NTS Logo
The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics
Volume 7 Number 6 www.ntskeptics.org June 1993

In this month's issue:

The third eye

By Pat Reeder

As if I haven't published enough of my mail in this issue, I'm kicking off this column with a letter.

An alert reader, no doubt quivering with anticipation at my reply, demands to know where I got the name "The Third Eye." The truth is, when I first agreed to do this column, I was told that my initial effort would be due the next day. So I just pulled the name out of the air. I thought it was appropriate, since it referred both to the glass eye of the TV screen and to my duties monitoring the media for you ... I was going to be, in effect, your "third eye." I would watch all this crap so you wouldn't have to.

Later on, I discovered that "The Third Eye" was also the name of a 1956 book, alleged to be the autobiography of a Tibetan Lama named Tuesday Lobsang Rampa (no, that's not the Tuesday special at Red Lobster ... it turned out to be the pen name of British writer Cyril Henry Hoskin). In the book, "The Third Eye" referred to psychic abilities that the narrator discovered after other lamas bored a hole through his forehead with a pointed steel instrument. This is exactly how I feel while watching Sightings on the Fox Network, so perhaps there was some sort of psychic connection going on when I picked the name (and before you ask, the name "Psychic Connection" is a registered trademark of Dionne Warwick).


The local TV newscasts have featured several special reports on a variety of pseudoscientific topics during the past month.

WFAA (Channel 8) did a week-long series on alternative medicine, which could have used a bit more skepticism in its later installments, but which did get off on the right foot by featuring NTS Technical Advisor and Skeptic columnist Dr. Tim Gorski as the spokesman for medical science. Overall, a good job. KDFW (Channel 4) did even better, with a terrific three-part undercover investigation of local psychics by Becky Oliver. Using hidden cameras, she exposed the methods psychics use to frighten their customers, then convince them that only by giving the psychic lots of money can disaster be averted (these psychics should be in Congress!). Ms. Oliver also offered tips for getting your money back from a psychic (good luck!). It was one of the most enjoyable things I've seen on TV since PrimeTime Live vivisected Robert Tilton.

Unfortunately, the very next night, Channel 4 really let me down by running a two-part series on Travis Walton's UFO abduction yarn. No effort was made to spotlight any of the huge holes in his story, nor to present a skeptical viewpoint. I called to offer information to the reporter, Julia Jackson, immediately after the first installment, but received no call back, and part two was just as bad. As you can see elsewhere in this issue, she considered the story to be a "feature," a point which I felt must've been conveyed solely by mental telepathy. I hope that in the future, Channel 4 will either research such stories more carefully, or at least plainly label them as "features." By the way, you fans of ironic detail will be interested to know that in all my correspondence with KDFW about Travis Walton, I used the post office's new "Space Fantasy" stamps.


And now, here are the stories I promised last time ...

Maverick Republican Rep. William Bryant, who has been in the Michigan legislature for 22 years, has just published a book called Quantum Politics, which promises to bring New Age wackiness to the already goofy world of governance. Pointing to the pyramid and the eye on the back of a dollar bill as proof of the connection between government and mysticism, Bryant argues that "legislators must raise their levels of consciousness." They must stop thinking in purely human terms and start using their mammalian and reptilian brain components (I always thought most politicians' brains were 100 percent reptilian).

Sure, it sounds silly now ... but Bryant says that within a couple of decades, legislators will no longer have to take those fact-finding junkets to, say, fact-filled Bermuda. Instead, they'll simply inform themselves on issues by closing their eyes and traveling through "the space and time of the imagination," gathering facts via astral projection.

As soon as they can find a lobbyist to pay for the trip.


Inside Edition reported recently on a medical doctor in New York City who believes that he has been repeatedly abducted by aliens over the years. I won't mention his name, since he's legally disputing the story, but there seemed to be quite a bit of evidence that he has told this tale many times. Inside Edition even had tapes of the doctor on Bud Hopkins' answering machine, raving and cursing about how those "alien bastards" wouldn't leave him alone!

Hopkins complained to authorities about the harassing phone calls, which I find interesting. Why didn't he just believe the doctor's story? He believes it when everybody else tells it. Ah, but this guy is a medical doctor! That means that he would definitely end up getting examined by qualified psychiatrists, who would find that he is delusional. Having a highly publicized "UFO abductee" examined by real doctors and ruled to be delusional would be very bad for Bud Hopkins' business. No wonder he wants to keep this guy at arm's length.

Well, of course, New York health authorities ordered him to be examined by a highly respected psychiatrist, who found him to be suffering from paranoid delusions, and who strongly recommended that he not be allowed to continue practicing medicine and writing prescriptions. His license was yanked for awhile, he appealed, it was returned ... and he is once again seeing patients! Oh, sure, New York health officials admit that this could be a problem ... and they really do intend to follow up on it ... but their caseload is just so huge, "it's not a top priority." So if you get sick in New York, perhaps going to an "alternative medical practitioner" isn't such a bad idea.

[Back to top]

Walton's Fire Fantasy

By Pat Reeder

A Skeptic Speaks Up
Feature or Factual?
May 10, 1993

Mr. Mike Sechrist, News Director
KDFWTV, Channel 4
400 North Griffin St.
Dallas, TX 75202

Dear Mr. Sechrist,

I am writing on behalf of the North Texas Skeptics, a local organization dedicated to the promotion of good science education and to the scientific investigation of paranormal claims.

On May 6-7, your 10 p.m. newscast presented a twopart report by Julia Jackson called "Fire In The Sky," about Travis Walton's alleged UFO abduction. Frankly, we were shocked at the complete lack of journalistic standards in this report. It seemed to be designed solely to plug a movie that has already been in theaters for six weeks, and to panic the public. Your reporter practically endorsed Walton's story and made no effort whatsoever to present any of the overwhelming evidence that it is a hoax.

One of America's leading scientific UFO investigators, Phil Klass, has conducted a thorough investigation of Walton's story, and his findings are readily available to the public, both through his book, UFO's: The Public Deceived, and via a press release sent to news organizations such as yours just last month by CSICOP (the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) in Buffalo, New York. Here are just a few of the many known facts about Travis Walton that Ms. Jackson ignored ...

  1. She claimed that Walton's story is credible because he passed a lie detector test. In fact, he failed his first test miserably. The tester's assessment was "gross deception." He even caught Travis holding his breath in an attempt to "beat the machine." The later test which he "passed" was conducted by a much less qualified tester, whose own boss reviewed the results and called it a flawed test, which he would deem "inconclusive, at best." We are curious as to where and how Ms. Jackson obtained her footage of Walton taking the polygraph test that was shown on Channel 4.
  2. Your reporter showed excerpts from the movie, Fire In The Sky, to illustrate Walton's story. As has already been revealed in Entertainment Weekly, ABC-TV's Good Morning America, and other major media outlets, Paramount has admitted that these "inside the saucer" scenes were created by their screenwriter to "spice up" Walton's vague, dull story. Those scenes are an admitted lie.
  3. Your reporter noted that police did not believe the story, but failed to report why. The police discovered that just days before Travis was allegedly abducted by a UFO, he told his mother that if he were ever to be abducted by a UFO, she shouldn't worry because he would come home safely! In fact, the police were shocked at the complete lack of concern for Travis' wellbeing by his mother, brother and sister. Also, just hours after Travis was allegedly knocked ten feet by a space ray, police examined the scene. The forest floor was thick with dried pine needles and branches, yet there were no burn marks, no footprints, no disturbances, no blood, no threads of clothing ... no physical evidence at all.
  4. Your reporter implied that Walton's witnesses were reputable, trustworthy citizens. In fact, Walton has a history of burglary and check forging. One of the "reputable witnesses" on his logging crew was sentenced to three five-year sentences in the Arizona State Penitentiary for armed robbery. There are many similar tipoffs as to their questionable honesty, all on the public record. Ms. Jackson missed or ignored them all.
  5. Your reporter claimed that Walton is credible because he has made no attempt to market his story. In fact, he immediately sold it to the National Enquirer for $5,000 ... The Enquirer even paid for those lie detector tests! He also tried to win the Enquirer's $100,000 prize for "most convincing UFO story," in a contest widely advertised during the period in which this allegedly happened. He sold his story to a publisher and brought it out in book form. He has told it on countless tabloid TV shows, including one called (as best I remember) Mysteries of the Unknown, a CBS special which ran on your own station just a few months ago. And now, he has sold it to the movies. Good thing he isn't interested in profiting from it!
As media columnist for the monthly magazine, The Skeptic, and as head writer of a nationally syndicated radio news/comedy service, I monitor a lot of tabloid TV shows and news reports. But I must say that this report was one of the worst examples of hysterical, unresearched sensationalism that I have ever seen on a major market newscast. It was particularly disappointing, since it followed Becky Oliver's excellent expos‚ of local psychics. And there was no excuse for it: immediately after watching part one, I called your news room and left a message for Ms. Jackson. I noted that I was from North Texas Skeptics and had mountains of evidence that Walton is a liar and a con man. Ms. Jackson never returned the call. I must assume that she was actively avoiding any efforts to uncover the truth.

This report was willfully misleading and irresponsible, and we at the North Texas Skeptics expect an on-air correction. In light of the above facts (and there are many more), we trust that your sense of journalistic integrity will compel you to agree that this is necessary. Of course, the North Texas Skeptics and CSICOP will be glad to provide you with accurate information on Travis Walton, to help you produce this correction. Simply contact me at the address below, or call Barry Karr at CSICOP at (716) 6361425.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing from you very soon.


Pat Reeder
Vice President, North Texas Skeptics


May 14, 1993

Dear Mr. Reeder:

We received your letter regarding my recent series "Fire in the Sky". I'm sorry you were "shocked at the complete lack of journalistic standards" in the reports.

But, as we discussed on the telephone the intent of the piece was merely to present the claims of a man who had an amazing story to tell. It was presented as just that ... a story. My intent never was to be "willfully misleading and irresponsible".

Your organization obviously follows such claims quite closely and has amassed a large amount of evidence you believe disproves such stories. We appreciate both your interest and efforts.

I have apprised our News Director of our conversation and your displeasure with the coverage.

Thank you for taking the time to write.


Julia Jackson


May 21, 1993

Mr. Mike Sechrist, News Director
KDFWTV, Channel 4
400 North Griffin St.
Dallas, TX 75202

Dear Mr. Sechrist,

I wrote you recently on behalf of the North Texas Skeptics, concerning a UFO story called "Fire In The Sky" by Julia Jackson. Ms. Jackson has replied to me by both phone and mail, and I wanted you to know that I appreciate your passing the message along so quickly. I referred Ms. Jackson to the national media director of CSICOP, which maintains a Center for Public Inquiry. This puts reporters seeking scientific information on occult subjects in touch with some of the nation's most respected scientists.

Ms. Jackson explained that she saw the story as a feature requiring no investigation; we felt that point wasn't made clear, and the story implied an endorsement of Walton's questionable claims by Channel 4 News. We hope that in the future, such stories will be balanced and labeled more clearly as features.

This may seem like a small point, but these UFO scare stores are not totally benign. I am sure Channel 4 would never present an unbalanced "feature" profiling a faith healer or a psychic surgeon. But the UFO abduction movement is rife with untrained, unqualified "hypnotherapists" who can put anyone under hypnosis and find "an abductee" (this even happened to Morton Downey Jr. ... imagine any advanced being crossing the galaxy to abduct Morton Downey Jr.!). Many people who are drawn into this world have serious mental problems, such as schizophrenia. They need medical attention, not reinforcement of their delusions. It is also taken seriously by kids: I recently had to counsel a young teenager in Ogden, Utah, who had been so frightened by this stuff that he was afraid to step out onto his own back porch after dark.

Again, I wish to commend Ms. Jackson for her integrity and professionalism in following up on my letter and considering a correction. If you plan any stories on supernatural topics in the future, we will be glad to provide you with the scientific viewpoint and background information. Also, had Becky Oliver known of us, she might have mentioned that NTS has a standing offer of $2,000 to anyone who can prove, in a laboratory test of our devising, that they possess any psychic or paranormal ability of any kind. It's been advertised for two years. So far, no takers.

Thank you,

Pat Reeder
Vice President, North Texas Skeptics

[Back to top]

Letter to the editor

To the Editor:

I would like to generate some "healthy" skepticism regarding Pat Reeder's recent article on environmental "flapdoodle" appearing in the May 1993 issue of The Skeptic.

First of all, I will say that I agree with Reeder that there is a great deal of hyperbole going on, regarding concern over the environment being destroyed "in the next few decades" (i.e., during our generation!). I understand the point that exaggeration is not desirable and can lead to loss of credibility.

However, I was struck by Reeder's complete silence on whether there is any serious environmental degeneration going on at all and if this will adversely affect our children and our grandchildren. The point is, that even though there is admitted exaggeration, there are serious destructive forces present (i.e., overpopulation pressures, ozone depletion, pollution and waste disposal, etc.) that should be addressed now! Just because no one knows the exact timing of when these will become crises does not mean they should not be seriously evaluated now and, if possible, halted.

I kept looking at the article for facts -- but found only arguments of "form" and not "substance;" such as when it noted how environmentally concerned actors probably have large (environmentally wasteful) houses. How irrelevant! As an analogy: Today the large deficit and the S&L bailout are considered real problems. Yet I remember when early in his term Bush argued that the S&L bailout could not "possibly" go over $30 billion. (He changed his mind within the year). The point is, these problems are real, regardless of who spoke out for or against them.

It's obvious Reeder is a Republican, by his continued attacks on Vice President Al Gore's environmental stance (i.e., beyond his interest in "preserv[ing] endangered species"). Mr. Reeder next time, please give some more facts on this -- I can't respect blanket statements that mean nothing. For example, even though Gore has no "science training," I recall that Arthur Clark was completely self-taught in the area of science. Mr. Reeder, please tell us exactly where Gore is wrong. You say Paul Ehrlich is "discredited;" it would be helpful to explain why.

But, I'll get off politics. How does Mr. Reeder respond to environmental concerns by individuals, whom most people do consider to have "scientific" backgrounds:

"Unless we learn to act out of global consciousness and respect for future generations, our children and their children will inherit a planet that is poisoned, desecrated and mortally wounded. Our choice is this -- to pass on life or to pass a sentence of death on the heads of future generations." -- Captain Jacques Cousteau

(Note: Cousteau is also attempting to pass a "Bill of Rights for Future Generations" in the United Nations for "an uncontaminated and undamaged earth.")

"We live in times when overpopulation, pollution, the greenhouse effect, the thinning of the ozone layer, the deterioration of the environment, the destruction of the forests and of wildlife, and the dangers of multiplying nuclear armaments all threaten us with the destruction of civilization and radical reduction in the very viability of Earth. If our only answer to all this is a superstitious reliance on something outside ourselves as a solution to all those problems, we are making that destruction certain." -- Isaac Asimov

According to the first joint statement by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of London in 1992, "If current predictions of population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet remain unchanged, science and technology may not be able to prevent either irreversible degradation of the environment or continued poverty for much of the world."

Not to mention there are a number of other reputable science articles (in the Scientific American, for example), that take the subject of environmental deterioration very seriously. It's fine to hear Mr. Reeder's opinions, but I believe it is a disservice by presenting only his view, without ever mentioning an important segment of the scientific community's serious concern over the issue.

Again, the point is that there are some serious concerns over the environment that are not, as the article puts it, "flapdoodle." As for myself, I'm far more concerned that too many people are ignoring taking any action on the environment than I am that some groups have stooped to exaggeration.

If you are any reputable organization at all, I urge you to publish this letter in its entirety in the next issue of The Skeptic.

Pat Traynam

Pat Reeder replies:
First of all, I am gratified to know that my little column has managed to work someone up so much. For space considerations, I'll just reply to the main points...

The reason I refer to Al Gore's environmental pronouncements as "flapdoodle," while I might not say the same about someone else who is self-taught in science, is because I believe the V.P. is primarily self-taught in flapdoodle, not science. I don't attack him because of his politics, I attack him because he wants to alter the laws of the land, at great cost to consumers, based on pseudoscience. I might say the same about Jesse Helms. You see, I'm not a Republican, I'm an Independent Realist. There are very few of us. We hold our conventions at Pizza Hut.

The mark of a scientific mind is the willingness to seek reliable new information and adjust beliefs accordingly. Both Isaac Asimov and Jacques Cousteau adjusted their views many times over the years, for example, on the timetable for building colonies beneath the sea. Two years ago, I was very concerned about the possibility of the greenhouse effect; today, I am much less concerned. Yet Vice President Gore has strongly implied that he has no interest in hearing new facts, since his mind is made up already. Remember, it was Al Gore who publicly attacked "skeptical scientists" long before I said anything about him.

Also, would you still think I was a right-wing anti-environmentalist if I mentioned that during the Eco-summit in Brazil, I wrote about how frustrated I was that the most serious ecological problem in the world (overpopulation) was not even being discussed due to anti-birth control pressure from the Catholic Church?

For specifics about why I refer to Paul Ehrlich as a discredited futurist, see R.A. Dousette's review of Ehrlich's 1974 book, "The End Of Affluence" in the December 1992 issue of The Skeptic. Hope you survived the great tuna shortage of the 1980s, as well as the collapse of the Japanese economy, among other things predicted by Ehrlich, a key advisor to Gore. Whether you call yourself a scientist or a psychic, if you make sweeping, doomsday predictions, you have to expect us to check and see if you were right. That's what we do. We're skeptics!

I think our views are much closer than you realize, because my point was almost exactly your own: I agree, the world DOES face serious ecological problems that are in danger of being ignored. But all this politicized hysteria is designed primarily to raise money and increase political power, rather than to help the environment (the same point was made in a recent five-part series in the New York Times, hardly a bastion of Republican propaganda). Promoting panic is counterproductive to helping the environment, because it wastes time and money that could be better spent on things that we know to be serious problems (solid and toxic waste disposal, overpopulation, poisonous air and water in the Third World, and species and habitat destruction, to name just a few specifics), and it confuses and eventually alienates the public.

Here's an example of why it's important to challenge this stuff: within the past month, the British science journal Nature has published two stories relating to "the greenhouse effect." One concerned a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which seems to confirm that ozone depletion over Antarctica in the past year was caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, not manmade gasses. The other story involved a study of the rings in ancient South American trees, including one 3,613 years old. It showed that the climate has warmed and cooled many times over the centuries ... yet there has been no warming at all since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

So what is the response of the environmental/political lobbies to such promising news? We're told to ignore it and hurry along with a plan to convert all our air conditioning and refrigeration systems away from CFCs to a new substitute gas, even though this may not even be necessary ... and despite the fact that the new gas appears to cause cancer in rats. In other words, we could be risking a definite probability of getting lung cancer, in order to avoid a theoretical possibility of getting skin cancer! On top of this, it is estimated that the switch-over will cost American consumers $45 billion the first year alone. I wish I could give the same $45 billion to the Nature Conservancy ... we'd have rain forests forever!

Finally, if my opinions take up too much room, I assure you it's not a conspiracy. I'm just one of the few people who's dumb enough to do all this unpaid writing every month (I can hear Mike Sullivan now: "Fill space! Fill space!"). If you want to write a column, too, Mike would be glad to hear from you ... as was I. [Only too glad! - Ed.] Thanks for reading this far!

Pat Reeder

[Back to top]

Healthy skepticism

By Tim Gorski, M.D.

Second of Two Parts

(Editor's note: In our May issue, Dr. Gorski began a review of the book Life Extension by Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw. This is the second half of that review.)

Throughout the book, Pearson and Shaw also display an awesome misunderstanding of what science is all about. They claim to be scientists (and even to have "access to many drugs that are unavailable to pharmacists [and] physicians!"), but they don't seem to understand the difference between scientific knowledge and a report in the scientific literature. Indeed, they make no distinction between research studies of varying design, between findings that have been replicated and those that have not, and even between published information and casual comments made by researchers at meetings, poster sessions, and the like. Pearson and Shaw seem to treat it all alike, as a body of equally reliable bits of evidence among which they can pick and choose to "prove" their ideas. They also appear completely oblivious to the dangers of extrapolating from small animal studies, or even from a few items of information that they force together ad hoc, to recommendations for humans.

Pearson and Shaw don't even seem to grasp the essential nature of living organisms as assemblages of ongoing biochemical reactions that are controlled and directed by conditions of physical confinement (in- and outside of various intracellular and extracellular spaces) and varying parameters of such constraints as reaction rates (which are governed by enzymes) and energetics (by biophysically coupling some reaction(s) to other(s)). Instead, these two "scientists" seem to think of the human body as a kind of giant reaction vessel where, if you want more of, say, a certain neurotransmitter in some particular part of the brain, all you have to do is pour in more of the reactants. Thus, to them, the "optimal" intake of vitamins and various nutrients isn't the amount that is sufficient to prevent deficiency. It's the amount just under that which would cause toxicity! But on the question of exercise they intone: "more is not necessarily better."

Running throughout the book is the authors' relentless animosity towards reasonable constraints on products that are marketed on the basis of health and nutrition claims. On the one hand they decry "health products based on a wide variety of untested hypotheses and claims, many not scientifically justifiable." Yet they offer such hypotheses and make such claims themselves. They try to resolve the contradiction by making a villain of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) without attacking its actual purpose, saying "Take your tax money away from FDA legal and regulatory bureaucrats and give it to their scientists instead." But several of their specific complaints about FDA regulatory oversight are simply wrong. They take the position, for example, that thalidomide, a sedative drug which causes limb shortening deformities in the offspring of women who take the drug while pregnant, ought to be available in this country to men and nonpregnant women because it would reduce the numbers of barbiturate poisonings. In fact, there are plenty of other sedative drugs besides barbiturates and almost all pregnant women are unaware of exactly when they become pregnant. Pearson and Shaw also state that "since smoking is not a disease, the FDA may never approve any treatment, no matter how safe, specifically for the purpose of stopping smoking." In reality, tobacco addiction is very much a recognized clinical entity and the FDA not only approved a nicotine-containing gum but transdermal nicotine patches for the purpose of treating this disorder.

Elsewhere in the book, Pearson and Shaw go beyond FDA-bashing. They recommend that someone undergoing radiation therapy for cancer demand that the thymus (an immune system organ in the chest which, by adulthood, no longer plays an essential role but can serve as a site of metastatic cancer) be shielded. If the demand is not met, they insist that the patient seek treatment elsewhere! Pearson and Shaw make similar recommendations about how readers ought to find a physician who will prescribe various medications according to the advice given in their book. A doctor who isn't willing "to consider new scientific information" of the sort that Pearson and Shaw offer should be abandoned and "an open-minded doctor" should be sought, they say. They're particularly enamored of the prescription medication Hydergine, much of their claims concerning which are refuted or denied by the drug's manufacturer.

Incredibly, it is on such a sorry basis as this that Pearson and Shaw rest their basic thesis that by taking large doses of some 25 different "nutritional supplements" that people can live longer and healthier lives. And it's probably futile to expect that these "scientists" will be changing their minds anytime soon. For like the originators of most forms of quackery, they have acquired a cult following that's unconcerned with the lack of scientific basis for their claims. The fact that it looks something like science is enough for these groupies, who can be counted on to seize upon every new research study or report that could conceivably bolster their beliefs.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the disdain of these two "scientists" for FDA regulatory oversight has also attracted sympathizers from the libertarian movement. The thinking seems to be that anyone who finds fault with the FDA (which is not difficult) must be on to something. In the April Reason magazine, for example, Pearson and Shaw hold forth on "Reforming the FDA." The back cover of the issue consists of an ad for "Life Services Supplements, Inc's" promotion of "DURK PEARSON & SANDY SHAW'S DESIGNER FOODS" such as "RISE & SHINE," "BLAST," and "MEMORY FUEL" that promise "focused energy and acceleration" and other benefits. So much for a "practical scientific approach" to longer life and health.

Those who are truly interested in the current state of knowledge concerning "Life Extension" are well advised to save themselves the chore of plowing through Pearson and Shaw's ridiculous book. They ought, instead, to read an article of the same title that appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine on May 2, 1985, with 194 references from the National Institute on Aging (Anyone interested may obtain a copy of this by sending me $1 at the address below.). Maybe someday the avenues of study outlined in this paper will bear some practical fruit. In the meantime, if you want to live long and healthy, eat a well-balanced diet, exercise regularly, get adequate rest, wear seatbelts and follow other safety precautions, refrain from tobacco and other drugs, and use alcohol moderately if at all.

This information is provided by the D/FW Council Against Health Fraud. For more information, or to report suspected health fraud, please contact the Council at Box 202577, Arlington, TX 76006, or call metro 817-792-2000.

Dr. Gorski is a practicing physician, chairman of the D/FW Council Against Health Fraud and a North Texas Skeptics Technical Advisor.

[Back to top]

Up a tree

A skeptical cartoon by Laura Ainsworth

Up a tree

[Back to top]