1. Comment #19535 by Katana on January 28, 2007 at 2:08 am

It's just unfortunate that the parents were so desperate to find their son that they would ask and believe what this woman had to say.
What was annoying in that segment was that the police actually diverted their searching efforts based on her nonsense.

I remember reading an article on how often she was correct, i think it was around 2-3%.
Anyone could do random predictions based on the existing data and get it right that much.
But her obvious intention is made clear when they say her fee is $700 an hour.
To paraphrase Derren Brown's book, psychics are just mentalists that have crossed the line and prey on desperate people who want to believe.

Other Comments by Katana

2. Comment #19538 by Homo economicus on January 28, 2007 at 3:27 am

Entirley agree Katana.

These con artists prey on desperate people in all situations who want answers and go against reason in there such for them.

Why such people are given air time granting legitmacy is a travesty of human intellect.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

3. Comment #19540 by The author on January 28, 2007 at 6:02 am

Wow, that was actually critical journalism. Even better than I would expect it in Germany. Such a thing on CNN - impressing.

Other Comments by The author

4. Comment #19541 by alfonso on January 28, 2007 at 6:20 am

Interesting statistic on the percentage of people who believe in psychics in the US. 19% on the East coast?

I wonder if those statistics were well prepared, proper population samples and adequate questions.

Other Comments by alfonso

5. Comment #19544 by blaine on January 28, 2007 at 6:55 am

13%... said they believe in psychics.
Women are almost twice as likely as men to believe psychics can foresee the future, 18% vs 8%.

Since the proportion of females in the American population is only slightly higher than the proportions of males, it sure looks like the overall total (average) of people who believe psychics can foresee the future is 13%. Either these results say that less than 1% of people "believe in psychics" but that psychics can't see the future; the test didn't accurately differentiate the cases (which the "foresee the future" label implies they did); or the results are not being reported accurately. I think there must be a lot of people who think that Browne and people like her can see the dead, and the past, but not the future.

I didn't think Lancaster made his point very well. If he has all of this evidence, why must he resort to talking about "evil"? Also, as shown in the video, Browne doesn't claim a 100% success rate. He should have made the point that her success rate is worse than police work (or at least that her success rate is "very bad"), not just point out a couple mistakes over decades of work. He could make the same argument against police (incl. FBI, etc.), since they sometimes they screw up cases , accuse innocent parents of murder, etc., but that doesn't mean police aren't the most effective means possible to apprehend murderers.

Randi was great. My only complaint is about his lame reply about Browne's billing rate, that it is her opinion against his. I personally believe that Randi is much more honest than Browne, so I believe him. But it is not her opinion that is in doubt, it is her honesty. As shown a few sentences later, he has plenty of evidence about her billing rate, so he should have said that he has plenty of evidence to show that they are lying.

Other Comments by blaine

6. Comment #19545 by Ian on January 28, 2007 at 7:09 am

I agree with you Katana, except for one thing: It isn't unfortunate that these parents are desperate enough to listen, it's perfectly natural and that's why we all have a moral duty to protect them from con artists and charlatans.

That moral duty extends to any agent, including the media companys, so they must shoulder some of the responsibility for giving these 'psychics' air time.

What are Julia Brown, the producers of The Montel Williams Show and the TV companies who run the show going to give in recompense to these couples for thier grief and heartache?

Nothing of course: they will just take the money from the advertising revenue. That is how they benefit from the distress they cause and that is why they disgust me as well.

Other Comments by Ian

7. Comment #19547 by simplicio on January 28, 2007 at 7:34 am

So I went to the Montel Williams show website to find out how to contact the show to complain that he gives this vulture publicity on his show and found that she is scheduled to appear on the show this very week!! Please consider sending an email to the show asking how they can give Sylvia Browne a megaphone when she has hurt so many people.

Please consider going over to Montel's website to ask the producers to stop inviting Sylvia Browne on the show:

http://www.montelshow.com/sendyourpov/

Other Comments by simplicio

8. Comment #19548 by ftvt on January 28, 2007 at 7:42 am

Browne has posted a response on her website(http://www.sylvia.org/home/index.cfm -- Under "Message from Sylvia").

A couple of excerpts:

If the brilliant scientists throughout history had a James Randi negating every aspect of their work, I doubt we would have progressed very far in medicine or in any technology.

...I cannot possibly be 100% correct in each and every one of my predictions.

Other Comments by ftvt

9. Comment #19550 by jeff_n on January 28, 2007 at 8:32 am

If the brilliant scientists throughout history had a James Randi negating every aspect of their work, I doubt we would have progressed very far in medicine or in any technology.

In fact they go through up to ten gruelling years of tertiary education, dozens of very difficult examinations, and an uphill struggle to get tenure. And anything they wish to publish in scientific journals is peer reviewed before it ever sees the light of day and is then subjected to intense criticism by some of the smartest people on Earth, many of whom are rivals. A scientist's life would be a lot easier if he or she only had to convince James Randi!

Other Comments by jeff_n

10. Comment #19551 by Kingasaurus on January 28, 2007 at 8:50 am

"...I cannot possibly be 100% correct in each and every one of my predictions."

Ah, my favorite red herring.

No one is asking for 100%. We're asking for a better accuracy rate than simply guessing or engaging in cold reading where the subject inadvertently "helps" the "psychic" get closer to the right answer.

If Sylvia is using magic powers to get the hideously bad success rate that she's offering, then she's doing it the hard way.

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

11. Comment #19555 by cerad on January 28, 2007 at 8:56 am

A number of books have present scientific documentation that her hit rate is around 80%. It is a bit strange that Ms Brown is the author of all these books but I'm sure the books would never have been published if they were not true.

Other Comments by cerad

12. Comment #19556 by rnewson on January 28, 2007 at 9:03 am

"A number of books have present scientific documentation that her hit rate is around 80%"

Which books? Do you really think all books that are published are true?

If her hit rate is really 80%, this would be a millenium-defining event. It's far, far more likely that she's a complete fraud.

Other Comments by rnewson

13. Comment #19557 by mintcheerios on January 28, 2007 at 9:14 am

It should be noted that appearing on the Montel Williams show is also a great way to increase the awareness of a missing person however counterproductive Sylvia Browne may be. It doesn't mean that all her guests believe in psychics. But this isn't an excuse to going around with magic tricks claiming they are real.

Isn't Dawkins coming out with a documentary about this stuff? I think he said it was called "The Enemies of Reason" in an interview.

Other Comments by mintcheerios

14. Comment #19560 by fonex_86 on January 28, 2007 at 10:01 am

I wonder which is worse: one 'very famous' Sylvia Browne, who often appears on national TV... or THOUSANDS of less-known-but-equally-dishonest 'Sylvia Brownes'... cause where I live, the latter is the norm (shudders)

Other Comments by fonex_86

15. Comment #19561 by RickM on January 28, 2007 at 10:08 am

The media continues to avoid the real issue; belief in the supernatural.

Other Comments by RickM

16. Comment #19563 by scooternyc on January 28, 2007 at 10:46 am

"only god is 100% correct all of the time"

Well, since we know the illogic of god, we can only presume that Ms.Brown is just as illogical and in her profession, a thief of the lowest common denominator preying on the weakest of her constituency.

She's a complete fraud.

Other Comments by scooternyc

17. Comment #19566 by blackbeauty on January 28, 2007 at 11:29 am

People like Randi should concentrate on the real sharks, there are Charlatans with millions , all over the world, following them. These are all in India. India exports these dangerous gurus.

Here is the list of parasites who live on the ignorance and loneliness of their followers. 1. Sai Baba [ he is estimated to have a following of about 30 million people, he does "miracles", many young men have reported that they have been sexually molested by him, BBC doumentary covers a lot of information] 2. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar [ he is the new Charlatan] 3. Kalki Bhagawan [ growing and amassing millions] 4. Amma : The hugging guru 5. The TM guru living in the Netherlands. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.6.. many more budding gurus in the pipeline.

Other Comments by blackbeauty

18. Comment #19568 by William on January 28, 2007 at 11:51 am

Re: Comment #19566

There are skeptical organizations in India, such as the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations (FIRA) and the Indian Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (ICSICOP). There's even an Indian version of James Randi in the form of a fellow named Prabir Ghosh who, as head of the Science and Rationalists' Association of India, offers 2 million rupees to anyone who can prove that they possess supernatural powers.

I agree with you though. From what I've heard, it's bad over there.

Other Comments by William

19. Comment #19573 by Zaphod on January 28, 2007 at 12:44 pm

People like Sylvia Browne and John Edwards disgust me. They are eithier totally delusional and should be put in a hospital with the guy who thinks he is Napoleon or they are sick con artists making money from people who are grieving and want hope.

John Edwards is a douchebag just like in that South Park episode. Love that episode lol.

Other Comments by Zaphod

20. Comment #19574 by Zaphod on January 28, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Sylvia Browne said that the boy was dead because statistically if someone is kidnapped and missing for that long they are usually dead. She probably just made up the fictional killers description.

Other Comments by Zaphod

21. Comment #19580 by MelM on January 28, 2007 at 2:10 pm

The psychic crap isn't the worst of it. She's the creator of the "Society of Novus Spiritus"
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~r13wme/societyofnovusspiritus.htm
and then we have her web site: http://www.sylvia.org/home/index.cfm

Now, on to the stream of raw sewage she's pouring into the culture. This link is to her book list on Amazon.com. This is truely shocking. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_1/104-7079336-6081544?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A1000%2Cp%5F27%3ASylvia%20Browne&page=1

Good news though, Jesus has returned. Yes sir!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840066/site/newsweek/

Other Comments by MelM

22. Comment #19583 by MelM on January 28, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Attend a nice "Spiritual Salon" with Sylvia in Campbell CA. Only $1000 a pop. The Feb 10 class is full though so you'll have to wait for the March 24 class.
http://www.sylvia.org/home/lectures_ss.cfm

Wow, she's only 53 miles away! Might be a kick if I wanted to waste $1000. But, I don't and I certainly don't want to reward the mess she's creating.

Other Comments by MelM

23. Comment #19586 by William on January 28, 2007 at 3:52 pm

(From The Society Of Novus Spiritus Link In Comment #19580):

"A unique quality that (Novus Spiritus) possesses is that it states: all religions have some truth...Novus Spiritus teaches that there is a male God and a female God...The Society of Novus Spiritus believes that Christ was sent to earth as the Son of God...Reincarnation is viewed by the Society of Novus Spiritus as a tool used by God to help each one of us perfect our souls."

It sounds like Sylvia has just borrowed bits and pieces from different religions and creeds and mashed them all together. How very ecumenical. Anyone, be they Christian or New Age or Hindu or Feminist, is welcome to fork over their money to Sylvia and Francine.

Other Comments by William

24. Comment #19593 by k1mgy on January 28, 2007 at 6:33 pm

It's time that these wackos were subject to some type of licensing with an exam, standards, and some level of protection afforded by state oversight.

This -creature- looked into the eyes of a distraught parent (having children I can somewhat connect with the level of pain a parent might carry) and lied. Did she know she was lying, or is this individual so self-possessed that she believes in her own "powers"?

I am sickened on a number of levels, including a disgust with a mass media that would knowingly allow such a horrible display of deception to be put forth.

I would think that Richard Dawkins might compare this incident, too, as less damaging than the slow and steady religious indoctrination of defenseless children. Perhaps, although this case has a very strong sting.

Damage done by frauds like Sylvia Browne are despicable. She should be put out of business and face, at a minimum, civil penalties for her charlatanism.

Other Comments by k1mgy

25. Comment #19599 by MelM on January 28, 2007 at 8:24 pm

From klmgy #19593

It's time these wackos were subject to some type of licensing with an exam, standards, and some level of protection afforded by state oversight.

"Licensed wackos"? "Standards"? I don't think I want to go there.

Fraud laws might be sufficient in some cases but I certainly don't want the government deciding the truth or falsehood of ideas--such as "psychic powers". We need a proper division of labor here. The people decide what's true or false; the government protects our right to do that. There's a big difference between officials defending their decisions with ideas--which they have to do--and stipulating for the rest of us that those ideas are true. Sylvia Browne will get some victims but look at the potential for damage when some officials set themselves up a "guardians of culture."

I share your outrage but I must remember that others could be just as outraged by what I've just written.

Other Comments by MelM

26. Comment #19604 by JDAM on January 28, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Ref: 19599... It must have taken me 15 minutes to regain my composure after laughing myself into convulsions over the prospect of State Licensed Psychics. I can just imagine the practical exam: "Please predict the outcome in the next two weeks of the following political situations currently extant..." or "Based on your claimed powers, the next winner of the California Lottery will be...?" or..."Please predict the outcome of this examination..." Oh what fun!!

Other Comments by JDAM

27. Comment #19607 by DavidJGrossman on January 28, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Larry King is such a shill. He'll have any nutjob on there and treat them like they shit gold.

He did a show in two parts once with a bunch of the knumbskulls from What the Bleep Do We Know? and The Secret. It was nothing more than an infomercial for the Law of Attraction.

Larry King has no business being on CNN at this point. Montel Williams ... I don't know where to start with that douchebag.

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

28. Comment #19609 by Aussie on January 28, 2007 at 10:54 pm

Is the level of gullibility for paranormal phenomena, like the degree of religiosity, much greater in the USA than it is in say Europe, UK or Oz - or is this an incorrect impression that I have gained.

Of course we really need definitive statistics rather than relying on anecdote.

Other Comments by Aussie

29. Comment #19613 by Richard Morgan on January 28, 2007 at 11:26 pm

So, let us imagine a doctor, who has gone through many years of study and training, making the same kind of mistake:
"Well, actually, your son is dead. So you can arrange the funeral service and bury him."

In the funeral parlor, the kid wakes up screaming in the coffin.

What would happen to such a Doctor in the USA? In my country he would be at least banned from practising for life.
And he certainly would never dare to defend himself by saying that he's not God.

What kind of cultural climate exists that would allow Sylvia Browne to get away, not only with her evil fraud, but also her callous, stupid defense argument.

Would YOU consult a doctor who had declared living people dead?

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

30. Comment #19770 by GODLESS101 on January 29, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Looks like Sylvia Browne made yet another outrageous slip on national television. How many times must she flaunt her lunacy before people call a spade a spade? Did anyone catch the Larry King interview with James Randi? For years he's offered a million bucks to any psychic capable of proving their so-called "gift." I think it's safe to say that money isn't going anywhere.

Other Comments by GODLESS101

31. Comment #19954 by chairman_mike on January 30, 2007 at 9:09 pm

this is truly and seriously some messed up stuff.

Other Comments by chairman_mike

32. Comment #19956 by Old Coppernose on January 30, 2007 at 9:31 pm

Note in her statement this lady indicates no *apology* for the effects of her mistakes on the parents of these kids - she is solely interested in justifying herself.

I said of Benny Hinn, "we must stop this nonsense" and one could say that of this - but how exactly? Banning any form of monetary solicitation for this kind of stuff maybe. Heck, if Hinn says it's religion, then the Lord will provide!

Other Comments by Old Coppernose

33. Comment #21953 by christmeal on February 12, 2007 at 1:24 am

I know why they diverted their search efforts. Police are not supposed to refuse a lead in any form, because any testimony, no matter where it comes from, should be given equal treatment. If it turned out the woman really did know something, however improbable, the police would get blamed for not taking the lead.

Other Comments by christmeal