 It's Sunday, April 11th, and this is For Good Reason. Welcome to For Good Reason. I'm DJ Grohthy. For Good Reason is the radio show and the podcast produced in association with the James Randi Educational Foundation, an international nonprofit whose mission is to advance critical thinking about the paranormal, pseudoscience, and the supernatural. My guest this week, I'm happy to say, is Simon Singh. He's an author focusing on science and mathematics for the general public, and his books include Fermat's Enigma, The Epic Quest to Solve the World's Greatest Mathematical Problem, The Code Book, and Big Bang. His newest book is Trick or Treatment, The Undeniable Facts About Alternative Medicine. He's currently being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association for comments he wrote in a column in The Guardian, and recently he won an appeal in the preliminary phase of that lawsuit. Welcome to For Good Reason, Simon Singh. First off, congratulations. You recently won your appeal in the libel case, the charges brought against you by the British Chiropractic Association for an article you wrote against chiropractic, kind of questioning the effectiveness of chiropractic a couple years ago. And to be clear, the case hasn't actually even been brought to trial. This is just the preliminary part of it, and you won an appeal in this stage. That's right. It's an appeal of the preliminary hearing. It's a very complicated situation, but very briefly, I was sued for libel for criticizing chiropractic. Now, before you go to trial, it's really useful to decide what we're arguing about. So we had what's called a preliminary hearing that was about a year ago to decide, one, what did I mean in my article, so that we know what we're talking about at trial, and two, what defenses might I be able to use. And last year, the judge ruled that I was calling chiropractors actually downright dishonest, whereas I'm only claiming that reckless. And secondly, he said I had to prove that absolutely, as opposed to merely being able to show that it's a reasonable point of view that somebody could hold based on one or two pieces of evidence. Now, we got permission to appeal. It took over a year, or about a year to get permission to appeal. We had the appeal last week, and the appeal court, which has made up of the most powerful judges in the country, they really brought out the big guns to rule on this. And they decided that, yes, you know, I am calling them reckless. I'm not calling them dishonest. And the defendant accusation of a recklessness is much easier for me, because it's what I intended all along. And secondly, I don't have to prove that they're reckless, because obviously, recklessness is subjective. It's my opinion. As long as I can base it on a few facts, then I should be able to win when we eventually go to trial. So that's where we're at now. We're set to go to trial, but I'm in a much stronger position than I was two weeks ago. This ruling didn't actually agree with you that treatments and chiropractic are medical quackery, but just that your original statement that got you into hot water, that it was a matter of opinion, that it wasn't a matter of fact, and that that allows you to actually take the case to trial. Yeah, I see, for example, let's say I say all chiropractors are taller than six feet tall. Now, that's a matter of fact, or it's not a matter of fact. We can actually measure chiropractors. We can see whether they're more than six feet tall or not. And we can decide whether my statement is an accurate fact or an inaccurate fact. Whether there is evidence to back up their treatment is always going to be a matter of opinion, because what I call evidence, somebody else may not call evidence, what I call a well-controlled trial, somebody else may not have so much respect for. That's why we have scientific arguments and scientific debates in those margins where interpretation and argument and opinion and so on can play a very important role. And more importantly, the judges made it very clear that if scientists get sued for libel, if scientists end up in court, they should be able to rely on a defense of honest opinion, which is a huge reassurance for scientists in England and elsewhere, because a lot of scientists, medical researchers, science journalists have been hauled through the libel courts. And to know that we can now rely on this defense of honest opinion, well, it really gives us an advantage in that battle. And hopefully that will mean that fewer scientists will end up being sued for libel, because the claimants will know that we've got something that we can rely on thanks to this recent appeal court decision. I want to talk about the implications of the libel laws for the larger, the broader scientific community. You were getting into that. But before we get there, I want to tease out this distinction you're making between honest opinion and fact. So the skeptical assault, let's call it, on bogus treatments out there, whatever they are, you know, some alternative medicine and complimentary treatments, the scientific community thinks there's no good evidence to warrant those claims and that indeed they can be harmful. I don't hear a lot of skeptics saying in my honest opinion, instead, they say look at the scientific evidence, look at the facts, the facts don't bear out those claims. Yes. Yeah, I think that's a good statement. I mean, when it comes down to a libel case, however, there's almost a forensic examination of the words that are used. So for example, in my case, I said there's not a jot of evidence to back up a chiropractic in the treatment of things like ear infections, asthma and colic. You know, things that really seem to have nothing to do with the spine, which is where chiropractors focus their attention. Now the phrase not a jot of evidence, does that literally mean no evidence whatsoever? Well, you know, of course not. And the fact that judges themselves said that the use of the word evidence implies good evidence, reasonable evidence, reliable evidence, because bad evidence is worse than no evidence at all. So again, then we start moving to the area of opinion into what I call good evidence, somebody else may call bad evidence. But as a science journalist, if I'm doing a reasonable job of trying to back up my argument with some reasonable points, then I'm in a much stronger position there. Do you still think there's not a jot of compelling evidence to support the claims of chiropractic being a good intervention for those kinds of medical ailments you just mentioned, ear infections, asthma? Oh, yes. And in fact, that's one of the interesting things that has happened in the last year, well, two years, in fact, since the article was published, was almost two years ago exactly. But not only have I looked at the evidence, not only have people close to me looked at the evidence, but the BMJ, the British Medical Journal, looked at the evidence. Chiropractors themselves held a review of the evidence. And over and over again, I think they're coming to exactly the same conclusion as I had two years ago. And I still hold that conclusion very strongly. One of the interesting things that skeptics in Britain did was to then start holding chiropractors to account. And if a chiropractor advertised on their website, or had leaflets, or however they marketed chiropractic, if they promoted it for the treatment of children's conditions like asthma, colic, ear infections, they would submit complaints, complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, to the Trading Standards Offices, to the Chiropractic Council. And I think at the moment, one in four chiropractors in the UK is being investigated for making allegedly misleading claims. And all of those cases will be investigated, I think in the next 12 months. So that's an example of the organized effort of the skeptical community, the kind of skeptical activists to shed light on this, and not just rely on public intellectuals to ring the alarm bell. It's a grassroots way of responding. Oh, very, very much so. These people are typically may have interest in all sorts of different areas, but they come together to look at chiropractic. And in a way, they've taken up arms because I think the learned society, the people that we would normally expect to challenge these claims, as far as I'm concerned, they're not really doing their job. Be careful you might engage in libel against them. No, that's true. I ought to be more careful. And what they've also shown is that, you know, I think a lot of us see claims in the high street or see claims made on the internet, and we complain to each other over coffee and we moan. And what they've said is actually, okay, let's quit the moaning. Let's look at what is available to us in terms of legislation, in terms of regulation, to try and stop these claims. And they pursued it. And it's a tough job because once you submit a complaint, you've then got to follow up on that complaint. You've then got to provide evidence. You've then got to attend inquiries when they happen in the next 12 months. But they've really got the bit between their teeth and are really pursuing this. I love this example of grassroots skepticism really coming to the fore and having an impact. Simon, one more question about the case particularly, before we move on to the kind of more general discussion of the libel laws, I want your take on some of that. Your opponent in this libel case, what, it's the British Chiropractic Association, right? That's right. And they kind of brought a libel complaint against you because you implied they knowingly peddled bogus treatments, not just that you said they were wrong or bogus, but that they knew it. Is that the shape of this? What tends to happen is they put forward a range of meanings. And their worst meaning that they could get out of my mouth was this accusation of deliberate dishonesty. But that's not what you were saying. You were just challenging the efficacy of the treatments, right? Yeah, that's right. And I mean, I use the word bogus. Now, bogus can mean deliberately fraudulent. It can mean, you know, you can have a bogus coin, which is a counterfeit coin, but you may not know it's counterfeit. You may be passing it on in all good faith. And bogus can mean just bad, just doesn't work. And a Bill and Ted's bogus journey doesn't mean a fraudulent journey. It just means something completely different. So they seem to have taken the worst possible meaning from my article, when in fact, a reasonable reader would have taken a much more sensible meaning, which is, okay, this stuff doesn't work. Maybe I shouldn't take my child to go and see a chiropractor. And that's exactly what the judges upheld two weeks ago. They were very forthright in their understanding of the article. And that's been a huge relief to me because after two years of fighting an uphill struggle, where all of the decisions have gone against me for the first time I'm involved in this libel case, and feeling much more optimistic about it, still not over yet, it could go on for another two years. But as I said, I'm feeling much happier now than I did a fortnight ago. Last question about this particular case. Are you optimistic that after what you guys, both parties have spent over a half million dollars, and it's not over yet, as you just mentioned, are you optimistic that the libel charge will be thrown out? You still have to defend the original article and the right to write it in court. Yeah, there are three ways it could go from where we stand today. The British Chiropractor Association could drop the case, because I think things look pretty bad for them at the moment. They could continue to trial, which could take another year, possibly two years. I think that would be unwise of them, but it's entirely their decision. Or they could appeal again and take this case to the Supreme Court. That's a very feasible option for them. But your game for that, that would kind of excite you, because you'd love the chance to argue your case in such a high-profile way, right? Yeah, I think I'm perfectly willing to do that, because already the appeal court has refined the law of libel to make it a bit more balanced. The Supreme Court could actually begin to shape libel law in an even more sensible way. If they decide to, it's entirely up to them, and if they take this case, I'm optimistic that they would see it as a good opportunity to bring English libel law more in line with the sort of libel laws that are available in the continent, in Europe, in Canada, Australia, and of course America, where I think you have some of the best laws in terms of free speech in the world. In fact, you've called the UK libel laws the worst in the world. If the US's are the best, well, even in the States, people get into hot water for making such claims. You can't call someone a fraud, even if you really think they're a fraud, unless you have some kind of evidence, and then it becomes almost a law enforcement issue and not a free speech thing. You know, if someone's fraudulently doing psychic surgery or something that quickly moves away from a free speech issue, being able to speak out and, you know, law enforcement gets involved arresting the huckster, isn't it actually a good thing, though, to have written into law a duty not to say things that injure the reputation of well-meaning folks? You know, the British Chiropractic Association, from their vantage, man, here's a science journalist who just is hell-bent on sticking it to chiropractic. Why won't he just leave them alone? Yeah, I put it slightly differently, of course. I'm hell-bent on making the public aware of evidence for various things and so on. But okay, let's look at this from scratch. Libal laws are important because we've all got a reputation, and if somebody besmirched that reputation and sullied it, then we should all have the right in law to protect that reputation. That's why the libel laws were developed and that's why we've got them in all the countries in the world. And we don't want to change that. If an individual has their reputation sullied, they should be able to protect that in law. So where's the problem? The problem in England, and it's the libel laws of England and Wales is sort of officially what they're called, the problems are numerous. So first of all, the libel laws used to be related to an individual, but a company now has the same right in law as an individual. So giant companies, multi-billion dollar corporations, can see individual bloggers, a loan skeptic, a small academic journal. They can be sued for libel. And there's a very unfair balance there in terms of the money that can be put on the table between a billion dollar corporation and a loan blogger who might be criticizing that corporation. Or that non-profit outfit who the skeptic thinks is peddling quackery, but they think they're just bringing the truth of alternative medicine to the public. So it doesn't have to be a big fortune 500 company. But then you see the problem is that libel laws in this country are horrendously expensive. We're the most expensive libel trials in the world. Compared to Europe, an English libel trial is 140 times more expensive, not twice as expensive, not 10 times expensive, but 140 times more expensive. So that's why my case can ratchet up costs of half a million dollars in two years. And we're still really at first base. We haven't even got a trial yet. Now, whenever this case is settled, the damages involved, I don't think will be anywhere near half a million dollars. If anything at all, I'm clearly hoping I'm going to win the case and there will be no damages at all. But it's clearly ridiculously disproportionate to have such an expensive trial process. And what that does is it favors the billion dollar company. It favors anybody who wants to shut up criticism. And if you're an individual who has been wrongly libeled, then you can't even afford to defend yourself because the libel laws are so expensive. So one of the things we want to do is drive down costs massively. Another problem is that a journalist, the author of the article, is guilty until proven innocent. Unlike almost any other area of law, I'm guilty until I can prove innocent. The entire burden of proof is on the defendant. So one of the things we're very keen to do is to balance that burden of proof. Another problem is in England in particular, we don't have what's called a robust public interest defense in Canada and America as well. If you're writing about an issue that's of interest to the public, health and safety and so on, the libel laws say, look, we're not going to trip you up. You know, this is important that we discuss these ideas openly because it's how society progresses. Whereas in England, if you write about a matter of public interest, you can end up being sued for libel. There's a cardiologist at the moment, Peter Wilmshurst, who's being sued for libel for raising concerns about a new heart device. Now, if he loses, he will be bankrupted, he'll be destroyed. Now, he is criticizing an American company. He gave the interview in America to an American online magazine, to a Canadian journalist at an American conference, and he ends up being sued in London. Now, the reason he's sued in London is because that case wouldn't even get off the ground in America because you realize that it's in everybody's interest that these things are discussed openly rather than shutting down criticism by a libel case. That's why the interesting thing is that a case like that, which seems very American, ends up back in England. In England, we have a problem that people all over the world bring their cases to England because our libel laws are so hostile to journalists. It's the libel tourism that says, go to the UK, that's where you'll win the case, or have the likeliest chance to win the case. That's right, and not only do we have the best chance of winning, it's so horrendously expensive that the likelihood is that the defendant will back down. So we have a Saudi billionaire, Bin Mahfoud, sued an American journalist, Rachel Ehrenfeld, a few years ago. She sold only 23 copies of her book in Britain, and yet she ended up being sued here. We have an Icelandic bank suing a Danish newspaper in London. We have Ukrainian businessmen suing Ukrainian newspapers in England, Tunisian folk suing German newspapers in England. I'm British, and I'm very proud of lots of things that are British, I'm very proud of many parts of English law that have been exported around the world. But the problem of libel tourism is something that I think we really ought to be ashamed about. And so that's exactly why the libel laws make it, you know, something that scientists get so up in arms about. Richard Dawkins, other leading scientific thinkers have spoken out about them. It actually makes doing science harder, or let's say that it makes being in the community of science where there's going to be rigorous disagreement and makes that harder. Yes, so for example, we've now got a big campaign to change English libel laws. And at the heart of the campaign have been scientific. The British medical journal has said that there are papers that it wants to publish, but it's scared of publishing in case it gets sued for libel. There are other journals that have said there are papers we want to withdraw because we know that they're wrong. But we're scared of withdrawing them in case the authors sue us for libel. We had a Swedish professor who came to England recently to talk to politicians because he wrote an article criticizing a piece of lie detection technology. The Israeli company threatened to sue the journal. And now that paper is no longer available. So we don't know what his criticisms were because now that debate has been silent. So a basic value of science, which is the best ideas rise to the top, people debate, people argue, you criticize your intellectual forebears and their ideas, you criticize the prevailing views, that's science. Well, that's not the libel laws. The libel laws are anti-scientific in that they quell that debate. Yeah, and the thing, you know, it was two weeks ago that I came out of the appeal court actually less than two weeks ago. And the thing that really made my spine tingle was that the judges wrote very eloquently. They made two points. They said the law court should not be some Orwellian ministry of truth. In other words, the law courts are not the right place to decide scientific issues. And secondly, they quoted Milton in relation to Galileo and how Galileo was persecuted centuries ago. And they said, look, we do not want to turn England into some kind of 21st century version of the society that Galileo will find himself in. We need to encourage scientists to question because exactly as you put it, that's the way ideas progress. It's the way society progresses. And England should not be notorious for quelling scientific discussion. You were talking about how really any well funded interest group, not just corporations, but push groups and professional societies, all of that, they can basically sue someone if you or Dawkins or a public intellectual or a scientist or a journalist says that they're harmful or fake or dangerous or any of that. This also goes for criticism against religious groups, right? So not just complimentary and alternative medicine, not just big pharma, but even speaking out against, say the dangers of Islamic extremism or something can get you sued in the UK. Yes, the range of cases is very widespread. On the one hand, there are human rights groups who may be working in Africa and criticizing African totalitarian regimes. And then that regime sued the human rights group in London. Wow. One of the recent stories that I don't know whether it will come to fruition or not was cartoons published. I think it was the Danish cartoons that we've been talking about for many years. Right, the Muslim cartoons. Well, I think it's a Saudi lawyer is now trying to bring a class action suit based on the descendants of Mohammed against those Danish cartoons in the London Bible Court. Now, as I said, I don't know if that will get off the ground. But if it does, it'll just have a devastating impact. But regardless how bad it is, and you're recounting the kind of the variety of cases, it's not just in medicine, you're still optimistic that the tide is turning. Yeah, I think we've got a general election in Britain coming up on May the 6th. And for the last year, we've been lobbying politicians. We've got thousands of people supporting us, including very influential people like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry, Ricky Gervais, Nobel laureates, the poet laureate, the astronomer royal and so on. And I think the politicians at last have got the message because in the last week, all three major political parties have said that they endorse the idea of radical libel reform. Now, their manifestos will be published in the next week. So we'll see whether or not there's a manifesto commitment. But each one of them has said that they want to enact a libel reform bill by the end of this coming year. And I just think that's a phenomenal tribute to the sceptical community. It's been a lot of teamwork. So there have been human rights groups as an organization called INDEX on censorship, PEN, a writer's organization, Center for Science, a group of science coordination, organization and charity, but also bloggers, sceptical movement. We had Tam London here last year. And again, just the voice from the audience of saying, look, we're fed up of these libel laws. We need them changed. We just know that at least half of the people in that room were massive support of libel reform. It's a real tribute to that grassroots movement. And real boots on the ground. So not just people listening and agreeing, nodding their heads, yes, but people who are rolling up their sleeves, getting to work. What can our listeners do in that respect to help with the effort? Well, we've got a petition, an online petition. We've got 50,000 people signed up now. Just hit 50,000. And not just from the UK. This is people from all over the world can get involved. Yeah, and I'd really welcome people around the world. The website is www.libereform.org. And the reason we welcome signatories from around the world is because of the libel tourism issue we talked about earlier. If you live in Australia, in fact, I gave an interview to an Australian journalist at the Melbourne Age, their health correspondent, and he could not publish the interview with me because his lawyer told him that there was a fear of him being sued in London. And instead he wrote a column about how terrible it was being a health reporter in Australia having to deal with English libel laws. So similarly, if you're an American blogger, you could end up being sued for libel in England. You have a little bit more protection in America because state by state by state, your passing legislation which blocks the impact of English libel law on American citizens. In other words, you're saying to us, you have so little respect for English libel that if one of your guys gets sued in London, you will not enforce that judgment on that individual, which I think is fantastic. It's very embarrassing for us. I think it's one of the reasons that English politicians are beginning to act now, but you can add pressure, further pressure for changing this country by signing the petition. So again, our listeners can go to libelreform.org and sign the petition, get involved. I'd also like to let our listeners know that you can get a copy of the book, Trick or Treatment, Alternative Medicine on Trial, that Simon Singh wrote with Edzard Ernst through our website forgoodreason.org. Simon, before we finish up, you mentioned Tam London. I'd just like to announce to our listeners that you'll be joining us at the amazing meeting in Vegas this year, Tam Vegas, the James Randi Educational Foundation's annual critical thinking conference. It's the largest event of its kind in the world. We're really excited to have you join us in July. I'm really looking forward to it. I attended probably about two or three years ago now. I came over from London with Richard Wiseman and had a fantastic time as somebody in the audience and this time I'm really looking forward to being on stage and being able to talk to those people attending Tam 2010. Yeah, we're excited. Simon Singh, thanks for joining me on For Good Reason. Look forward to seeing you in a few months. Now, in this week's installment of The Honest Liar, we take a trip to Times Square and Witness, an ancient street scam. Here's Jamie Ian Swiss. Here's a game if you want to make money five or get your 10, 10 or get your 20. Traveling on spring break from college, Matt and Rachel have just arrived at New York City's Port Authority Bus Terminal after 32 hours on the bus from Topeka. They step out into the bustle of 42nd Street and take in the sights, smells and sounds, appreciating the flashing billboards and giant video screens, the exhaust of bus engines and the smoke of street corner food vendors, the doplering sirens and taxi horns, the mass momentum of the crowds. Stopping for a hot dog from a street side cart, they notice a small but happily noisy crowd on the nearby sidewalk. Cheers and cat calls, yaps and yelps of excitement and encouragement escape from the tight circle of people and the kids wiping the mustard and sauerkraut from their mouths wait in to see what all the fuss is about. A little card game is underway. The dealer, a casually dressed black man in his 20s, mixes around three playing cards, a red ace and a pair of matching black 10s and then offers to accept bets of five, 10 or $20 on whether or not the player can find the red ace, which he explains in a colorful rhyming commentary. Red card moves like a snake in the grass, sometimes slow and sometimes fast. The game precedes a pace, a well-dressed white woman in a fur coat, bets and wins several times. The dealer handing her cash, which he adds to a growing roll of bills. A young businessman in a suit bets and Matt thinks he's made a mistake, which turns out to be the case as the dealer collects his bet and sympathetically offering the loser another try. If you think you saw it then stick around, I'll show it round again, I'll show it round again. Now the businessman is cautious and the dealer mixes the cards around a couple of times but there is a pause in the betting. Matt has been watching carefully, however quietly guessing the location of the ace to himself and almost every time the dealer turns up the cards, Matt's guess has been correct. The dealer cautions Matt not to help the businessman. If you think you know it, don't show it, he'll blow it. Now there's another round of betting, some more rapid wins and losses and each and every time as the money passes him by so closely he can almost smell it, Matt's guesses are accurate. Now the dealer mixes the cards and calls for bets but there are none coming. He turns to Matt who is gradually inch closer and closer to the table and offers a free bet. Just take a guess, no bet. Matt hesitates but then thinks there can be no harm in taking a simple guess so he just points to a card on the table. Show me your money, the dealer suddenly insists. Show it to me, just show me that you're good for it. Matt's confused by all this, it's supposed to be a free bet but some of the other players join in. Just show me I have some cash, that's all, show me you're good for it man, show him. Matt reaches into his pants pocket and holds up some money, of course he'd be good for it, he's got cash in his pockets, why not show it. Point to the card, show me where it is, 5 against 10, 10 against 20, 20 against 40. What you got there, 20, point to the card, tell me where it is. Matt, more confused than ever, looks around for a moment but somehow the crowd has gotten between him and Rachel. She's on the other side of several standing bodies now and those same bodies have crowded in tightly to eagerly watch the action so while Matt looks for a path by which to escape it seems closed off to him for the moment so he turns back to the table and weakly points to the card. The dealer turns the card over, it's a black 10. With one hand he reaches out and snatches a 20 out of Matt's hand while with the other he turns over another card to show Matt where the ace really ended up. Oh too bad buddy here try again. As the dealer mixes the cards quickly again a female player encourages Matt, don't worry baby you'll get it back, watch close you'll get him. In a moment Matt loses another 20. The businessman who has sat out the last couple of rounds admonishes him, oh man how could you miss at that time, it was over here, I was going to bet but you beat me to it. The dealer turns over the ace demonstrating that the kibitzer was indeed correct. Now Matt's down $40 a substantial portion of his and Rachel's weekend stake it all happened so quickly so unexpectedly if you looked up to Rachel now he'd see her insistently beckoning to him to come along right this instant but he doesn't look back because he not only needs to prove himself and get his money back but he's just noticed something unexpected. While he was thinking about his next move the friendly businessman has lost another bet and inventing his frustration the player throws the two loose black cards to the ground. The dealer does not take kindly to this and as he bends to retrieve his cards he scolds the player harshly admonishing him not to touch the cards again. In that same instant however as the operator is bending to retrieve his cards from the ground the player quickly reaches out and ever so slightly bends up the corner of the red ace that remains on the playing surface. Matt considers the implications of the shifting battlefield perhaps his fortune is due for a change. The industrious businessman's fortune changes immediately however when he bets on the card with the bent corner and wins. The operator who barely looks at the cards as he mixes them around he's too busy looking at the players and their money he pays off. I pay my money dollar for dollar and if I lose I don't holla but he's still peeved at this guy and he makes it plain he doesn't want him to continue playing. Just then however the woman in the fur coat jumps in and drops $50 on one of the cards except she has noticed the bent corner and his bet on what turns out to be a black 10 a loser. The operator collects her 50 but leaving the other two cards in place he pauses and offers to take a bet on the remaining situation. This is an option Matt had not previously considered. As the dealer turns towards Matt to encourage a bet the other player the one who bent the corner just a few moments before silently signals to Matt he should watch for the bent corner and take advantage of the windfall he's generously sent Matt's way. Who says New Yorkers aren't friendly to strangers? It's just too much to pass up but when Matt holds up some cash the operator objects no no buddy you you you already got to see one card I'll only take $100 now on this bet odds have changed it's 50 50 now. Matt pauses it's most of the cash he and Rachel have for their weekend. He looks but can't see Rachel in the crowd although he thinks he hears her calling his name and he does see his friendly co-conspirator silently imploring him not to waste this unique opportunity. After all the dealer's bound to notice a bet corner any moment now and any advantage of a sure thing will be lost. Matt's confidence that he can put one over on the operator over takes his doubts. So Matt puts down his $100 in front of the card with the bent corner and the dealer graciously tells him to turn the card over himself. Matt reaches to pick up the card if you could smell the money before he can almost taste it now along with the remnants of that first New York City hot dog and finds himself frozen in stunned silence. His mouth dropping open in a cartoon character's expression as he finds himself holding a black ten with a bent corner. It's an impossibility that Matt can neither comprehend nor explain but the impossible is now his reality. With Matt's money gone the game quickly breaks up. The operator grabs his cards and vanishes in a puff of parting sympathies. This ain't no guess it's just a eye test. The corner bender pats him on the shoulder. Too bad buddy hey you'll get it next time as he heads out into the street and moments later there's no trace of the game or the players. Just Rachel crying now as they walk to find a hostel. How could you do that? We have no money to eat. Where are we going to stay? What happened to you? And Matt wishes he knew. And if you'd like to know all will be explained in next week's installment. This is Jamie Ian Swiss and I am The Honest Liar. Thank you for listening to this episode of For Good Reason. For updates throughout the week find my page on Facebook or follow me on Twitter. To get involved with an online conversation about today's episode join the discussion at forgoodreason.org. Views expressed on For Good Reason aren't necessarily the views of the James Randi Educational Foundation. Questions and comments on today's show can be sent to info at forgoodreason.org. For Good Reason is produced by Thomas Donnelly and recorded from St. Louis, Missouri. Our music is composed for us by MA Award nominated Gary Stockdale. Contributors to today's show included Jamie Ian Swiss and Christina Stevens. I'm your host, DJ Glovie.