A popular myth in anti-doctor and anti-pharmaceutical circles is that cancer is man-made. The idea is that the disease either didn’t exist or existed very rarely thousands of years ago, but has increased exponentially due to persons being bombarded with artificial toxins. Even more tenuous proclamations blame GMOs, vaccines, WiFi, or whatever other entity one wishes to demonize.

The idea of man-made cancer stems primarily from a study by professors Rosalie David and Michael Zimmerman. The researchers examined nearly 1,000 mummies and found just one who had developed cancer. The professors therefore concluded that the disease is of recent origin. They went so far as to claim that cancer is “limited to societies that are affected by modern lifestyle issues, such as tobacco use and pollution resulting from industrialization.” Officials from the University of Manchester lauded the study in a press release that stated, “Finding only one case of the disease in the investigation of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, along with few references to cancer in ancient literary evidence, proves that cancer was extremely rare in antiquity.”

It’s true that the cancer rate in ancient Egypt, as well as in Rome and Greece, was much less than it is today. But that’s because cancer is predominantly a senior disease. According to Dr. Lesley Walker of Cancer Research UK, 75 percent of cancer hits persons 60 or over, a demographic that includes just 18 of the population. In men, 90 percent of cancers occur in those over 50. If the average lifespan were to hit 125, virtually all men making this milestone would develop prostate cancer, but this would be due to drastically longer lives, not because a futuristic nefarious agent will have perfected a way to commit microbial misdeeds. Conversely, in times and societies where hitting 50 was as noteworthy as making 100 today, it would be expected for cancer to be rare.

The David-Zimmerman study said that besides environmental factors, lifestyle also has an impact. It’s true that lifestyles make a difference in the likelihood of developing cancer. Smoking, drinking, overeating, forgoing sunscreen, and being sedentary all make cancer more likely. But these are choices, meaning persons can do something to positively impact them. Cancers that would result from these activities are the result of poor decisions are not evidence of society being awash in a carcinogenic wave. True, there are some pesticides and industrial solvents that could can cause cancer with prolonged, concentrated exposure, but these are responsible for a tiny fraction of the disease, and steps can be taken to reduce the risk, such as the exposed person wearing protective equipment.

The authors are correct that pursuing a more active lifestyle and eating a balanced diet can help stave off cancer. And their point about cancer being rare 3,000 years ago is true, though this was accompanied with a correlation-causation error that blamed industrial developments, not increased lifespans, for the disease’s surge.

So at this point, we have one truth and one probably unintentional misuse of numbers. But they jumped the analytical shark with an absurd claim that would delight Gwyneth Paltrow, the Food Babe, and Doctor Oz. David wrote, “There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer.”  The (literally) most glaring error here is failing to consider the sun. Ultraviolet radiation, after all, is the number one cause of skin cancer.

Going to much smaller examples of nature, carcinogens exist in bacteria and viruses. These infectious agents are responsible for up to 25 percent of cancers, including the human papillomavirus. And one of main reasons stomach cancers are less prevalent than 100 years ago is because of refrigeration and improved living conditions.

Then there’s radon, a natural product of granite. In gas form, it is responsible for about 10 percent of lung cancers. Additionally, there are chemicals found naturally in foods and produced by molds or plants that can cause cancer. Even soot and smoke from fire contain carcinogens that could result in cancer with prolonged exposure.

But at least David and Zimmerman conducted original research and submitted their findings for peer review. We will now transition to those unencumbered by scientific protocol. These types attribute cancer to whatever modern development they find most intolerable.

Some anti-GMO types point out that genetic modification has been going on for about 30 years and cancers have gone up over time, so, voilà. Even a rudimentary critical thinker would recognize this as the post hoc fallacy, where because one event comes before another, a connection is assumed without offering evidence and without considering other possible causes.

A seemingly more reasonable position is to blame GMOs for cancer because of reports that both bacillus thuringiensis (which is incorporated into insect-resistant plants during genetic modification) and glyphosate (a herbicide used on some GM crops) will, when applied to cells in a petri dish, cause some cells to experience abnormal growth. But University of Florida horticulturist Dr. Kevin Folta noted that cells in a petri dish behave differently than cells in a human body, and he added there is zero evidence consumption of GM foods would cause the change that cells in a petri dish undergo.  

Another alarmist camp blames WiFi for cancer. But WiFi operates in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and the risk of cancer only begins at the high end of ultraviolet light. A similar slander targets cell phones and accuses them of causing brain cancer. However, the ubiquitous nature of these devices and the lack of corresponding brain cancer pandemic show this to be an unfounded fear.

Smart meters are another modern development forced to stand in a police lineup of suspected carcinogenic agents. This is based on the misuse of a fact, specifically that ionizing radiation can break the bond that holds molecules together and possibly have carcinogenic results. But this danger does not extend to low-frequency fields, which is where smart meters operate.

And what pseudoscientific scaremongering would be complete without pinning unwarranted blame on vaccines? The horribly-misnamed website Truth About Cancer notes that most vaccine inserts contain the phrase, “This vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic potential.”

The website then issues an alarm about today’s vaccine schedule being thrice as long as what it was 40 years ago, leaving out that there are 95 percent fewer antigens injected now than then. It then joints the post hoc parade with, “Coinciding with the ever-increasing vaccine schedule are soaring rates of chronic illness in children, including cancer, which has skyrocketed and is now the leading cause of death by disease in children past infancy.” Yes, especially now that no babies in the West are dying from polio or smallpox.

The website next rails against formaldehyde without mentioning that the compound occurs naturally in the human body in greater amounts than what vaccines contain. Finally it recommends avoiding vaccines altogether in favor of eating fruits and vegetables, getting enough rest, sunshine, and exercise. There’s nothing wrong with doing all that and also getting vaccinated. I do love my bananas, sleep, 70 degree days, and time on the treadmill. But my joy from those pursuits would be greatly curtailed if I indulged in them while enduring Whooping Cough.

Anti-GMO extremists are known for their macabre corn men masks, memes of fruits taking bites out of children, and vehicles topped with tomato-fish hybrids. None of this has any relationship with reality. Online activists frequently employ ad hominem attacks in the form of evidence-free shill accusations, while also accusing posters of being Monsanto employees, whom they compare to Joseph Goebbels.

One of the more infamous anti-GMO crusaders, Nassim Taleb, contributes little to the dialogue beyond personal-attack Tweets. He refuses to discuss the issue with any adversaries, blocks anyone who disagrees, and never offers any science. I once attended an anti-GMO seminar in which the speaker claimed the USA’s enemies will eventually be able to stroll in and take over the country without firing a shot because GMOs will turn us into non-thinking zombies.

But even among the more measured anti-GMO types who do not foment these irrational fears, there are still misunderstandings of the process. However, there are no risks with genetically modified crops that do not occur with conventional breeding methods.

The latter can even pose more risks, and this is ironically more likely when countries ban genetically modified crops. That’s because when this happens, agricultural companies may develop new strains though mutagenesis, which requires subjecting plants to radiation or dousing them with toxic amounts of chemicals in order to randomly move genes in the hopes of producing new traits.  

Contrast this to genetic modification, where scientists take a gene that yields a desired trait then insert it into a crop that may lack this distinction. Mutagenesis is much less precise than genetic modification, yet remains unregulated, widely used, and unchallenged by Taleb, Vandana Shiva, Vani Hari, and other self-appointed guardians of food safety.  

One falsehood is that GMOs are more susceptible to producing allergens. In fact, genetically modified foods are required by regulatory agencies to be tested for their allergen presence. Any genetically-modified crops that are shown to have one cannot be sold or distributed. Meanwhile, crops that are known to be allergens to some, such as peanuts, are not subject to this regulation.    

There are also accusations that GMOs are prone to uncontrollable spread. But GM crops are produced by managing a small, precise change to a plant, making spread unlikely. Meanwhile, conventional breeding mixes thousands of genes from parent plants, then recombines them to produce mutations that could potentially increase the potential to spread.   

Perhaps the most frequent criticism is that heartless corporations are controlling GMOs. Yet large companies and conglomerates, heartless or otherwise, have their hands in all food production methods.  Whole Foods, which specializes in organic produce, brings in more than profit than most of companies Food Babe demonizes for making money off GMOs. Besides, farmers are free to use non-GM seeds, to buy seeds from corporations that sell exclusively conventional crops, to buy locally, or to form a co-op.

A similar argument centers on patents, and concern over this is wrong for the same reason as above. The supposed idea is that malevolent Monsanto, satanic Syngenta, and detestable Dow will horde seeds and control the world’s food supply. Yet conventional crop variants can also be patented and corporations that work with conventional breeding will sue anyone who violates the patents.

Then we have an alleged increase in use of pesticides. But GM applications usually match a specific toxin to a certain crop, meaning that genetically-modified crops use fewer pesticides. Additionally, there are charges that genetically-modified foods will negatively impact bees and butterflies. But because these crops rely mostly on pesticides that target a specific pest, they will not impact other insects. In fact, bugs are more likely to be killed by broad-spectrum insecticides that are used in traditional farming.

Finally, there are fears expressed about genes moving between species. First, GM crops do not always involve the use of a transgene. They can also remove genes that would otherwise produce a toxin, or they can change genes to give the crop a desirable trait it might lack. And again, conventional crops also involve moving of genes between species. Emil Karlsson cited these examples on the website Debunking Denialism: “The conventional crop triticale is a hybrid between wheat and rye. Also, horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and plants occur in nature all the time and well-documented examples include the common sweet potato.” Yes, nature has produced a genetically-modified organism. Now there’s something for Taleb, Shiva, and Hari to freak over.

Dracula is such an iconic character that even people who have never read Bram Stoker’s book or seen the 1931 Bela Lugosi classic or ever had any interest in vampires knows exactly who he is and could likely rattle off half a dozen characteristics he possesses.

I see the Rorschach Inkblot Test as the Dracula of psychology. Persons who have never taken the test or been in a psychology class or read a psychology textbook know what it is and how it’s used. Also, it endures long after it should have been buried with a stake in its heart.

The ink blots are said to have the abilities to provide a psychological diagnosis, uncover deep personality traits, and predict a patient’s future behavior. But a more measured analysis shows it to be little more than a form of cold reading and no empirical data suggests it works as advertised.

Swiss doctor Hermann Rorschach devised the test, taking the idea from his childhood hobby of klecksography. This consists of dropping wet ink onto a paper then folding it in half to form two mirror images. Players then grab a pen and  complete whatever the image suggests to them.

In the 1960s, Dr. John Exner consolidated various forms of the test and standardized the scoring method. He produced 10 cards, which are still uniformly used by all psychologists who employ the Rorschach.

Those who use the test consider it a projective technique. This refers to when subjects are given an ambiguous stimulus and asked to interpret it. After the patient’s initial description, the psychologist probes for more detail to determine why the patient saw the images that they did. This is actually considered the key part of the assessment. It is not the initial epiphany of a splattered image resembling a flying insect that test proponents consider revealing. Rather, it is the more involved explanation of those object’s qualities and how they relate to the patient’s psyche that is most relevant. The distinctions of a flying insect are assumed to be the patient’s self-projection.

But open-ended queries about ambiguous stimuli mean that an accurate self-assessment is not a terribly likely result. As Brian Dunning at Skeptoid noted, “An artistic serial killer may speak at length about the beauty of the butterfly he sees, while a dull but harmless accountant may say it looks like a knife.”

Proponents consider the Rorschach test to be capable of unlocking a person’s deepest secrets, of providing a window to their soul, and of being able to capture the subconscious springing forth. But the techniques used and results claimed are similar to what we see with fortune tellers and mediums, though a psychologist has more admirable intent than does a ghoul cashing in on grieving relatives.

Still, a seemingly effective Rorschach analysis can be made using cold reading techniques employed by the likes of Tarot card readers and astrologers. This is even easier since a patient is in a therapist’s office precisely to open up. From this patient input, the listener gets a good idea about the client’s education level, background, interests, family members, fears, and dreams. All this information can eventually be woven by the therapist into what seems like an accurate analysis.

The examiner may also assign to the patient general attributes and circumstances that would apply to many persons and situations. The analysis may even be contradictory, further increasing the chance that at least part of it applies to any given person. In the end, the clinician ends up with an analysis that can be interpreted to exactly match the client’s case.

So while something accurate about the patient may be revealed in the sessions, attributing it Rorschach inkblots is a correlation/causation error. Anytime a subject answers complex questions and offers observations and reasoning at length, ample insight into that person will be revealed. So the test “works” because the psychologist has learned the patient’s history and personality. It’s not because an idiosyncratic pondering of ink blots provided a deep dive into the psyche or the  ability to scour hidden recesses of the mind.

So when I examine the blots, they look like a misinterpreted phenomenon whose value as a psychological tool has been greatly overblown.  

The stigma attached to ignorance is, often and ironically, a result of that condition manifesting itself. It is ignorant to think that a lack of knowledge is all bad. Recognizing the shortcoming and the subsequent desire learn more is what drives progress.

The blogger Skeptophilia wrote, “Ignorance is the inevitable condition if you study anything scientific. Scientists are always pushing the edges of our knowledge, which means they have to be keenly aware of the fact that there are a lot of questions for which we simply don’t have answers.” He also quoted Neil Tyson, who noted that scientists “are always back at the drawing board. If not, they’re not making discoveries and they’re not doing science.”

So this thirst for more knowledge is good, and without it I would not have a word processor to write this, nor even a quill and ink. What’s bad is when a lack of knowledge is filled in with whatever wild conjecture one finds most attractive.

This faux knowledge is often bolstered with a dismissive attitude toward intellectualism. Creationists, alternative medics, anti-vaxxers, and ancient alien aficionados are fond of declaring, “Scientists have no answer for this,” or “Science has been wrong many times before.” They then segue into a fabricated explanation that involves no testing, peer review, clinical trials, or laboratory studies. They conclude with a begging-the-question position that God/aliens did it, that jasmine and sage can combine to cure rosacea, that insulin causes diabetes, or some similar stance with no scientific backing.

Consider some creative interpretations of the pineal gland’s function. Within our lifetimes, this organ has from being considered a vestigial trait to one that physiologists have a rudimentary understanding of. They now know the gland produces melatonin, which helps regulate our circadian rhythm. But scientists are unsure precisely how it manages this and don’t know if it has still other uses.

To the rescue comes Dr. Google. Here, persons who purport to tolerate no gap in human knowledge will turn around and accept assertions that the gland serves as a soul repository, a spiritual antenna, or conduit to a mystical plane. Most popular is the idea that the pineal gland is the gateway to the Third Eye.

Similar to halfhearted conspiracy theorists who portray themselves as broadminded chaps only interested in considering various viewpoints, persons who view the pineal gland in esoteric terms pose a series of questions ostensibly meant to be stoking curiosity, but which really insinuate that “they” are hiding something, whether “they” refers to Illuminati agents or scientists.  

Skeptophilia cites a few examples of these questions, such as, “Is the pineal gland the evolutionary remnant of a literal third mammalian eye that moved into the center of the brain and changed functions from gathering light to entraining rhythms in accordance with information gathered by the retina?” Skeptophilia provided what I imagine would be an unsatisfying answer to the questioner: “No. No vertebrate has three eyes.”

Another query was, “Is there a connection between the spiritual promise of the pineal gland, which is shaped like a pine cone, and the Pigna, the colossal bronze pine cone statue of ancient Rome which now sits in a courtyard in the Vatican?” Yes, the connection is that both are the result as painting with the broadest brush possible in order to fill a gaping hole with the vague idea that all can be wonderful and magical if one embraces the poorly-explained notion of a Third Eye.

One final question: “Why is the pineal gland the only organ in the human body that calcifies and solidifies with age and why is it that pineal gland decalcification results in a heightened spiritual experience?”

Again, Skeptophilia: “Your pineal gland is not the only structure in your bodies that calcifies with age. Your cartilage does the same.” Further, “heightened spiritual experience” is not a testable condition and its existence is being asserted without satisfying the requisite protocols.

Meanwhile, the Gaia website combines science and poppycock in one paragraph without acknowledging the abrupt transition: “The pineal gland is a pea-sized gland shaped like a pine cone and located in the vertebrate brain near the hypothalamus and pituitary gland. Also known as the Third Eye, it is a revered tool of seers and mystics and considered to be the organ of supreme universal connection.”

Gaia also plays to the appeal to antiquity fallacy, claiming the notion of a Third Eye appeared in “every ancient culture,” though it only specifies the ones New Agers hold in highest esteem, those in Egypt and India. Specifically, it cites Hinduism’s anja chakra and the Eye of Horus, which had its heyday during the time of the pharaohs.  

The ajna chakra does bear some similarity to the Third Eye concept of modern times, but the Eye of Horus was seen as a symbol of protection, power, and health. Its only resemblance to the Third Eye is that both involve peepers. The supposed connection is fabricated so as to appeal to New Agers.

Speaking of which, Gaia explains that, “Developing the Third Eye is the doorway to telepathy, clairvoyance, lucid dreaming, and astral projection. A blocked Third Eye leads to confusion, uncertainty, cynicism, jealousy and pessimism. The calcification of the pineal gland is common if the Third Eye is not being used or as a result of diets rich in fluoride and calcium. Radiation from cell phone use and electric and magnetic fields may have negative impacts on the pineal gland as well.”

These claims are high on extravagance, low on evidence. And while believing that opening the Third Eye will be a magical mystery tour, Gaia does extend a branch to the more conspiratorial minded of its followers. It suggests that fluoridated water and USDA encouragement to get adequate calcium may be ruses to blind the Third Eye.

Also urging caution is an online entity going by the moniker Tapoos. He, she, or it warns that opening the Third Eye will cause senses to become enhanced and that this can be undesirable. It could make tastes more bitter, high-pitched sounds more jarring, and chapped skin more sensitive. Another danger is that the experience could be so wonderful that it will cause the subject to ignore suddenly humdrum stuff like relationships, bills, and community service.

Tips on how to open the third eye are quite varied, which is typical of unscientific gobbledygook. Some involve understood activities, such as meditation, dancing, chanting, yoga, and prayer. Others suggestions are puzzling, such as “cultivate silence,” “hone intuition,” “nurture creativity”, and “become grounded.” These unspecified tasks take an unclear concept like Third Eye and make it ever more muddled.

A vegan diet is another alleged way to pry open this portal. But I have been vegan at various points and my excess consumption of tomatoes and avocadoes led to no heightened state of awareness, nor did it grant me new insights. It either didn’t work or I was born with my Third Eye already open.

For those who do risk the opening, Tapoos writes that it may  “introduce you to a whole new world filled with amazing experiences. This new awakening can guide you on the path of consciousness not only about this world but the spiritual realm as well. The pineal gland isn’t some imaginary, magical eye that is going to appear on your forehead. You can think of it as a meta organ that is naturally present in all human beings. This meta organ includes your mind and all of your other senses working together simultaneously to become a single, supreme organ.”

This passage refers to a legitimate biological entity, plus throws in words like gland and organ, but mixes this with decidedly unscientific notions such as supreme organ and the gland being the “seed of the soul.”

Besides there being roughly similar ideas in Hinduism, the concept is found in some Taoist schools and occasionally in neo-gnostic Christian offshoots which consider the Third Eye the means by which Revelation seers were given their visions.

There is also a tangential Tibetan Buddhist connection. The Third Eye idea was championed by a man identifying himself as Lama Lobsang Rampa. But Heinrich Harrer hired a private investigator who learned Rampa was really an Irish plumber named Cyril Hoskin. Upon being busted, Hoskin spun the greatest religious yarn since Joseph Smith.

In that instance, Smith was claiming to be translating inscriptions of golden plates to Martin Harris. Harris’ wife got ahold of the first 116 pages and challenged Smith that if he had translated the golden tablets once, he could do it again. Smith then received a warning from that God not to retranslate these pages because Satan had Earthly minions who would alter the pilfered manuscript, then use the inconsistencies between the two versions to discredit the developing Book of Mormon.

In the more recent case, Hoskin conceded that he was indeed an Irish plumber, but that the spirit of a Tibetan lama had leased space in his soul long enough to pen religious tracts. However many eyes I have, they were all rolling upon hearing that explanation.

Baron Dr. Karl Ludwig Freiherr von Reichenbach had a better name than you or me. And unless I have assembled supremely erudite readership, he was more intelligent as well, having won the Nobel Prize for chemistry. It was the most prestigious of his many honors received for numerous discoveries of chemical products with economic use.

Regrettably, he tarnished his good and distinctive name by spending his final 30 years researching his pet project. He was convinced of the existence of an unproven field of energy that emanated from all living things, similar to qi, prana, and other “life forces” of alternative medicine infamy. The baron called this mysterious phenomenon the Odic Force, a name almost as ridiculous as the idea attached to it.

Despite my dismissive nature, I must concede that his having initially pondered the notion might be understandable. At one time, somebody had to be the first person to contemplate Earth being round, to speculate on the existence of atoms, to ponder rocket travel, and to consider if diseases could be arrested through a process we came to call vaccination.

Further, Nobel Prizes are given to those who conceive of and then confirm an original idea. They are awarded to forward thinkers who either expand on or shatter existing knowledge. It requires sizable fortitude and the ability to endure ridicule to publicly put forth an unproven notion. Having sustained this ridicule to take home the most revered honor in science, it’s understandable why the recipient would again ignore derogatory comments and persevere through failed experiments.

But in rare cases, perseverance turns into denial and we see the Nobel Delusion, where an elite scientist grows fixated on his or her idea regardless of whether it can ever be validated. This unfortunate phenomenon has taken place about a dozen times. Examples include Pierre Curie championing the medium Eusapia Palldino, Linus Pauling touting Vitamin C as a panacea, Brian Josephson endorsing the concept of psi, and Kary Mullins expressing a belief in astrology, while throwing in climate change and HIV denials for good measure.

With the baron, his obsession centered on persons he called Sensitives, whom he was convinced were the only ones who could detect the Odic Force. Here, von Reichenbach committed the affirming the consequent fallacy. He declared that if someone said they can feel the force, that means it exists. But with no means of measuring the force, with no way to detect what type of energy it was, and with no explanation of what mechanism was transmitting it, his descriptions were merely unsubstantiated assertions. They also involved special pleading because he asserted that the force emanated from all living beings, yet any test subject who reported feeling nothing was dismissed as not being one of the Sensitives.

Yet another of the baron’s logical fallacies was ad hoc reasoning. In a controlled test not overseen by von Reichenbach, subjects were placed in a completely darkened room to see if they could detect the presence of a magnetic current, which was activated half the time. After the Sensitives performed no better than chance, von Reichenbach attributed the failures to the magnetic force reacting upon the Odic current and confusing the Sensitives.

The baron came up with the concept of Sensitives while doing unrelated research on sleepwalking. He came across the idea that those who take somnambulistic strolls are allergic (or sensitive) to something that rides in on the moonlight. Rather than examining this claim, perhaps starting with seeing if day sleepers also walk, he extrapolated this notion into being the Odic Force, a powerful omnipresent entity which controlled sleepwalking and much more.

Earlier, von Reichenbach was investigating how the human nervous system could be affected by various substances and he conceived of an undiscovered force that combined electricity, magnetism, and heat, and which radiated from most or all substances. He thought such a force, if it existed, might impact the nervous system.

So far, so good. Making an observation, then developing a hypothesis based on it are the first steps in the Scientific Method. But he failed to include adequate controls in his testing and instead assumed the existence of Sensitives who can harness this mystery power, which he also just assumed to exist.  

The baron tried to establish a scientific tie by saying the Odic Force was associated with biological electromagnetic fields, as well as incorporating magnetism, electrify, heat, and light. These were pseudoscience ploys that might make the idea seem more plausible, but he failed to substantiate any of this through controlled studies or peer review.

While never explaining what type of energy it was, nor having no established a means of accessing it, nor inventing any machine to gauge it, von Reichenbach nevertheless thought the Odic force could explain dozens of phenomena, such as hypnotism, dowsing, the Northern Lights, and magnetism. He was even an early proponent of Feng Shui, cautioning churches to not place altars at the east end, lest worshippers be placed in an “an Odically unfavorable position.” I imagine this phrase was his Jump the Shark moment from which there was no chance of his returning to the application of rigorous scientific principles. Additionally, this was all Tooth Fairy Science, as he had yet to establish that the Odic Force existed.

His infatuation with the notion extended to associated personal habits, which would more accurately be called rituals rather than scientific protocols. On “research” days, the baron maintained a strict regimen of rest and diet and refrained from touching metals. For the experiment, he would hold a Sensitive’s hand and record the subject’s report of what was being transmitted. This included revelations that the mystery force was positive, negative, or neutral, or that the Sensitives saw glimmers of colored lights, which could have been a precursor of aura silliness.

As the Baron sadly demonstrated, expertise in one field does not confer authority in an unrelated area. Because they think it bolsters their cause, alt-med and anti-science types love to highlight iconoclastic Nobel winners who embrace unfounded ideas. But this is the appeal to authority fallacy since these Nobel Prize winners are not speaking to their area of expertise. Of course, it is possible to accurately speak about a field one is not an expert in, but such claims must be backed by credible evidence, and that’s not what’s happening here. There exists no empirical evidence for a life force which can be detected by select individuals, and an insistence from a Nobel Prize winner with a splendid name that it’s real doesn’t make it so.