I’m not certain for the future of the JREF. I think Randi has made provisions for the staff to continue, though it certainly seems questionable now how that could happen without the “Old Man” at the helm. But I think Randi’s probably put some thought into that matter himself, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone pick up the mantel – Shermer and Penn come to mind as candidates with popular recognition.

Which also speaks to the identity of younger people. Other aging names that come to mind – Paul Kurtz, Phil Klass (deceased), Joe Nickell. Some relatively younger folks include Micheal Shermer, Penn Jillette (and his non-vocal Teller), but also Phil Plait, Massimo Pigliucci, and Massimo Polidoro. You are correct that a lot of the visible community of skeptical leaders are aging – it is a phenomenon not solely faced by the skeptical community. I think part of the problem is that the younger generation (of which I am a member) don’t know how to get involved in a meaningful way, or feel over-committed to the daily grind of jobs, relationships, families, etc. I also think that part of the problem is that in order for someone to make a name for herself, she must establish credentials and work her way up from the bottom to gain experience. Thus by the time someone is ready to enter the public arena at a national level, they have also achieved some age with that experience. I know of a few younger people who have taken an interest, but have not yet broken into the “big stage” yet.

I think there is an opportunity for active and well-known skeptics to begin mentoring younger folks who are interested but don’t know where to begin. It may already be occurring and just not be visible to us from the outside.

The “skeptical community” or whatever you want to call it seems to be as totally locked into a Cult of Personality as Stalinist Russia ever was. The dismal SKEPTICAL INQUIRER is still heartily pimping poor old Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov many, many years after their deaths… see the July/August 2005 issue of SI for example, which appears to have Sagan’s disinterred corpse on the cover.

To come to the immediate point, what happens to the James Randi Educational Foundation when Randi dies (as he almost just did)?

Aren’t there any people younger than 65 (or 75 or 85) who could be considered leaders of the fight against fraud, pseudoscience and con-games? If not, the battle is lost. [Don't look at me,
I'm 66 myself.]

You are correct, sometimes death can be postponed by an act of will, and sometimes the will to live is gone and the person dies from what could have been survived. In the lifeboat situation, the survivor is typically able to be returned to health once rescued. With deaths due to aging that are temporarily postponed, there is no ability to return to health, so eventually they give in, but the delay happens because of some near-term goal of significance, such as reaching 100th birthday, or making in through the family gathering for the holidays.

What is the applicability to Randi? I think he can pull through this heart attack. Treatment exists that can help him back to the health he had prior to the event. But the long-term situation is that everyone dies, it’s only a matter of time. We’re all terminal, some of us just have longer prognoses than others.

I wish him well, and hope he’s around for a lot longer.

I knew Tim Leary, saw him at the northern Calif. Hog Farm commune in ’94 when he was supposed to have a mere 6 weeks to live,,,I guess he was having too much fun, despite his having prostate cancer he lived another 18 months.

Another anecdotal story of survival.

Peace to you, Randi,,,

Gary 7

As for prayer (for Mr Randi or anybody else for that matter) I am apt to fall back on Pascal’s Wager…

“God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up…Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”

Whatever the case I am apt to try and hedge my bet and therefore will say a sceptical prayer for Mr Rand May he get well soon.

Mike Birbeck
Ongar
England

You are probably correct that it is faith that allows you to think that the new models of humanity will be fun to play with. But experience dictates that some models of humanity are currently fun to play with, and it isn’t a stretch to think that will remain so for some time.

But you probably are relying on faith to think that Randi is “too damn tough to give up and die”. I wouldn’t expect him to just give up, but dying will eventually happen to us all, it’s only a matter of time and circumstances.

For example, I have faith that the earth will continue to follow the Laws of Gravitaion and will remain in orbit around the sun,,,

I have faith that reason is a better arbiter of reality than blind acceptance of some old shepards observations.

I have faith that evolution will continue to create new models of humanity, some of which will be fun to play with.

,,,and I have faith that James Randi is, like me, to damn tough to give up and die. Chaos will just have to drop an asteroid on us to take us out,,,
,,,oh, wait, chaos HAS NO PLAN,,,because it’s not intelligent.

Keep on trucking James, your chips aren’t cashed in just yet,,,

Gary 7

skeptigirl & HawaiiArmenian (et al): Yes, antibiotics are over-prescribed and doctors are LAX at !insisting! that people take the ENTIRE prescription even if they feel better; and yes, occasional hand-washing is a good idea… However, the incidence of allergies to peanuts (et al) is mind-boggling in the last 10 years. In the 1950-1970s it was practically UNHEARD OF. Much as I hate cats, did you know that by the simple expedient of being exposed to them as a child (pets in the house), incidents of allergies and asthma developing are reduced by 75% over a lifetime? Antibacterial soap should be illegal except in doctor’s offices and Hospitals! Our health has become FAR too “delicate” lately, and I think it is drug over-use that is at the root of it.

Incidentally, I, and others of my acquaintance, have EASILY shed excess weight with the Atkin’s plan. Myself, 35 pounds in 6½ weeks (barely in ketosis, never in acidosis); my friend, 50 pounds in the same period). Losing weight is SIMPLE if you’re not hidebound about anitquated nutrition “rules”.

Now, I have to ask you both: What has this to do with the subject: Wishing James Randi good health? )

On the one hand it can get people’s attention about medical problems they might not realize they have and get them to talk to their doctor. On the other hand, you get people coming in and requesting (demanding!) a specific medication by name. What if the doctor looks at their condition and determines that they don’t really need it, or that it isn’t really the best medication for them? One hopes that doctors are able to counsel their patients and the patients listen. But if I’ve heard of Crestor, I might prefer it over Lipitor (or vice versa) simply because the commercials are more memorable (and in Dr. Seuss) rather than any real better performance, and sometimes even in the face of poorer performance. (Can’t I try Crestor instead?)

HA, your clarification is helpful. Those who have successfully dieted to lose weight is actually less than 5% but your point is correct.

As to the establishment of the target cholesterol level, that is not something statin manufacturers had much to do with. Keep in mind there are many sources of research dollars not connected to drug companies. The American Heart Association is a non-profit group supported in a large part by private donations. They fund a lot of research. Universities, while they may have problems when their research dollars are withdrawn after corporate pressure on government funding, still carry on an enormous amount of independent research. And, the US certainly has no monopoly on research. Corporations might have international ties but they don’t necessarily have control of all international research. I trust the new cholesterol target guidelines.

As for the problem of over prescribing antibiotics and antiviral drugs, that would require pages of comments to address all the issues there. Free samples and drug companies pushing new antibiotic choices is one small part that is probably the easiest to address. There is a CDC campaign to educate doctors about over prescribing anti-infectives and to conserve newly developed drugs for resistant organisms. It’s an uphill battle.

Your skeptcism is justified. I call it buyer beware. The more you know about the medicine you need, the more likely you are to get the best care.

I’ve been taking Zocor for the past five years and my cholesterol count has gone down from 240 to 167. I had been running a high cholesterol count for years despite the fact that I exercised regularly and rarely ate animal products. But my problem wasn’t a result of excess cholesterol in my food but of my body’s tendency to produce it in excess. Damaged liver function is certainly a concern, but my health plan (Kaiser Permanente) deals with it with a blood test every three months for the cholesterol count plus an SGOT test for liver inflamation. This seems like such an obvious thing to do that you have to wonder why so many other doctors and health plans don’t.

Hey, maybe he could celebrate by performing open-heart psychic surgery at his next performance!

Believe it or not, if you excuse this rampant bit of partizanship, but Christianity in some senses does encourage scepticism. In Berea, although they listened to the Apostle Paul, they checked what he was saying against the scriptures and for this they were comended. In the Johnine letters, we are told to test the spirits.

Randi is a star because he does do the checking out, especially of those making psychic claims. This helps reduce those who go after a false spirituality.

I realise we do not see eye to eye, but that does not stop me from seeing the good work he has done

Get Well Soon Randi

That would suggest that sometimes you need to not avoid risk.

In the real world, in this case, the statins are turning out to be very useful in the population that can’t quite meet those healthy living standards you seem to think merely educating people about will result in them adopting. And, for many people who do eat right, the statins can overcome their genetic limits for cholesterol levels.

Permit me to also comment on your partially correct, but painted with too broad a brush, comments about pharmaceutical products. Not all drugs are evil. Not all drug companies are evil, though the corporate system in capitalist societies does work against the long term benefit of humans a bit too often.

Yes, all drugs have risks. So does driving my car but there is a benefit to weigh that risk against. Yes, it is best to avoid newer drugs when there are older alternatives. New drugs are tested on a few thousand people. If a side effect occurs in 1 per 100,000 people, it will not show up until the drug is on the market. The drug companies don’t even have to be evil for that to happen.

And, that corporate system encourages drug companies to develop new drugs for problems which older drugs already exist to treat. Taking market share of an existing market is safer than developing a drug for a new market. So we get a lot of R&D money wasted developing very similar products which are not always significant improvements. Thus, stick to the older drugs and, “Let Mikey try [the new ones]” as the commercial cliche’ says, is a good idea.

But as to the concern that there might be a risk with a new drug for which there is no older version, verses a disease process we know is a risk, that requires a bit more analysis than to just brush it off with the mantra, “don’t take drugs because some drug companies have been bad boys in the past”, (not so distant past at that).

That’s why I have a license to prescribe drugs. My job is to help my patients decide whether they want to take the drug, ignore the disease risk, or if they are of the rare breed you think everyone should be, [sarcasm]sigh, if only they would just try[/sarcasm], they could eat the perfect diet, exercise, and live the perfect life, or maybe die trying.

So, we have a disease process we know contributes to the leading killer of women, (in the US at least), and one of the leading killers of men**, we have a drug that lowers that risk with rapid measurable results, we have an unknown factor of potential long term risks that have not shown up in a decade or more of use of the drugs, we have the ability to monitor for side effects and manage them or discontinue the drug, and finally, we have patients who aren’t going to change their lifestyle and eating habits whether they want to or not.

That risk benefit analysis leans heavily toward recommending the statins. I take one myself. I don’t hold any drug company stock unless the Vanguard Fund I have has any, I haven’t checked. I grew up suspicious of corporations and I read a voracious amount about everything concerning my practice and more. I believe whole’heart’edly in evidence based medicine to the point of practically preaching it to colleagues and consumers.

I’m glad you are able to exercise and eat a proper diet. If your total cholesterol is under 200 and your ratios are good, then the potential for unknown future risk of statins may not be the right choice for you. But for everyone to whom diet and exercise are elusive: heart disease -clearly bad– statins- pretty darn promising.

**Interesting side note: when long term studies looked at lowering heart disease fatalities in men, they made up the difference by killing themselves and each other so no net gain in longevity was seen. I believe that was in the Framingham Heart Study if anyone is interested.

I have another philosophy which, as long as I’m preaching to take care of yourself now so you don’t need that bypass later, I’ll describe. There’s a lot of prevention that could be done but in spite of what we know, a lot of preventable disease and accidents still occur.

You cannot avoid all risk. But at least avoid the risk that is easy to avoid. Working smoke alarms and seat belts come to mind as the easiest risks to avoid that often aren’t avoided. Hand washing is probably the next easiest thing that doesn’t happen. With Bird Flu now occurring in a broader geographic area and with at least some genetic changes showing up that increase the virus’ affinity for human lung tissue, hand washing habits really need improvement now.

It is hard to do all those wonderful things in the Healthy People Handbook that we are admonished to do. But there are so many little things that have the potential for incredible improvement in our health statistics. Just look around and see what hazards you are at risk for that would be gone with a very small effort. That’s where to start.

Oh, and wash your hands after you finish using the keyboard while you’re at it.

(Wishes DO exist, to some extent. It’s the effectiveness that is dubious)

May His noodly appendage touch you.

WAIT WAIT!

IT GETS WORSE!

http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html

yikes! gee think we coulda guessed that?

Get well soon, Randi…