“In January 1987, CSICOP brought it operation to Britain when it
launched the ‘British and Irish Skeptic’, a bi-monthly magazine
published in Dublin.” Page 197

CSICOP didn’t bring its operations to Britain as claimed. It didn’t
launch the B&IS which was founded independently by Wendy Grossman. (See
her Website at http://www.well.com/user/wendyg) Yes, the British
skeptical group did reimburse starting expenses but only after these had
been paid by Wendy Grossman. CSICOP encouraged but did not initiate the
founding of the magazine.

“Manchester became the centre of CSICOP operations and the city which
James Randi and Paul Kurtz usually visit when in Britain.” P198

“Centre of CSICOP operations”. That suggestion sounds like organization
to me, but CSICOP did not and does not have a centre of operations in
Manchester.

“..and the city which James Randi and Paul Kurtz usually visit when in
Britain.” That also sounds like organization to me. James Randi (see
http://www.randi.org) gave a talk in Manchester around 1988 and his 1991
six-part television series was recorded in Manchester. Except for those
visits I do not know of any visit by him to Manchester in the twenty-one
years since I’ve known him. Neither, to my knowledge, has Paul Kurtz
been to Manchester in the nearly twenty years that I’ve known him. If he
has visited that city it has been a personal visit and nothing to do
with skepticism.

“In 1990, the title of ‘British and Irish’ was dropped and the English
group became UK Skeptics, its magazine the ‘Skeptic.”

True that the title of the magazine was changed in 1990 but the British
skeptical group had been called The UK Skeptics since 1988 when it was
formed to take over from an earlier group. The magazine was never, and
is not, “its magazine”. It is and always has been totally independent.
(For details of ‘The Skeptic’ see http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/skeptic/)

“From the beginning, the health-fraud strategy was a considered aspect
of CSICOP’s activities in Britain.” P198

This reads as though there was a plan of action. Not true. Anyway,
CSICOP does not have direct ‘activities in Britain’ other than the
selling of their magazine through me. (See http://www.csicop/org) They
did support two conferences (1985 and 1993) by paying for some of their
Executive Board to attend as speakers, but these conferences were not
arranged by or for CSICOP.

“As time went by, it became clear that the same relationship which
CSICOP had to the American National Council Against Health Fraud was to
be replicated in Britain.” P198

This refers to the founding of The Council Against Health Fraud (later
The Campaign Against Health Fraud, and now HealthWatch) by Caroline
Richmond and suggests planning and connections (and organization?).
Again, not true. Neither CSICOP nor The UK Skeptics had anything to do
with the founding of the CAHF. I attended the inaugural meeting of the
CAHF but in a personal capacity.

“Caroline Richmond….was from the beginning associated with the
‘British and Irish Skeptic’. Early in 1988, nine months before she
called the first meeting of CAHF, Richmond was being reported in the
‘British and Irish Skeptic’.” P198

“…was being reported…”. A skeptical magazine mentions the
activities of a skeptic as reported in a national newspaper. Big deal!

“Just as CSICOP is an associate organisation of the American Council
Against Health Fraud, so the Campaign Against Health Frauf (even after
its name changed to HealthWatch) was advertised on the first inside page
of the B&IS, as an affiliated organisation of the UK Skeptics.” P199

This too has the suggestion of organization. But there never was, and is
not now, an affiliation between the groups. In the first inside page (as
opposed to any other inside page) of the B&IS/The Skeptic there have
occasionally been lists of groups and organizations with similar aims. A
general disclaimer about opinions expressed did mention ‘associated
regional committees’ but these were very loose associations and the
disclaimer in the November/December 1998 edition of B&IS put it better:
“The following list of groups with broadly similar aims is printed for
readers’ information only. There is no implied association between any
of these groups and the ‘British and Irish Skeptic’.”

With reference to an article about a BMA report, ‘Dirty Medicine’ says:
“This article, on a report which had actually been published a full year
previously, disclosed an odd aspect of B&IS, revealing its links with
orthodox medicine, the BMA and the AMA and inevitably, through these
organisations, the pharmaceutical companies.” P199

Doesn’t this sentence suggest organization between skeptics and the
groups and companies mentioned? But what’s that? The B&IS didn’t publish
anything about the report for a whole year! How tardy of it considering
these supposed links with such bodies. And if these multi-million Pound
companies were backing the B&IS don’t you think it would have been
promoted and advertised widely?

‘Dirty Medicine’ also reveals that ‘The Skeptical Inquirer’ carried an
article on the report. It was written by one of the UK Skeptics, (Oh me!
Oh my!) and “uses all the key phrases and symbolic words which were to
reappear again and again in the work of the CAHF.” P199

As these were all written in English and would inevitably use much the
same jargon as they were about the same subject, this is most
surprising. Not! So what is the author of DM saying here? That these
groups got together to write in the same style? That’s some
organization, don’t you think?

“Articles such as these in the CSICOP journal and that of the UK
Skeptics, and the continual shuffling of ideas in defence of science and
orthodox medicine backwards and forwards across the Atlantic reinforce
the supposition that all these ventures were in touch with one another
on some level.” P200

As I’ve said, the UK Skeptics doesn’t have a journal and never has.
“…in touch with one another on some level…” Again, this is implying
some sort of organizational contact but these implications have little
or no foundation. So, skeptics on both sides of the Atlantic read each
others’ magazines. I read ‘Radio Times’. Does that put me in touch with
the editor on some level? I suppose it does. But it’s hardly worth
making a big deal of it.

And finally, I have this long beauty for you.

“During the gestation period of the Campaign Against Health Fraud,
Caroline Richmond was involved with the magazine ‘UK Skeptic’, which had
been set up in 1987 with money from CSICP. On its inauguration, CAHF was
advertised as a co-member of the UK Skeptics in the first page of their
magazine UK Skeptic. The British branch of the CAHF had the same
relationship to UK Skeptics, as the American Council Against Health
Fraud had to CSICOP. The health fraud campaign was, as it were, the
armed wing, while CSICOP and CSICP were made up of theorists.” P292-293

Let’s look at this bit by bit:

“During the gestation period of the Campaign Against Health Fraud,
Caroline Richmond was involved with the magazine ‘UK Skeptic’, which had
been set up in 1987 with money from CSICP.”

Involved is completely the wrong word. As mentioned above, Caroline
Richmond was reported by the January/February 1988 edition of B&IS in
connection with an article which appeared in the national press. The
only other ‘involvement’ I could find was a short review she wrote for
the Novembe
r/December edition. After that I’m sure Caroline was much too
involved with earning a living and doing unpaid work for the CAHF to do
anything for B&IS.

“On its inauguration, CAHF was advertised as a co-member of the UK
Skeptics in the first page of their magazine UK Skeptic.”

Not so. The CAHF is listed with other similar groups. As you will have
read above there is no connection between the groups.

“The British branch of the CAHF had the same relationship to UK
Skeptics, as the American Council Against Health Fraud had to CSICOP.
The health fraud campaign was, as it were, the armed wing, while CSICOP
and CSICP were made up of theorists.”

There was and is no link between the UK Skeptics and CAHF/HealthWatch.
For there to be such wings there would need to be considerable co-
operation between the two. There was no such organization.