness criteria. However, following the result of a referendum in 2009 the five therapies were reinstated for a further 6-year trial period from 2012.

The Swiss! Jebus, what is up with them? The sensible Swiss voted to reinstate insurance coverage for homeopathy? And what’s with the UK, Denmark, Austria, and France?

Homeopathy should be banned in all sane countries as a useless form of quackery, and no country should ever cover it with public medical insurance. That just takes money out of people’s pockets to fund the useless faith of others, and deprives people of efficacious medical care. How can Britain’s National Health fund homeopathic treatment?

All this is by way of reporting that, according to today’s Sydney Morning Herald, an Australian government study shows that homeopathy doesn’t work.

The findings, released by the National Health and Medical Research Council on Wednesday, are based on an assessment of more than 1800 scientific papers.

. . . The Australian Homeopathic Association says homeopathy can be used to treat a wide range of conditions including colds, food poisoning, hangovers, travel sickness, skin conditions, hormone imbalances, mood swings, headaches, behavioural problems, digestive problems and arthritis.

But the NHMRC review found no good quality, well-designed studies with enough participants to support the idea that homeopathy works any better than a placebo, or that it is effective as another treatment.

While some studies reported that homeopathy was effective, the NHMRC said these were too small or too poorly conducted to confidently draw conclusions.

NHMRC chief executive Warwick Anderson said people who were considering using homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner and, in the meantime, keep up any prescribed treatments.

That should be the end of the story unless new evidence emerges showing that homeopathy works. But it seems as if the Australian government not only covers such treatment, but is considering having homeopathy taught as a valid form of medicine:

The finding comes as the federal government prepares to extend funding to private colleges teaching unproven therapies such as homeopathy, and as it considers whether it should continue to pay the private health insurance rebate on policies which pay for such alternative therapies.

According to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council, benefits paid by insurers for natural therapies grew by 345 per cent in the decade to 2012-13, significantly above the growth rate for any other category of general treatment.

Okay, Aussies, you’re paying for this stuff, and that means that some people (including those who go to homeopaths) don’t get proper medical treatment. Make it illegal, and don’t subsidize its teaching.

Of course, the Australian homeopathic quacks have responded—in the only way they can:

The Australian Homeopathic Association wrote to Professor Anderson on Wednesday accusing the council of being biased against homeopathy.

The association said homoeopathy had a two hundred-year history and was widely practised in Europe, the Americas, the Caribbean and the Indian sub-continent.

Yes, and prayer has an even longer history and is practiced throughout the world, but that doesn’t work, either.

I’ve long written about the dangers of religious faith-based healing, particularly when given to children who can’t make an informed decision. As you know if you’ve been a regular reader, hundreds of kids have died from their parents’ practice of Christian faith healing. Well, homeopathy is no different except that it instantiates secular rather than religious faith. It still does damage to those who use it, and it does damage to everyone in those countries where it’s subsidized by the government. Europe and Australia—stop it NOW!

h/t: Natalie