Internet Eclipse Photos: Fakes, Unrealistic Enhancements, and Hijacked Images

Posted on April 13, 2024 by Mark Aaron Alsip

After the “Great American Eclipse” of April 8, 2024, social media and the Internet have become swamped with highly-manipulated and/or completely fake images of totality. As an eclipse chaser with 26 years experience under my belt, I’m greatly disturbed by this. Total eclipses of the sun are the most beautiful events in nature. There’s absolutely no need to falsify how they look.

In this edition of Bad Science Debunked, I’d like to take in-depth looks at a couple of the most popular fake or manipulated images. I’ll explain how we know they aren’t real (or are manipulated). I’ll talk about why some photographers manipulate their images, how such images are sometimes hijacked without the photographer’s permission, and look at both the good and bad that can come from such manipulation.

Artificial Intelligence Rears It’s Head

Let’s start with the photo below.⁶ In a moment I’ll talk about the impossibility of capturing the wide dynamic range of light in the various parts of the the sun’s corona (atmosphere) seen in this image, but alarm bells were already going off in my head just based on knowing something about the April 8, 2024 eclipse.

Image Credit: author unknown, please see photo credits at end of article for attribution and declaration of usage rights.

First, notice the sunset/sunrise colors in the photo. Notice how close to the horizon the moon and sun are. This simply wasn’t possible on April 8. The eclipse began at sea southwest of Mexico, so there would’ve been no land from which to shoot a sunrise shot. Likewise, the eclipse ended over land in the North Atlantic. Again, there would be no land-based position from which to shoot a sunrise or sunset photo.

Second, look at all the little golden beads and “swirls” around the edge of the sun. The beads are known as Bailey’s Beads. These “beads” are small glints of sunlight shining through mountain passes on the limb of the moon. The swirls that seem to leap off the sun are called “prominences.” Prominences are large masses of gas leaping off the surface of the sun.

To see so much of this phenomena literally 360 degrees around the sun would have required what’s known as a “shallow eclipse.” The moon would have needed to be far enough from Earth to just-ever-so-slightly cover the face of the sun, allowing so many beads and prominences to be visible. I was clouded out on April 8, but I’ve looked at a great deal of photographs from those who weren’t, and the eclipse just wasn’t this shallow. Nor was it expected to be. Look at some legitimate images of this eclipse from NASA and you’ll see the difference.¹

Third, notice what appears to be full foliage on deciduous trees. For this to have been a sunset image, it would have had to been taken at a high latitude. The eclipse left land for good near tiny Bonavista, Newfoundland & Labrador, just north of St. John’s, Newfoundland², at a latitude of 48 degrees north. With the foliage just now thickening near my home of Lexington, KY, a full 10 degrees farther south, I find it incredible to believe the trees are this far advanced 10 degrees to the north.

Worse yet, the eclipse ended in BonaVista at 4:30pm local time on April 8. The sun would not set there until over three hours later (7:44pm local time).

The eclipse leaves land for good in Newfoundland, with totality ending at 4:30pm, three hours before sunset.² Map courtesy Javier M. Xubier/Google Maps.

Things don’t get any better for the possibility of a sunrise photo. Aside from a minor island, the eclipse first touched land near Mazatlan, Mexico.³ The sun rose at 5:51am in Mazatlan on eclipse day, but totality didn’t end until 11:11am local time. That’s about five hours after the sun first touched Mazatlan’s beaches. There was no possibility of taking a sunrise picture of the eclipse in Mexico on April 8, even though the country would have the foliage.

So, this image was not taken at sunrise or sunset, anywhere in the path of the eclipse, despite the very clear colors indicating this would be the case.

The eclipse comes ashore near the resort city of Mazatlan, Mexico, where totality ended at 11:11am local time.³ The sun rose a full 5 hours earlier, at 5:51am local time. Map courtesy Javier M. Xubier/Google Maps.

AI Generated? Yes, Most Likely
Being unable to track down any source for this photo to learn how it was produced, I followed the suggestion of the Facebook page Exploiting the Niche,¹⁰ which has a thread dedicated to solar eclipse photo fakes. The suggestion? Run the image through an analysis tool designed to look for AI-generated fakes. I used the free Hive⁹ plugin for Chrome. This is what I found:

In contrast, let’s run the Hive⁹ detector on my own image, the un-retouched feature image for this story:

Case #2: Clear and Obvious Image Manipulation
Let’s turn our attention now to another highly modified image which, again, in no way represents what totality actually looks like. This hijacked image was shared very widely, including the Facebook sites “Science Updates” and the fake “James Webb Space Telescope”⁵ (has nothing to do with the real JWST) page:

The fake JWST page blocked me when I pointed out they were sharing a misleading image:

The fake JWST Facebook page won’t allow dissenting comments, pointing out the problems with the image they hijacked.

There’s a little more information on this image than was available for the previous one. A reverse image search on Google first led me to the Twitter/X page of Dr. Sebastian Voltmer, from who, it turns out, the image was hijacked.

Dr. Sebastian Voltmer’s Twitter/X page⁷ says he does High Dynamic Range (HDR) solar eclipse photography:

The comment above refers to a photo he took in 2017. Before I dive into his 2024 photo, the one that’s causing all the controversy right now, let me explain what HDR photography is, and what it is not.

HDR photos are not “high resolution” photos, as they’re so often mislabeled. Instead, they are digitally enhanced pictures that use software to make up for the fact that even modern cameras cannot possibly capture the wide range (the “R” in “HDR”) of brightness found in various features of the eclipse.

For example, look closely at the surface of the moon in the previous Photoshopped eclipse photo. See all that detail? It’s visible–but only just so–because of light reflected back from Earth onto the face of the moon. To capture any type of detail from the very dim light of “earthshine” takes very long exposures… in my experience one second or longer.

Contrast this vastly greater brightness of features such as the “diamond ring,” Bailey’s Beads, or the inner corona (the milky-white atmosphere of the sun, “inner” referring to the part of the sun’s atmosphere closest to our star’s surface). Here’s we’re talking exposure times much shorter than a second… perhaps 1/500th to 1/125th of a second. This is all well and good for the features we want to record, but unfortunately this exposure time is way too short to capture any detail on the face of the moon, made possible by the dim earthshine. The difference is too vast.

As we step away from the sun, the corona (again, this is the sun’s atmosphere) is less bright. To properly expose this region of the solar atmosphere, we must resort to longer exposure times, perhaps 1/60th to 1/30th of a second. Notice we’re doubling to quadrupling the time needed to get detail in the inner corona. But (there’s always a “but,” isn’t there?) now that we get nice detail in the mid-corona, the inner corona becomes washed out. It’s just too bright.

By the time we get all the way to the outer corona, farthest away from the sun, we’re back in the neighborhood of 1/30th to 1/8th of a second, or even a full second. Look again at the manipulated photo… see all those delicate “streamers” far away from the sun? They’re captured with slow shutter speeds which, to beat a dead horse here, totally washes out both the inner and mid parts of the corona. Those features lose detail, turning into a white blob.

I’ll illustrate using my own photography, looking at three parts of the range, including the most extreme. In each case, all my camera settings are the same. I’m only changing the exposure time, letting in more light with each shot, in order to capture different parts of the eclipse.

A diamond ring, the very inner corona, and a red prominence (the ruby-red dot) at two-o’clock. ISO 200, F/8, 1/250 second. Green spots are lens flare (internal reflections in the glass of my lens). Photo by the author. ©2017 Mark Aaron Alsip.

“Mid” corona. Notice detail farther from the sun, but pay attention to the fact that detail in the inner corona, visible in the previous shot, is now wiped out due to the difference in brightness. ISO 200, F/8, 1/60 second. Photo by the author. ©2017 Mark Aaron Alsip.

Outer corona. Notice some detail appearing very far from the sun… detail that couldn’t be seen in the previous photos because the exposure wasn’t long enough. But notice how the inner and mid corona are completely wiped out. And even at this slow speed, we’re still not picking up enough light to show detail on the moon from earthshine. ISO 200, F/8, 1/2 second. Photo by the author. ©2017 Mark Aaron Alsip.

So at this point, you might be saying… “Hey, wait a minute! I’ve seen total eclipses before and much more detail was visible to me, through all parts of the wide range you’re showing here!”

And you’d be absolutely correct. Our eyes and brains are much more sophisticated than our cameras. When we look at an eclipse, these organs work together to process the incredible dynamic range of the lighting.

Read that last paragraph again please. When you look at the fanciful, admittedly-beautiful photographs showing fine detail in all parts of the corona, you are looking at deliberate manipulations made by the photographer in an attempt to recreate what he/she saw with their own eyes.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this! I’ve played around with the technique myself.

The problem, in my humble opinion, is that sometimes photographers go too far. I can’t say for certain what another person believes they have seen, and I accept that artistic license is involved in the attempt to invoke how it felt to witness totality. I respectfully submit that the photographer, and all who reproduce the photographer’s work, should be very clearly labelling the images as manipulated.

To his great credit, Dr. Sebastian Voltmer, whose work has been hijacked by unscrupulous or unaware web sites, does explain exactly what he’s doing. He even posted a disclaimer on his Twitter/X page about the misrepresentation of his work:⁸

While clearly a stunning piece of art, to a seasoned eclipse chaser, this just is not reality. Presented out of context, which others have done without Dr. Voltmer’s permission or knowledge, the image could mislead the public into believing eclipses really look this way. They are already the most beautiful event in nature. There’s no need to misrepresent them by hijacking someone else’s work. This can set high, false expectations in the public’s mind.

So How’s It Done?

Describing the various methods of producing HDR eclipse images is beyond the scope of this article. If you’re interested in learning more, you can find great reference material on the web, including this primer by Sky & Telescope Magazine.⁴

In a nutshell, there are a couple techniques I can briefly describe.

The first, and perhaps the most common, is to do what I showed earlier: take multiple images of the eclipse at various exposure settings, then “stack” them all together in a program like Photoshop, and apply a special High Dynamic Range filter to the image stack to achieve the desired result. One old trick that really makes the streaming corona “pop” is to use Photoshop’s “emboss” filter to create a masking layer that can then be used to artificially create detail that isn’t really there in the original image.

More than you want to know if you’re not a photographer: Many photographers now shoot in “raw” mode, rather than simply capturing images as jpegs like simple consumer cameras and phones will do. Raw image data preserves much more information about the original photo than a jpeg, which, due to being a compression algorithm, must necessarily throw away information you can never get back. As described in the linked Sky and Telescope article⁴, one can shoot a single raw image and pull out details through various tweaking.

It’s all up to the photographer. Photography is art, but it’s also an important scientific tool. As long as the photographer makes an effort to disclose manipulation, and, importantly, the public who consume and pass along the work maintain this disclosure, there aren’t any problems.

References
(1) The 2024 Eclipse Through the Eyes of NASA
https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/skywatching/april-8-total-solar-eclipse-through-the-eyes-of-nasa/
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024

(2) Eclipse Path Over Newfoundland, Map Courtesy Xavier M. Jubier/Google Maps
http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2024_GoogleMapFull.html?Lat=48.66416&Lng=-53.07724&Elv=26.0&Zoom=6&LC=1
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024
This map image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(3) Eclipse path over Mazatlan, Mexico, Map Courtesy Xavier M. Jubier/Google Maps
http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2024_GoogleMapFull.html?Lat=23.08103&Lng=-106.24692&Elv=4.0&Zoom=8&LC=1
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024
This map image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(4) Eclipse Photography: Reveal Totality in HDR (Sky & Telescope, 15 Mar 2020)
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/astrophotography-tips/revealing-totality-in-hdr/
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024

(5) “James Webb Space Telescope” (Warning: fake page. Not associated with the real JWST or NASA)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/203565655155826/
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024
This image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(6) “Physics-Astronomy” “sunset eclipse” (Warning: Most likely AI generated. Not how an eclipse looks! Dubious web site. Many faked/altered images found)
https://www.facebook.com/physicsdashastronomy
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024
This image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(7) Deep High Dynamic Range Photograph of Totality, by Dr. Sebastian Voltmer
https://twitter.com/SeVoSpace/status/1776379193678582041
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024
Dr. Voltmer’s image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(8) Dr. Sebastian Voltmer Sets the Record Straight
https://x.com/sevospace/status/1526185965995311105?s=46
Retrieved 13 Apr 2024
Dr. Voltmer’s image is used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

(9) Hive AI-detection plugin for Chrome
https://hivemoderation.com/ai-generated-content-detection
Retrieved 12 Apr 2024

(10) Exploiting the Niche (Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/ExploitingTheNiche
Retrieved 13 Apr 2024

Other Image Credits
Images attributed to the author, ©2017 Mark Aaron Alsip. All rights reserved.

Grade School Climate Science For Deniers

Posted on February 16, 2024 by Mark Aaron Alsip

If this article’s title sounds a bit condescending … well, the topic I’m debunking came from an overwhelming number of quotes such as the following, made by self-identified followers of a certain political party. The invalid argument boils down to something like this:

“The oceans can’t possibly be rising because of melting ice. Look, just fill a glass with ice cubes and water. When the ice melts, the water level will not have changed,”

Sigh. The solution to this should be obvious, but since it doesn’t seem to be to a rather large number of people who go around saying things like this, it’s time to go back to grade school and explain a few things. The next time you see this argument, just point the speaker to this very simple explanation. Hopefully, it will get through to them.

First of all: Yes, if you have a block of ice already in the water, it’s going to displace the same amount of liquid whether it’s ice or if it melts. No argument. That’s not the problem here.

The problem is that majority of existing ice on the planet isn’t in the oceans. It’s on land.¹ More on this in a moment. First let’s dive into our grade-school experiment and show the deniers why this is important.

Apologies, I didn’t happen to have a glacier or ocean handy, so I scaled things down a bit. Here’s our “ocean”: approximately 200ml of water. I died it red because I like the color red (and it’s more visible in photos):

And here is our land-based “glacier.” What’s important here is that just like the glaciers and ice caps we’re discussing here, the ice is not yet in the water:

Yes, that’s a funnel full of ice. To reiterate the analogy for the climate change deniers in the back, what we have here is a mass of ice (a “glacier”) that isn’t in the water (“ocean”) yet. This is a model for what we see here on Earth.

Now, let’s let some time tick off the clock… the “glacier” begins to melt.

After just 2.5 hours, here is what has happened to our “ocean”:

We’re off the scale on my beaker, but that’s around 75ml more water than was originally in our little ocean. Where did the water come from? Say it with me: “It came from our ‘land’-based ice.”

Here’s our partially melted “glacier”:

Just to drive this point home, let me return now to the banner image for this article, which I shot a few years ago of a melting glacier in Iceland:

See that big glacier in the background? It’s on the land. Those icebergs in the foreground? They broke off the glacier and have added to the volume of water flowing from this lagoon into the sea.

With most of Earth’s ice locked up on land, particularly in Greenland and Antarctica, this is something we should be worried about. According to NASA:²

“Greenland has been losing about 280 gigatons of ice per year on average, and Antarctica has lost almost 120 gigatons a year with evidence that both melt rates are increasing. A single gigaton of water would fill about 400,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools; each gigaton represents a billion tons of water.”²

So, you see, there is a big problem here. In fact, the problem is so big that it’s estimated that if all the Earth’s glacial ice melted, our oceans would rise by 230 feet.³

Rather than saying more, I’d like to let pictures do the talking for me. Please head over to amazing Conspiracy of Cartographers website⁴ and see for yourself at how many of the world’s major cities would look if we encountered this amount of sea level rise.⁴

References
(1) National Snow and Ice Data Center
https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/glaciers/glacier-quick-facts
Retrieved 05 Feb 2024

(2) Sea and Land Ice Melt (NASA)
https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/basic-page/sea-and-land-ice-melt
Retrieved 05 Feb 2024

(3) How Would Sea Level Change if All Glaciers Melted? (USGS)
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted
Retrieved 05 Feb 2024

(4) Conspiracy of Cartographers
https://conspiracyofcartographers.com/sea-level-rise-gallery/
Retrieved 07 Feb 2024

Nit-picking Popular Mechanics: We’re Losing the Moon

Posted on January 26, 2024 by Mark Aaron Alsip

Above: our moon, heavily cratered from billions of years of impacts.^A

Popular Mechanics recently ran an article¹ (warning: behind paywall) that happens to concern one of my favorite science “gotchas”–we’re losing the moon.

As an avid solar eclipse chaser, I’ve always known this to be true. NASA astronauts left behind mirrors on our natural satellite, and via careful laser measurements, we know for certain that due to the transfer of angular momentum from Earth, the moon is drifting away at a rate of approximately 1.5 inches (3.8 centimeters) per year. One day in the very distant future, the apparent size of the moon (~1/400th that of the sun, which happens to be about 400 times further away) won’t be large enough to cover the sun entirely, and we’ll only have annular eclipses–a bright ring of sun with a huge black hole in the middle. Because the moon orbits in an elliptical pattern rather than circular, we already have annular eclipses… sometimes our satellite is just too far away in its orbit to completely cover the sun.

The Pop Mech article is actually a very good one, and gets a lot of things right. I’m just here to nit-pick the one thing it gets wrong: the story describes our moon as a natural shield against incoming asteroids and comets.

This is not true.

As per the article, supposed evidence of this protection is the heavily cratered surface of the moon. It’s worth pointing out that both our planet and the moon would have suffered the same heavy bombardment early in our solar system’s formation. Our planet, being much larger, would have statistically received even more hits. The difference is that the moon has no atmosphere, no water, no plant life, no tectonic activity, and no erosion. There’s nothing there to hide the scars that we know are hidden by natural processes here on Earth. Science knows that our planet was heavily cratered. Mother Nature has just been busy tidying it all up.

The Pop Mech description of the moon as a protective shield also conjures up images of our satellite as some type of cosmic catcher’s mitt, leaping from place to place around our planet to intercept incoming threats. That, of course, is not possible. The moon is locked in an elliptical orbit around our planet, inclined approximately 5 degrees to our own orbital plane. Without getting heavily into the math, I don’t think the odds are good here. The moon is approximately only 27% the diameter of the Earth; It takes the moon around 27 days to complete one trip around our planet.

The only way for our relatively small moon to intercept an interloper would be if by some chance it happened to be in exactly the right spot at the right time in its orbit. Otherwise, an incoming asteroid, headed straight our the planet, is going to hit us–and the moon isn’t going to be of much help.

You know what does have the “power” to deflect incoming debris? Jupiter. This massive planet is sometimes referred to as the “vacuum cleaner of the solar system”² because its massive gravity tends to eat up or deflect asteroids or comets (of course, it’s possible that the giant planet could deflect unwanted debris directly toward us–but on the whole, we’ve benefitted from the planet’s effects).

So, there you have my nit-picking of an otherwise very well written Pop Mech article. The moon really isn’t protecting us from asteroids and comets, but it is fascinating that we are losing it–and that so few people know about it. This is one of those fun facts you can drag out at parties and immediately paint a big sign on your forehead saying “look at me, I’m a geek!” But unless your drinking buddies at said party are astronomers, you can also win a lot of bets for anyone inebriated enough to challenge you. I’m not saying I actually DO this, but, well… I do have to raise money to finance this blog somehow.

The moon and sun, the way they interact with each other, and with our planet, are actually very interesting. So while we’re on the subject, why don’t we explore this topic a little more?

Enter the Young Earth Creationists

Above: An annular eclipse. One day, this will be as close as we come to a total solar eclipse. Photo from WikiCommons, see references for full credit.^B

Incredibly (or perhaps not), some young Earth creationists (YECs) have leaped on the fact that we’re losing our moon to “prove” the planet cannot possibly be 4.6 billion years old. This is the claim made by the Institution for Creation Research (ICR).³ Their argument is that, given the current rate of recession of our satellite, it would be much, much further away than it is now. Other YECs (such as Answers in Genesis, “AIG”) also say this is proof of a young Earth, but disagree with ICR, claiming that the current recession rate would only put the moon about half as far away as it is today.⁴

Because YECs have no scientific methods to actually measure or predict phenomena such as the age of the planet or lunar recession, they simply criticize real science. And, in this regard, AIG does not disappoint. They do eventually acknowledge the correct answer claimed by scientists: the rate of recession of the moon has not been constant, but paradoxically wave their hands and make the claim that no real scientist would believe this.

Well, science does believe this. Rather, science knows it. (I hate to use the word “believe” when it comes to science… it has too many faith-based connotations.) The problem actually has a mathematical solution, based in physics that we all (should have) studied in high school. This article from the University of Notre Dame⁵ states the solution so plainly, and so eloquently, that I’m at a loss to explain how anyone can miss it.

F = G * (Mass_Earth * Mass_Moon)/r^2

G is the gravitational constant, F is the calculated force of gravity when you multiply G by the masses of the Earth/Moon and divide that mass calculation by the square of the distance, r, between the two bodies.

In plain English, the force gravitational force decreases as the planet and moon grow farther apart. It’s painfully obvious that the rate of recession would change as we lose our natural satellite. But that’s not the whole story. Gravity isn’t the only force in play here. The angular momentum itself is acting on the system. I’m always careful to point out in my articles that I don’t have a degree in physics, but I did enjoy (not suffer!) a fair amount of the subject at university, and one of the main purposes of my blog is to encourage others to use what they’ve learned to read reputable sources and expand their knowledge.

And so it turns out that high school and college physics do provide an explanation for the effects of angular momentum on the Earth-Moon system, and how/why the rate of recession would change. Here’s a nice article from Cornell University.⁶ In plain English, when our planet was younger, it was spinning faster. The moon was closer, creating a larger tidal bulge than it does today. Since angular momentum must be conserved, this imparted more momentum to the moon, which (1) slowed down the Earth, and (2) allowed the moon to recess at a rate greater than that we see currently. As our planet’s rotation slowed down, and as the moon grew farther away (making the tidal bulge less pronounced), the moon’s recession slowed down.

So I don’t really understand what all the fuss is about among the YECs. Of course the recession rate of our natural satellite would change over time as it moves farther and farther away from the planet. The only people who seem confused by this fact are the young earth creationists,

It goes somewhat beyond the scope of this blog post to further explain that scientists do have direct, observable evidence that the rate of lunar recession has been changing. But I’d be happy to do a follow-up post if challenged. Followers of Bad Science Debunked know I have a running feud going with YECs, and I’d feel bad if I left them out of an article.

Without Interstellar Travel, This All Ends Badly For Humanity

Anyway, let’s get back to the Pop Mech article… we know that tides on Earth are extremely important to life, and one would expect that as we lose the moon, tides would change. And, as just mentioned, they have in fact done just that. However, the change is not drastic, and is not noticeable on human timescales… only geological ones. Popular Mechanics does a great job in pointing this out. As time has gone by in our planet’s history, life has in fact slowly evolved to adapt to such changes, and it will continue to do so.

If–and this is a big if, given what we’ve already learned about the dynamics of gravity and angular momentum at work–if the moon continues to recess at a constant rate of 1.5 inches per year, it will be approximately 95,000 miles farther away in 4 billion years. According to Newton, the gravitational attraction will decrease by the inverse square of the distance between us and the moon, so the tug on Earth and our tides will be approximately 49% less. Over geological time, life will have to evolve to deal with this.

But (there’s always a “but,” isn’t there?) even though we’ll slowly lose the wonder of total eclipses of the sun, other significant events will be going on in our very distant future. Whether humanity will survive long enough to see any of this is another question.

One of our nearest neighbors, the Andromeda Galaxy, is on a collision course with the Milky Way.^7,8 Estimates vary on when this will occur, but many fall in the ~4 billion year range, which is why I chose that value in the previous calculation of our future moon’s distance. What an incredible sight it would be to see Andromeda, barely a naked-eye target under the best of conditions, grown large in the night sky! The collision (or, probably more accurately, the merger) itself won’t involve stars colliding with each other–there’s too much space between them. But computer simulations show both galaxies will be disfigured and probably eventually merge into one.

The Andromeda Galaxy, coming soon to a neighborhood near you. Photo from WikiCommons, see references for full credit.^C

Unfortunately for us, if our descendants are still around and haven’t discovered interstellar travel yet, the events described here will be akin to celestial rolling credits at the end of a good show.

Our sun will have been running out of fuel the entire time, and sometime 5 or 6 billion years from now, will “puff out,” becoming a Red Giant that will consume most of the inner solar system. Say goodbye to Mercury and Venus. Our planet? It’s well within range. Even if Earth isn’t totally consumed, it will become inhabitable.⁹ Any descendants of humans today will, forgive the pun, be toast.

I hate to end on such a downer, so I’m going resort to my general attitude on life: let’s enjoy it while we’re here! The moon is still close enough to provide us with stunning total eclipses of the sun, and we have a really nice one, visible from an amazing number of major U.S. population centers, coming up on April 8, 2024. I’ll be writing about this more in future blogs, but if you find yourself within traveling distance of the moon’s path on this map from NASA,¹⁰

I can promise you the show of a lifetime.

The sun goes out at mid-day over Kentucky in the summer of 2017. A similar view awaits sky-watchers on April 8, 2024.^D

References
(1) It Won’t Last Forever–What Will Happen When the Moon Leaves Earth’s Orbit?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a45874876/what-will-happen-when-the-moon-leaves-earths-orbit/
WARNING: article is behind a paywall
Retrieved 08 Jan 2024

(2) NASA/Mission Juno
https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/origin?show=hs_origin_story_jupiters-influence
Retrieved 08 Jan 2024

(3) Young Age for the Moon and Earth (Institute for Creation Research)
https://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/
Retrieved 21 Jan 2024

(4) Moon Inching Away from Old Earth (Answers in Genesis)
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/inching-away-old-earth/
Retrieved 21 Jan 2024

(5) Evolution: Fact or Fiction? Evidence 2: Recession of the Moon (James Applewhite, University of Notre Dame)
https://sites.nd.edu/james-applewhite/
Retrieved 21 Jan 2024

(6) Tidal Evolution of the Moon from a High-Oblique, High-Anglular-Momentum Earth (Cornell University)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03356
Retrieved 21 Jan 2024

(7) Colliding Galaxies (American Museum of Natural History)
https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/space/milky-way-andromeda-collide#:~:text=The%20Milky%20Way%20and%20the,computer%20model%2C%20called%20a%20simulation.
Retrieved 22 Jan 2024

(8) Clash of the Titans (NASA)
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30955
Retrieved 22 Jan 2024

(9) “Aging into Gianthood” (NASA)
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/life-and-death/chapter-6/
Retrieved 21 Jan 2024

(10) 2024 Total Eclipse: Where and When (NASA)
https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/future-eclipses/eclipse-2024/where-when/
Retrieved 23 Jan 2024

Image Credits
(A) Moon ©2024 Mark Aaron Alsip. All rights reserved.

(B) Annular eclipse ©2012 Kevin Baird, courtesy WikiCommons, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike V3.0 Unsupported.

(C) Andromeda Galaxy, ©2011 Torben Hansen, courtesy WikiCommons, Creative Commons Attribution V2.0 Generic.

(D) Total solar eclipse ©2024 Mark Aaron Alsip. All rights reserved.

Debunking Ken Ham Using Artificial Intelligence

Posted on December 11, 2023 by Mark Aaron Alsip

I created my first neural network over forty years ago, when artificial intelligence (AI) was a nascent blip on the radar. This field of study has advanced significantly in the intervening decades and, in my humble opinion, still has a long way to go. But I see promise. I do not see a future in which machines are taking over the world. I do see an economy where jobs are not going to be replaced by artificial intelligence, but, rather, those with a knowledge of AI are going to have a distinct advantage over those who don’t.

Self-driving cars? I could be wrong, and will admit it when proven so, but based on four decades’ experience, I suspect we are further from this goal than Elon Musk will admit. Sorry, but not sorry, I’ve been around longer, and have seen what can go wrong. Others in my field, many far more proficient than I, are bravely stepping forward to issue the same cautious warnings. I don’t think we’re as close as the new hype would have us believe.

And yet, Large Language Models such as ChatGPT have made computer science fun again. As Bad Science Debunked makes its return after a two year absence, I thought it would be fun to apply Artificial Intelligence techniques to one of my favorite purveyors of pseudoscience: Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis (AIG) industry.

In this post, I’ll be going after what I admit is low hanging fruit: food and animal capacity on the Ark. I know this topic has been covered ad nauseam, but I’d like to demonstrate how easy it is to use a conman’s own words against him. And it is Ham’s own words (and data) that I’ll be using. For reference, we’ll be using this AIG article:

How Many Animals Were on Noah’s Ark?¹

In his article, Ham claims, without any backing evidence whatsoever, that there were 6,744 animals on the Ark and their average size was that of a sheep. OK, let’s take that and run with it. My teachers always told me to show my work, but I fear that page after page of math will have my readers running the other direction, so I’ll give you my prompt, the ChatGPT response, and next to the response, there’ll be a black arrow you can click to show/hide the math. See sample image below.

(click the black arrow next to “Response” to show/hide the math and work done by ChatpGPT.

OK, enough chatter, let’s get started!

Prompt to GPT: Approximate the total volume of Noah’s Ark.

Response: 1,518,750 cubic feet.

To estimate the total volume of Noah’s Ark according to the dimensions given in the Bible, we can refer to the Book of Genesis, which provides specific measurements. In Genesis 6:15, the ark is described as being 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The exact length of a cubit can vary, as it was based on the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger and was typically about 18 inches (45.72 cm) in ancient times.

Using the commonly accepted length of 18 inches for a cubit, we can calculate the volume of the Ark in cubic feet:

Convert the dimensions from cubits to feet: Multiply each dimension by 18 inches (or 1.5 feet, since there are 12 inches in a foot).
Calculate the volume: Multiply the length, width, and height in feet to get the volume in cubic feet.

Let’s perform these calculations.

The estimated total volume of Noah’s Ark, based on the dimensions given in the Bible (300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high) and using the commonly accepted cubit length of 18 inches (1.5 feet), is approximately 1,518,750 cubic feet.

Approximately one and a half million cubit feet. Keep this number in the back of your head. It’s going to come up later.

Ken Ham doesn’t give us any information on the species of sheep or their approximate dimensions (he just says “average sheep”), so we’re left to make some assumptions here. First, we must dispense with Ham’s claim that God took baby animals on the ark. Baby mammals who have not been weaned can’t survive without their mother’s milk. They could not have made the journey to the ark on their own. Plus, Ham violates one of his own rules here. The Bible, in his view, is the absolute word of God, and nowhere does it say Noah took babies.

I’ll endeavor to pick, from the thousands of possible choices, an average sheep for our calculations. I like bighorn sheep. Maybe Ken Ham won’t. But hey, he got to pull out of thin air not only the average animal but a suspiciously precise-looking head count. So I claim dibbs on the species.

Prompt to GPT: I’m going to give you some data about dimensions and weight of an average bighorn sheep. Please calculate the average volume a sheep would occupy, assuming a simple rectangular volume for sake of simplicity. Please present your output in english units of measurement (rather than metric), preferably cubic feet. Please show your math.

Response: The average volume occupied by a bighorn sheep, assuming a simple rectangular volume, is approximately 33.22 cubic feet

The average volume occupied by a bighorn sheep, assuming a simple rectangular volume, is approximately ( 33.22 ) cubic feet. Here’s how the calculation was done:

Average Dimensions (Inches):

Height: (46.5 + 65.4)/2 inches
Width: (13.8 + 19.3}/ 2 inches
Length: (51.2 + 72.8)/2 inches

Convert Dimensions to Feet:

1 inch = 1/12 feet
Average Height in Feet: (Average Height in Inches} * 1/12
Average Width in Feet: {Average Width in Inches) * 1/12
Average Length in Feet: ( Average Length in Inches) * 1/12

Volume Calculation:

Volume in Cubic Feet: Average Height in Feet * Average Width in Feet * Average Length in Feet

Applying these steps, the calculated volume is ( 33.22 ) cubic feet.

Prompt to GPT: Great. Now use this volume calculation for one sheep an do the simple math to come up with the volume needed for a flock of 6,744 sheep. Again, please show your work.

Response: Therefore, a flock of 6,744 sheep would require approximately 224,059.62 cubic feet.

To calculate the total volume needed for a flock of 6,744 sheep, we multiply the volume of one sheep by the number of sheep in the flock:

Volume of one sheep: ( 33.22 ) cubic feet
Number of sheep in the flock: ( 6,744 )

The calculation is as follows:

Total Volume} = 33.22 * 6744 = 224,059.62 cubic feet

Now comes the problem of food. AIG only gave us sheep to work with, though we know that carnivores would have had to have been on the ark. We can use hay for food estimates for our “average sheep,” but we’re ignoring the reality that the digestive systems of the carnivores did not evolve to enable them to obtain sufficient nutrition from hay, and so they would have all died. Or eaten the sheep. Or been left on a ship full of stinking, rotten meat that would have killed them from parasites, toxicity, or other causes.

But we started with sheep, it’s all we have to work with. Let’s make some hay:

Prompt to GPT: Now let’s talk about food. We’ll assume the sheep eat hay. According to my information,² a typical bale of hay is 14x13x86 inches in size (width, height, length) and weighs an average of 65 pounds. Calculate the volume occupied by one bale of hay.

Response: the calculated volume of one bale of hay is 9.069.06 cubic feet

The volume occupied by one bale of hay, given its dimensions of 14x13x86 inches (width, height, length), is approximately ( 9.06 ) cubic feet. Here’s the breakdown of the calculation:

Convert Dimensions to Feet:

Width: ( 14 ) inches = ( 14 * 1/12 ) feet
Height: ( 13 ) inches = ( 13 * 1/12) feet
Length: ( 86 ) inches = ( 86 * 1/12 ) feet

Volume Calculation:

Volume in Cubic Feet: Width in Feet * Height in Feet * Length in Feet

Applying these steps, the calculated volume of one bale of hay is ( 9.06 ) cubic feet.

Hang in there. We’re getting close. Please keep in mind, the purpose of this exercise is not so much to disprove something that’s already been debunked ad nauseam; rather, it’s to demonstrate thought processes and techniques useful in using Artificial Intelligence and Prompt Engineering, and encourage the reader to embark on his/her own explorations.

So, having some necessary information on our food source, the next logical step is to estimate how much of that food will be needed for a year-long tour.

Prompt to GPT: Now using the dimensions and weight of a single bighorn sheep calculated earlier, estimate the nutritional needs of that one sheep. Give me an answer for just a single day, and for an entire year. In your answer, include an estimate of how many bales of hay would be required to meet these requirements, for both a day and an entire year.

Response: to meet the nutritional requirements of one bighorn sheep, approximately 1/10th of a bale of hay is needed per day, and about 36 bales are needed for an entire year.

To estimate the nutritional needs of a single bighorn sheep and the corresponding amount of hay required, we’ll follow these steps:

Estimate the Daily and Annual Food Intake Needs:

A general guideline for sheep is that they consume about 2-4% of their body weight in dry matter daily. We’ll use an average value of 3% for this calculation.
Average weight of a bighorn sheep: We’ll take the midpoint of the provided range, which is (110 + 315) / 2) pounds.

Calculate Daily and Annual Food Intake in Pounds:

Daily intake: Average Weight} * 3%
Annual intake: Daily Intake * 365 days

Determine the Number of Hay Bales Required:

Since each bale weighs 65 pounds, we divide the daily and annual intake by this weight to find out how many bales are needed.

Let’s proceed with these calculations.

Based on the calculations:

Average Weight of a Bighorn Sheep: ( 10 + 315) / 2 = 212.5 ) pounds
Daily and Annual Food Intake:

Daily Intake: ( 212.5 * 3% = 6.38 ) pounds
Annual Intake: ( 6.38 * 365 = 2,326.88 ) pounds

Number of Hay Bales Required:

Daily: 6.38 / 65 ~ 0.098 bales (About 1/10th of a bale)
Annually:2,326.88 / 65 ~ 35.8 bales

Thus, to meet the nutritional requirements of one bighorn sheep, approximately 1/10th of a bale of hay is needed per day, and about 36 bales are needed for an entire year.

And at this point, dear reader, imagine, please, ominous music swelling in volume and intensity, because we are about to deal a death blow to the ark, using Ken Ham’s own numbers:

Prompt to GPT: Using the annual hay bale requirement for one sheep, calculate how many bales of hay would be needed for the entire flock of 6,744 sheep for one year. In addition to the number of bales of hay, use your earlier calculations for the volume of a bale of hay to come up with the total volume of hay needed to feed the flock for an entire year

Response: to feed the flock of 6,744 sheep for one year, approximately 241,422.23 bales of hay would be required, occupying a total volume of about 2,186,771.27 cubit feet.

To feed the entire flock of 6,744 sheep for one year, the calculations are as follows:

Total Number of Hay Bales Needed:

Annual hay bales needed per sheep: ( 35.8 ) bales (as calculated earlier)
Number of sheep in the flock: ( 6,744 )
Total bales for the flock: 35.8 * 6,744 = 241,422.23 bales

Total Volume of Hay Needed:

Volume of one bale of hay: 9.06 cubic feet (as calculated earlier)
Total volume needed to feed the flock: 241,422.23 * 9.06 = 2,186,771.27 cubic feet

Do you see the problem? Let’s let ChatGPT point it out to us.

Prompt to GPT:

Do you see the problem? Remember at the beginning I asked the reader to keep in mind the volume of the ark. Let’s let ChatGPT point out Ken Ham’s error…

Prompt to GPT: Wait a minute. I see trouble. Please compare the total volume that you just calculated for the hay to the total volume of the ark (1,518,750 cubic feet) calculated when we began this conversation. Answer two questions: (1) was there enough room for the food on the ark, and (2) what percentage of the total ark volume would be occupied by the food? Remember to show your math.

Response: there was not enough room for the food on the ark. The total volume of hay needed for the flock for one year exceeds the total volume of the ark by 143.98%

Was There Enough Room for the Food on the Ark?

No, there was not enough room for the food on the ark. The total volume of hay needed for the flock for one year exceeds the total volume of the ark, which is 1,518,750 cubic feet.

Percentage of the Total Ark Volume Occupied by the Food:

The percentage of the total ark volume that would be occupied by the food (hay) is approximately 143.98%.

These results indicate that the volume of hay needed to feed the flock for one year is about 143.98% of the available space in the ark, meaning there is not enough room for all the hay required.

Ouch. Using Answers in Genesis’ own numbers, there wasn’t enough room for the food. We are out of room to the tune of 43.98% of the ark volume (almost half!) But wait, let’s not forgot the animals had to be on board also.

Prompt: Let’s not forget the animals. You previously calculated we’d need 224,059.62 cubic feet for the sheep. Add this volume to the total volume required for the hay and repeat the last calculation, this time answering the question, “was there enough room for both the food AND the animals on the ark?” Tell me by what percentage the ark volume was exceeded when both food and animals are included

Response: This would result in a total occupation of 158.74% of the available ark space.

You’re correct. When considering the total volume occupied by both the sheep and the hay, it would exceed the ark’s total volume by 58.74%. This means that the combined requirements for the sheep and their food result in a total occupation of 158.74% of the available space.

So by AIG’s own numbers, the ark was 58.74% too small to hold the animals and their food.

Conclusion

We could go on forever. Astute readers will have noted that the ark was also supposed to have had room for eight humans and all their food and necessities for an entire year. Visit the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, KY (no, please don’t!) and you’ll see a roomy ship with room for individual sleeping quarters, workshops, an indoor garden, and more.

And yet, using the very data provided to us by the man who’ll be happy to charge over $50/ticket to view this imaginary floating world, we can see there wasn’t even enough room for the animals and their food.

Water, you ask? What about water for the animals and people? One can only assume Ken Ham will argue that it rained every day so the water could be collected… wait… no, it can’t be collected, there was nowhere to store it… perhaps all the living creatures were able to drink in real time, as the rain came down.

So, the prosecution rests. AIG didn’t really give us a lot of data to work with, but they did give us enough, and I believe we filled in any missing gaps fairly by, for example, using average animal sizes. I encourage readers to use this AI Prompt Engineering exercise as a starting point, not a final answer. Try dividing the 6,744 animals into half herbivores and half carnivores. Play with average daily nutrition requirements for, say, lions the size of sheep (as Ham claims) and work up a system for storing and providing enough meat for those creatures.

One final warning: with Artificial Intelligence, you are responsible for the results. ChatGPT did not always give me the expected answers as I worked through this exercise. I did sometimes have to go back and refine my prompts. Be careful in how you ask your questions. Be very clear about the data you’re providing, and be even more clear about how you expect the results to be presented. You’ll notice that sometimes I repeated numbers (like the volume of the ark) in subsequent prompts, even though we’d already calculated this value much earlier. In very long conversations, the language model can “forget” work that was done much earlier on.

With these caveats in mind, this is an exciting, developing technology. I don’t believe it will ever replace humans, but it can be a valuable helpmate in simplifying tasks such as debunking a con man who wraps himself in a cloak of God’s words to tell innocent little children lies, such as stories about humans walking with dinosaurs.

References

(1) How Many Animals Were on Noah’s Ark?
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2022/09/08/how-many-animals-were-noahs-ark/
Retrieved 07 Dec 2023

(2) Bale Sizes and Shapes — Picking What’s Right for You
https://www.agproud.com/articles/32770-bale-sizes-and-shapes-picking-what-s-right-for-you
Retrieved 07 Dec 2023

(3) Facts About Sheep (Live Science)
https://www.livescience.com/52755-sheep-facts.html
Retrieved 07 Dec 2023

(4) Bighorn Sheep (Ovid canadensis)
https://www.dimensions.com/element/bighorn-sheep-ovis-canadensis
Retrieved 07 Dec 2023

Finally! A Good Use for CVS Oscillococcinum! (Valentine’s Special)

Posted on February 14, 2019 by Mark Aaron Alsip

cvs oscillococcinum flu therapy by boiron

Oscillococcinum literally contains nothing but sugar, and cannot under any circumstances cure the flu, reduce body aches, headaches, fever, or chills.

After a long and grueling search, a use has finally been found for the CVS homeopathic product known as Oscillococcinum. No, it doesn’t fight flu. It can’t–there are no active ingredients.

But it can be used as a stand-in for sugar in icing for Valentine’s Day cookies!

You read it here first!

In this Bad Science Debunked Valentine’s Special, I’ll walk you through the steps but, more importantly, we’ll do a little Kitchen Science, using the dye from our cookie icing to illustrate the scientific illiteracy behind homeopathy and why you, if you’re a CVS shopper, should be deeply upset that a modern pharmacy has this product on their shelves.

Nothing but the Facts, Ma’am
As described in my article “If it Quacks Like a Duck: Oscillococcinum“,¹ and confirmed by scientists around the world, there is literally–literally–nothing in CVS’ so-called medicine except sugar, rendering it absolutely useless for treating the flu. This is the case for nearly all homeopathic medicines.

There are a few exceptions. For example some homeopathic concoctions contain enough alcohol for underage drinkers to get three sheets to the wind,² while others incorporate toxic plants that can poison babies.³ In 2018, the Center for Inquiry sued CVS for fraud over its homeopathic “cures,”⁴ but a resolution has yet to be found, and CVS continues to mislead consumers, selling them $36.00 sugar pills potent enough to make dessert icing.

However, the potential for a mistake is all too real. Walk into any CVS store and you’ll find Oscillococcinum displayed in the aisles as if it were a real medicine–as evidenced by the below photos from a shop in Lexington, KY. Should the parent of a flu-infected child purchase this rubbish, thinking they were getting real medicine, we could have a youngster being treated with sugar–a potential tragedy in the making. Over 30,000 people were hospitalized due to influenza during last year’s flu season.⁵ The flu can kill. It cannot be treated or cured with sugar.

CVS Cold/Allergy/Children’s Health Aisle (click/enlarge)

Lots of “meds” to choose from in CVS… (click/enlarge)

Sadly, oscillococcinum, mere sugar pills, hides among the real meds at CVS. (click/enlarge)

A Baker’s Quarter Dozen
So let’s make some cookies! Oddly enough, critics of the plain sugar cookies I bought for this project claimed the they were “GMO,” apparently because they didn’t have the silly little non-GMO butterfly. One of the dangers of GMO labelling is nobody understands what it means. There isn’t any GMO sugar, there isn’t any GMO flour, but just to poke good-natured fun at those who won’t take the time to learn any better, I’ve dubbed my cookies “GMO sugar cookies for duration of this experiment.

If facts aren’t going to change minds, you might as well have some fun.

Anyway, here’s the video. For the not-so-video-inclined, printed recipe and instructions appear at the end of this post. Feel free to print the web page, clip, and save. Oh, and while you’re at it, you might want to protest to CVS (cough cough).

Mixology
Next, let’s look at how we know that CVS Oscillococcinum has no active ingredient. The homeopathic claim is that they begin with a piece of (supposedly diseased) duck, then dilute, dilute, dilute, with water (hold on, this is where it gets strange), where the water “remembers” the disease, and my Aunt Fanny has a bridge in San Francisco to sell you.

Homeopaths actually believe all of that except for the part about my Aunt Fanny. Why they don’t like her, I’ll never know. Anyway…

In this Kitchen Chemistry experiment, we’ll do what homeopaths would call a “5C” dilution on the food dye we used on our cookie icing. The principle is simple, but will leave you rolling your eyes in wonder when you see it in action.

1ml of dye is added to 99ml water and “succinated” (shaken). 1ml of the resulting solution is extracted and added to another 99ml water. Each repetition gives us a “C” (centesimal) preparation. Homeopathic preparations such as oscillococcinum start around 200C, at which it’s mathematically impossible for even an atom any original material, which was supposedly a diseased duck, to remain. Some preparations go even higher. For our demo here, I’m preparing just a 5C solution of dye. Pull up a chair, phone the kids and wake the neighbors, and watch what happens. Does the dye get stronger or weaker?

Food for thought: Because homeopaths falsely believe that water has a memory and that repeatedly diluting a substance makes the water memory stronger, consider what happened to the H₂O downstream of the cookies and aspartame in this experiment when I went to the bathroom after the second video. The toilet water went to a water treatment plant where my waste was repeatedly diluted.

Consider further, dear homeopaths, that the water on this planet has been constantly recycled for over 4.5 billion years. Imagine all the waste it has diluted. You really gonna drink that stuff?

Cookie Recipe
For those of you rich enough to spend approximately $36.00USD for enough icing to cover three or four sugar cookies, here’s the full recipe. This is just the cost of the oscillococcinum alone!

CVS/Boiron Oscillococcinum flu therapy--actually just sugar pills

The Oscillococcinum used in this “experiment.” Click to enlarge.

Warning: Oscillococcinum cannot cure the flu, mitigate its symptoms, or help with any other disease. Its only use is as described here: as a stand-in for sugar. If you’re upset about this, please contact CVS to complain: 1-800-SHOP-CVS (1-800-746-7287).

1/4 cup milk
1.5 tbsp flour
3 tablespoons crushed CVS oscillococcinum pills**
1/4 cup margarine
1/2 tsp vanilla extract
1 drop food coloring

1. Heat milk and flour over low heat, until very thick. Let cool and set aside.
2. Cream together sugar and butter
3. Add cooled milk and flour mixture, mix thoroughly until whip cream consistency
4. Add vanilla, and mix thoroughly
5. Spread over cookies and enjoy

**Totally safe to use. There are no medicines in CVS Oscillococcinum. It is pure sugar.

References
(1) If it Quacks Like a Duck: Oscillococcinum
https://badsciencedebunked.com/2014/10/22/if-it-quacks-like-a-duck-oscillococcinum/
Retrieved 19 Feb 2018

(2) Surprise Ingredient in CVS Medicine
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/I-Team-Store-Alcohol-Purchase-Drug-Regulations-337551261.html
Retrieved 19 Feb 2018

(3) FDA: Toxic Belladonna In Homeopathic Teething Product (via Forbes)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/01/28/fda-toxic-belladonna-in-homeopathic-teething-products/#54bea4c140dd
Retrieved 21 Feb 2018

(4) Center for Inquiry Sues CVS
https://centerforinquiry.org/press_releases/cfi-sues-cvs/
Retrieved 12 Feb 2019

(5) CDC: The 2017-2018 Flu Season
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.htm
Retrieved 12 Feb 2019

Image/Music Credits
CVS Oscillococcinum product image by the author. Copyright © 2018 Mark Aaron Alsip. All rights reserved.

The “Dancing With the Stars/Oscillococcinum” mashup image is a product of the author’s imagination. The Dancing With the Stars Judges are used used under the parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

The excerpts of the Beatles’ “Twist and Shout” and Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get it on” are also used under the parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Amazon’s Alexa appears used under the parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Josh Axe: Fly On A Windshield

Posted on November 26, 2018 by Mark Aaron Alsip

Sitting at a stoplight yesterday, I noticed a fly on my windshield. It stubbornly held on while I accelerated to 10MPH. It was still there at 20, 30, then 40MPH. At 45MPH I admit a cruel streak brought on thoughts of flipping on the windshield washer, but the scientist in me fought off the urge, and so, curious, I accelerated hard and, finally, at 55MPH, the creature succumbed to the inevitable.

Chiropractor Josh Axe is a lot like that insect Give him a bad idea and he’ll cling to it like a fly to a windshield in a tempest. Hang on at all costs. Never, ever, let go, despite the obvious outcome. No matter how much the right thing to do would be to let go (of your incorrect opinion).

Back in December, 2015, I wrote that Axe was pushing Bentonite clay as a detox agent, even though the product was loaded with the same “toxic” heavy metals Josh claimed would kill you.¹ Undeterred, on November 19, 2018, Axe used Facebook to recycle another Bentonite detox post. Like a fly on a windshield, Josh clings to irony in a hurricane of hilarious gaffes.² Let’s have some fun.

For reference, below is an analysis of one of the Bentonite clay products Axe was hawking back in 2015.¹ I don’t have a breakdown of the bath product he’s pushing in his 2018 Bentonite resurrection, but it’s reasonable to assume the clays are chemically similar:

Chemical analysis of a Josh Axe Bentonite product from 2015 .¹
Note the lead, cadmium, and mercury.
(click/enlarge)

According to Axe, Bentonite clay is used to remove toxic heavy metals from the body, by either consuming or applying the mud topically. Quoth the raven, er, chiropractor:

“Heavy metal toxins” usually refer to substances like mercury, cadmium, lead and benzene.”⁴ — Josh Axe, Ten Bentonite Clay Benefits and Uses

Isn’t it ironic then, that Axe’s own chemical analysis revels that Bentonite contains mercury, cadmium, and lead, the very elements he’s trying to remove?¹ (See the chart above)

Now, this is the part in our story where Axe defenders leap in to invent a magical chemical matrix that works synergistically to scoop up the toxic heavy metals and channel them safely away. “Even though they’re present,” (I hear you, David Avocado Wolfe!) “they aren’t toxic. Their ionic charges are reversed causing them to blah blah blah…”

Go ahead Axe fans. Make something up, I’ll wait. Then I’ll shoot you down in Axe’s own words. Time is on my side.

Ready now? You see, in his article, Axe confesses that Bentonite clay does not trap toxins. He acknowledges that lead is present in the clay, and warns that it’s a danger, but only to pregnant women, except when you’re pregnant. SAY WHAT? OK, walk through this with me… it’s all from the same article:

“Bentonite clay benefits your body by helping to expel many of these toxins–Josh Axe, Ten Bentonite Clay Uses and Benefits³

“Some bentonite clay products contains trace amounts of lead and other heavy metals and may not be appropriate for consumption by children and pregnant women.”–Josh Axe, Ten Bentonite Clay Uses and Benefits³

“Some people use bentonite clay as relief for nausea and vomiting by pregnant women–Josh Axe, Ten Bentonite Clay Uses and Benefits³

So Bentonite clay expels toxins, except that it retains them when you’re pregnant (why only then?), so pregnant women shouldn’t use it, except that pregnant women should use it for nausea relief. And what about the mercury and lead?

Oh God, just shoot me now. Josh Axe calls himself a doctor and he cranks out medical advice like this?

Dear reader, I humbly submit to you that (1) if you wish to eat mud it’s going to taste, well, muddy, but the trace amounts of metals found therein are not going to be of any health concern and, more importantly, (2) you can find far, far better sources of health information than chiropractors who falsely call themselves doctors and make their living selling you bone broth and mud for a living.

Live long and prosper.

References
(1) Axe-idental Poisoning (Bad Science Debunked)
https://badsciencedebunked.com/2015/12/08/axe-idental-poisoning-josh-axe-debunked/
Retrieved 20 Nov 2018

(2) Ten Detox Bath Recipes
Warning: Not a reputable/scientific article
https://draxe.com/detox-bath-recipes/
Retrieved 20 Nov 2018

(3) Ten Bentonite Clay Benefits and Uses
Warning: Not a reputable/scientific article
https://draxe.com/10-bentonite-clay-benefits-uses/
Retrieved 20 Nov 2018

Image Credits
Josh Axe, Redmond Clay, website screen snapshots are used in strict compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Forrest Gump meme used under parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Link to Rolling Stones/YouTube clip is done using tools provided by YouTube/Google, Inc. Author does this in good faith, believing tools to link and embed are provided for this this purpose, and that videos available on YouTube are displayed legally, with the consent of the copyright owner. Author assumes, and makes no copyright claims to the linked/embedded video.

It’s Sep 22, First Day of Spring! Let’s Balance an Egg!

Posted on September 22, 2018 by Mark Aaron Alsip

It’s the myth that refuses to die: on or about March 21, the vernal equinox, then–and only then–can an egg be balanced on its end. This nonsense has been debunked so many times you’d think it would have disappeared into the annals of history. You’d have thought wrong. Here’s a YouTube video from spring, 2018:

The most obvious way to debunk this is to just balance an egg on any other day of the year. Seeking to do it in the most snarky way possible though, I thought to wait until the other first day of spring–September 22. This is the first day of spring in the Southern Hemisphere in 2018.

But that raised yet another problem. It turns out that there are those out there who believe in autumnal equinox magic as well:

Sigh. Undeterred, I decided to start balancing eggs in the days leading up to the equinox, and carry on right on through. (Yes, I agree, I need a social life 🙂 )

Anyway, Here’s a balanced egg, three days before the equinox. I decided to follow the old television crime series hostage trope, including a current newspaper in my photos as proof of the date:

An egg balanced on end, 19 Sep 2018, three days before the first day of spring (in the Southern Hemisphere). Newspaper in background verifies the date. (click/enlarge to see paper date)

And here we are again, two days before the equinox. Hey! I thought this was only possible on one (or was it two) special days of the year?

Two days before the first day of spring (in the Southern Hemisphere). An “impossibly” balanced egg. (click/enlarge to read newspaper date.)

And here we go, the first day of spring (south of the equator), and yeah, an egg can be balanced on end… just like any other day of the year.

An egg balanced on end on the first day of spring (in the Southern Hemisphere). You can balance an egg on end on ANY day of the year. (click/enlarge)

Now, a true skeptic would point out that I could have saved up a stack of newspapers and snapped all these photos on September 22. So, I’ll make a promise: tomorrow, September 23, I’ll update this article with yet another balanced egg.

Actually, I’ll make a second promise: after September 23, 2018, we will still be debunking this silly myth that you can only balance eggs on the first day of spring 😦

Update: 23 Sep 2018
As promised, here’s yet another balanced egg with backing newspaper, to prove I didn’t stockpile newsprint and shoot all of the previous shots on the autumnal equinox.

Just to assure the die-hard skeptic I didn’t stockpile newspapers and put all my eggs in one (photo) basket on the equinox, here’s a balanced egg the day after the equinox. (click/enlarge)

How to (Mostly) Block Donald Trump’s Emergency Text

Posted on September 18, 2018 by Mark Aaron Alsip

On October 3, at around 2:00PM Eastern Time (and for up to 30 minutes after), every cell phone in the United States is set to light up with a test “presidential alert” message.¹ This intrusion, and the inability to opt out or block it, has upset enough people to kick off a #GoDark920 movement, encouraging Americans to turn off their phones for the entire day. As I’ll explain shortly, the media is incorrectly calling this message a “text”–but let’s not get into the weeds yet.

If you’re considering turning off your phone, there is an alternative. Not perfect, but still, I would argue, better than giving up the use of your precious iPhone or Samsung for a day.

You will need WiFi for this to work, but the steps are simple, as shown on my iPhone, below.

Put your phone in airplane mode
Turn on WiFi

Setting up an iPhone for WiFi-only text and voice (click/enlarge

Yeah, that’s it. The steps will be similar on an Android device such as Samsung. Admittedly, you’re going to lose cellular phone service during this time, but you need not be out of touch with your loved ones, especially in the Apple world. As long as I’m in range of WiFi, I can both text and call (FaceTime!) other Apple aficionados who are friends and family.

Not into the iPhone? Not to worry. There are myriad free texting and calling apps, such as WhatsApp, that are solely internet-based. No cell phone service required. In theory, at least, having your phone in Airplane Mode should have cellular service disabled and block the incoming “presidential message.” If not, we’ve learned something interesting about airplane mode on cell phones.

WhatsApp is a popular Internet-based application that allows text and voice without a cellular connection. Myriad such applications exist. (click/enlarge)

Note that the concept of “airplane mode” has been evolving, so I cannot guarantee success on October 3. It used to be that even WiFi wasn’t allowed on flights, but this has changed; the FAA is toying with the idea of allowing cellular calls in the air, so there may well be phones out there that can receive but not transmit. I’m going to find out on October 3.

messenger to block trump emergency message

Even the much-hated Facebook Messenger app can be used to communicate (over WiFi) until the presidential message passes.

As mentioned in the introduction, the October 3 message is often incorrectly being called a “text” by the press (I intentionally stuck with that name in the title of my article to avoid confusion.) The alerts sent at the behest of the president use a technology framework known as Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA). Although WEAs may share some of the infrastructure we’re familiar with (e.g. cell towers, frequencies, our phones), they won’t arrive as standard voice, text, or SMS messages. Simply put, they blanket all phones known to be in a geographical area with a specially formatted on-screen message accompanied by an audio signal and vibration.

So, to ease your mind, If the blocking hypothesis I describe here does indeed work, you need not fear having a text or voice mail from Donald Trump (OK, FEMA) waiting for you when you take your phone out of airplane mode on the evening of the 3rd.

This makes sense if you think about it. My wife and I were once fortunate enough to be vacationing in Miami when a major winter storm hit our home state of Kentucky, triggering statewide wireless winter storm alerts. Not only did we not receive those alerts while in Florida (it would make no sense, both the cellular service and emergency services know how to geo-track users and deliver warnings to the right places), we had no voice mails or texts waiting in our inboxes a week later when we flew back to chilly Kentucky. In other words, the warning messages aren’t held for you to pick up at a later date.

But, Now That You Can, Should You?
Emergency alert systems exist for a reason–a good reason. I always leave those for which I can opt-in enabled on my phone. I would recommend that everyone do so. A lot of dedicated scientists from myriad fields have worked very hard to put together a system to keep us safe.

So why am I writing about trying to bypass a test, and what the hell does this have to do with debunking bad science (the purpose of my blog?)

This is, in effect, my way of extending a large digital middle finger to Ajit Pai and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for their egregious act of bad science and public policy in rolling back net neutrality, the legal framework that forced Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in this country to treat all internet traffic equally. The Internet is now pay-for-play, meaning ISPs can charge (and receive) large fees to give priority to certain traffic (read: that from large corporations), leaving “unimportant” data (schools, libraries, scientific research, anything coming from your home and mine) to sit in the backwaters of a swamp that was supposed to be cleared.

And, to be honest, looking at what Trump and the FCC have done to botch the internet, I cannot help but have a knot in my stomach when I think of them holding the ability to “brick” every cell phone in the United States, at their whim, in one fell swoop. (WEA messages “brick,” or render your phones useless for communication, during their duration).

So, yes, accepting emergency broadcasts is a good thing. A superfluous message from a vainglorious, demonstrably scientifically illiterate administration over an arguably redundant notification system, backed in part by an FCC that sold a free and fair internet to the highest bidder?

Yeah, I’m disabling my phone in protest.

Authors Notes
Updated 19 Sep 2018 to include descriptions of, and elaborate upon, the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) framework, how the data sent is not actually a text message, and propose the hypothesis that whatever’s sent between 2:00pm and 2:30pm won’t somehow show up in an inbox or stored as a “missed text.”

References
(1) Presidential Alert Test Postponed (NBC News)
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/mobile/fema-s-presidential-alert-test-postponed-some-americans-want-disconnect-n910406
Retrieved 18 Sep 2018

Image Credits
iPhone screen snapshots by the author.

Trump on phone parody by the author, used in strict accordance with provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Hurricane Florence Blows Mind of Conservative Talk Show Host

Posted on September 14, 2018 by Mark Aaron Alsip

Hurricane Florence approaches the East Coast of the USA. Image by the author, produced via RadarScope software.

Longtime readers of this blog know the practice here is to avoid politics and religion unless members of those institutions cross the line by bringing science into the fray. At that point the gloves come off. Listening to a few hours of conservative radio talk show coverage of Hurricane Florence yesterday on the Sirius XM Radio “Patriot” channel, climate science was discussed with all the accuracy of two auto mechanics preparing for delicate brain surgery on a newborn infant. I feel compelled to respond.

The Wilkow Majority
Let’s look at a quote from Andrew Wilkow of the Wilkow Majority, “explaining” why climate change doesn’t exist:¹

“[…] weather patterns are cyclical. […] our earth rotation is not perfectly circular, […] we come and go from different distances in relationship to the to the sun. […] tides, everything is affected by that.” ¹

There’s a lot to unpack here.

Wilkow confused rotation with orbit, but I’ll cut him some slack. Rotation occurs in place (think of a spinning top that doesn’t travel), which doesn’t alter our distance from the sun. He’s clearly talking about our orbit, so that’s what we’ll concentrate on. Out of kindness, I can say that this is by far the least of his mistakes.

The Earth does indeed orbit the sun in an elliptical, not circular, orbit. Unfortunately, that’s the only thing Wilkow got right. The implication that our distance from the sun affects our weather, our climate, and, risibly, our tides, is so wrong a that fifth grader could debunk it. Not having a fifth grader on hand, I’ll do it myself, and start with the low hanging fruit: tides.

The Moon is responsible for our tides.² As it orbits the planet, its gravitational tug on our home–and its oceans–causes a bulge that results in tides. Remember being taught this in grade school? Apparently Andrew Wilkow doesn’t.

Andrew Wilkow. See Image Credits for photo copyright/use information

But the most scientifically inaccurate claim in Wilkow’s polemic is that the distance of our planet from the sun has anything to do with weather and climate. In fact, the separation of Earth and our host star has nothing at all to do with climate, weather, or even our seasons.

For starters, the seasons are caused by the Earth being tilted 23½ degrees on its axis with respect to the plane in which it orbits the Sun. During the Northern Hemisphere winter, it’s colder because that part of the planet is tilted away from the Sun, receiving less direct sunlight. A fun science fact is that during this time of year, the Earth is actually closer to the Sun than in the northern summer. Yes, we’re closer to the Sun in January than in June. Distance doesn’t matter. Conversely, it’s summer in the Southern Hemisphere in January because that part of the planet is tilted more directly toward the Sun, receiving more direct sunlight.

In Phil Plait’s excellent book, Bad Astronomy,⁵ Mr. Plait points out that very simple math shows that our non-circular orbit counts for at most a 7°F (4°C) difference, summer or winter. That’s right: statistically, the elliptical shape of our orbit contributes nothing to weather or climate change. Every year, we swing through a cycle where distance contributes no more than 7°F (4°C), plus or minus, and, a reminder to Mr. Wilkow… we’re talking weather, not climate.

The Earth’s orbit is indeed elliptical, but it has nothing to do with climate. NASA/NOAA image. (click/enlarge)

This is a perfect segue into Andrew Wilkow’s cringe-worthy statement, “weather patterns are cyclical.” As all who paid attention in science class know, weather isn’t climate.³ Weather concerns itself with immediate, short-term conditions; climate is the measure and average of weather over long periods of time. For an example of someone who doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate, look no further than a senator who brings a snowball (a weather event) to the floor of the senate to “prove” climate change doesn’t exist.⁴ Ach du lieber gott in himmel.

Full disclosure: there are some possible considerations due to a phenomenon called precession (the Earth’s wobble on its axis), our orbit of the Sun, and the fact that the tilt of our axis will cause seasons in the hemispheres to eventually reverse. But this happens on scales of tens of thousands of years. You could start making climate change arguments for Sarasota and Sydney if you stuck around for 20,000 years, but that’s outside Wilkow’s bailiwick and lifespan.

Wilkow’s broadcast eventually segues from demonstrable scientific illiteracy to hurricane and other emergency preparedness and, wait for it: shilling for emergency food supplies. Yes, the conservative broadcaster just so happens to run an online emergency food store, and there’s nothing like a good natural disaster to drum up business.⁶

wilkow uses natural disaster to sell overpriced goods

Why stop at using bad science to refute a natural disaster when you can make a little money at the same time? Fear sells, and Wilkow is a master of the art. (click/enlarge)

It has become all too typical in today’ environment to deny science and back up rhetoric with nonsense such as Wilkow’s (e.g., the oceans aren’t really warming, providing more fuel to make hurricanes more devastating.) Unfortunately, listeners calling into his show readily agreed with him, despite the annoying reality that the facts don’t. For example, as we’ve circled the sun time again, century after century, our planet has been warming by 1.3° to 1.6° Fahrenheit, on average, but with the rate nearly doubling since 1975.^7,8

Here’s what the climate has been doing as we elliptically orbit the sun these last few hundred years:

History of global surface temperatures since 1880, courtesy NOAA.⁸ (click/enlarge)

There you have it graphically: climate change is a long-term affair. After listening to conservative talk radio for several hours on Wednesday, I hope that the love affair with scientific illiteracy, as demonstrated by Andrew Wilkow and those calling into his show, doesn’t also prove to be a long term affair.

The planet just can’t afford it.

Authors note (16 Sep 2018): this article originally reversed units of temperature regarding the earth-sun distance effect. The correct values are 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit). Thanks to astute readers for pointing out the error.

References
(1) The Wilkow Majority (Sirius XM Radio, Patriot Channel)
Excerpt beginning at 6:24 mark, climate change denial
Live Broadcast, 12 Sep 2018, also available via Sirius XM replay

(2) NOAA SciJLinks: What Causes Tides
https://scijinks.gov/tides/
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018

(3) NASA: What’s the Difference Between Weather and Climate?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018

(4) Senator James Inhofe (Republican) Brings Snowball to Floor (YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018

(5) Bad Astronomy, by Phil Plait
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Astronomy-Misconceptions-Revealed-Astrology/dp/0471409766/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536935776&sr=8-1&keywords=bad+astronomy+-+philip+plait
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018
Disclaimer: I am not an Amazon affiliate marketer. I receive no proceeds from the sales of Amazon products and have no association with the author of the linked book.

(6) Prepare With Wilkow (PreparedWith.com)
https://preparewith.com/wilkow
Warning: Not a reputable/scientifically accurate site
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018

(7) NOAA: Climate Change: Global Temperature
Authors: Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Retrieved 12 Sep 2018

(8) American Meteorological Society, State of the Climate Report
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/
Retrieved 12

Andrew Wilkow image may be subject to copyright. Used here in strict accordance with provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Earth/Sun orbit image courtesy NASA/NOAA. Used with kind permission and under provisions that image is in public domain because it was produced by a government agency.

NOAA climate change courtesy NASA/NOOA. Used with kind permission and under provisions that image is in public domain because it was produced by a government agency.

Josh Axe’s Heavy Metal Toothpaste

Posted on April 4, 2018 by Mark Aaron Alsip

josh axe heavy metals alternate toothpaste

Josh Axe brings heavy metal to the stage in an unexpected way with his homemade toothpaste recipe. Unfortunately, he himself calls the mix toxic.

Josh Axe, a chiropractor who fancies himself a doctor and makes a living selling unproven natural remedies for all that ails you, has a particular distaste for heavy metal. No, not the likes of Metalilica, Iron Maiden, or Black Sabbath. We’re talking heavy metal in the context of lead, mercury, and, of particular importance to today’s column, aluminum.

Just like the old school conservatives who associate satanic meanings with heavy metal music, Josh Axe seems to see the devil in aluminum, the most common metal in the crust of the planet. He calls it a toxic poison,¹ links it to Alzheimer’s,² and even demonizes common aluminum foil, tying it to dementia.³

It’s rather shocking then that “Doctor” Axe has published an article in which he recommends an aluminum-based homemade toothpaste:⁴

“As an alternative to baking soda, you can use white kaolin clay.”–Josh Axe⁴

You see, according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s PubChem database, you can’t have kaolin without aluminum. Don’t believe me? Well, here:⁵

“Kaolin is the most common mineral of a group of hydrated aluminum silicates, approximately H2Al2Si2O8-H2O.”⁵ —-PubChem (emphasis mine)

Here’s a pretty picture of kaolin. I’ve highlighted the aluminum in yellow:

Kaolin, courtesy PubChem. Note the aluminum. When you brush your teeth with Josh Axe’s homemade remedy, this is what you put in your mouth.

When will the public catch on and stop buying from this man? I don’t know the answer. But you, dear reader, can help. Spread these stories. Check Axe’s product labels against his own words. I’ve provided the necessary links in the reference section below. Somewhere out there, I imagine a truly ill man or woman considering throwing out their meds and following one of Axe’s nonsensical, hypocritical wellness plans. They’ll be buying the same chemicals he claims will harm them.

Let’s not let that happen.

References
(1) Dangers of Heavy Metals and How to do a Heavy Metal Detox
Warning: Not a scholarly article. Contains false and/or misleading information.
https://draxe.com/heavy-metal-detox/
Retrieved 03 Apr 2018

(2) Five Gross Grilling Mistakes Damaging Your Health
Warning: Not a scholarly article. Contains false and/or misleading information.
https://draxe.com/grilling-mistakes/
Retrieved 03 Apr 2018

(3) Alzheimers Natural Treatment
Warning: Not a scholarly article. Contains false and/or misleading information.
https://draxe.com/alzheimers-natural-treatment/
Retrieved 03 Apr 2018

(4) Six Ways to Naturally Whiten your Teeth (Josh Axe)
Warning: Not a scholarly article. Contains false and/or misleading information.
https://draxe.com/6-ways-to-naturally-whiten-your-teeth/
Retrieved 03 Apr 2018

(5) Pubchem Kaolin Clay (CID 56841936)
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/56841936
Retrieved 03 Apr 2018

Image Credits
Intro image is a parody mashup using a base image of unknown copyright status; I believe ©2018 Wallup. Used here along with a cutout of Josh Axe under the parody provisions of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

Kaolin structure courtesy PubChem.

	Kenneth T. on Naturally Nicole’s Elder…
	Kenneth T. on Your Worst Day Ever: David Avo…
	Kenneth T. on Your Worst Day Ever: David Avo…
	Nandi on Food Babe Is Selling Carr…
	Jaimie on Trick or Tweet: Dr. Mark Hyman…