Providentia

William Miller and the Great Disappointment

William Miller was never your typical doomsday prophet.

Born in Massachusetts in 1782, he was the son of a captain who had served in the American Revolution and spent most of his early life in Washington County, New York.   Despite his solid Baptist upbringing,  William Miller would later say that he always felt the need for a more personal connection with God but was never quite sure of the form that relationship should take.

After marrying and settling down to his life as a farmer, he likely would have had an uneventful life had it not been for the War of 1812 where he served as a captain.   In 1816, likely as a result of his wartime experiences,  Miller developed an obsession with the afterlife and the need to use the Bible to develop clear and accurate answers to all of the questions in life.   He then spent the next fifteen years in a careful study of the Bible where he "found everything revealed that my heart could desire, and a remedy for every disease of the soul."

Along with his Bible study, William Miller also followed news of the various millennial movements that were springing up throughout the United States at the time.   It is hard to say why people were so receptive to idea that the Second Coming was at hand in that part of the country.   Whether it was due to anxiety over the worsening economic climate (the Panic of 1837 had led to a terrible recession), political uncertainty (the tension that would lead to the Civil War breaking out was already being felt), or lingering anxiety over New England's Dark Day,  numerous religious figures came forward with their own message of coming doom and the need to repent.  

Religious figures such as Jemima Wilkinson ,  Ann Lee and even the venerable John Wesley were proclaiming an impending day of judgment.  Many of these inspirational preachers advocated postmillennialism with Christ returning after a thousand years of universal brotherhood and peace.  Miller was deeply bothered by these teachings since he believed that the Second Coming of Christ would happen first with the millennium of peace following. 

In a statement of faith which wrote to his brother, Miller said that Christ would come:

In the glory of God, in the clouds of Heaven, with all the saints and angels, change the bodies of all that are alive on Earth that are his, and both the living and raised saints will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. 

As for the ones "left behind" however,they would not fare so well.   Miller maintained that the Earth would be "cleansed by fire, the elements will melt with fervent heat, the works of men will be destroyed, the bodies of the wicked will be burned to ashes."    Not only would the wicked (i.e., anyone who rejected the Gospel) die but their spirits would be "banished from the Earth, shut up in the pit" and not be allowed to return to Earth for 1000 years.    Along with Isaac Newton and a host of other Bible scholars, William Miller examined apocalyptic works such as the Book of Daniel and Revelation to calculate when the Second Coming would occur.

Working from Daniel 8:14 "Until two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed", Miller determined that the Second Coming would occur on March 23, 1843.   Knowing full well that he would be mocked if he openly announced this to the world, Miller only told a few friends and likely would never have come to public attention at all if not for Joshua Vaughan Himes.

Himes, was the minister at Boston's Chardon Street chapel and also a zealous evangelist.   Convinced by Miller's message, Himes invited him to give a sermon in 1839 which led to numerous other invitations from other ministers for Miller to speak.   Not only did this lead to Miller's message being heard by thousands of people, other ministers (including Himes) began preaching the message of imminent judgment as well.

In addition to frequent sermons, Joshua Himes also published a series of magazines and pamphlets including the Midnight Cry and Signs of the Times.   Though Miller and his supporters gained countless supporters,  there was considerable public scorn as well.  Newspapers began reporting on Miller's appearances and the crowds that inevitably gathered.   Editorials blaming Miller for cases of insanity or suicide that they attributed to his message became common. 

The sighting of an extremely bright comet in 1843 set off new apocalyptic fears and William Miller had more followers than ever.  Oddly enough, he largely ignored the comet since he felt that the Bible alone provided all the information needed.    He certainly had no intention of founding a new religion (why bother with converts when Judgment Day was just around the corner?).   Most of his teachings were perfectly consistent with what mainstream Christian preachers were saying in their own sermons, hence his frequent invitations to give guest sermons across much of the country. 

Despite Miller's reluctance to pin down a specific date for the Second Coming, he and his followers eventually settled on April 23, 1843 based on their careful calculations.    As the date approached, the crowds attending his sermons swelled and newspapers were alarmed by his message.   Newspaper editorials warned that widespread belief in Miller's message might lead to social and economic upheaval if farmers decided not to plant crops or if craftsmen stopped producing goods.  

When April 23 came and went with no Second Coming, William Miller went back to the Bible and started recalculating.   Concluding that he had made a mistake by relying on solar years instead of lunar years, he recalculated the date as occurring in the spring of 1844.   Despite their previous disappointment, the Millerites (as they were then known) decided to prepare for the new date in spectacular fashion.  After purchasing an enormous tent capable of holding more than two thousand people, they went on a grand tour through New York and Ohio.  Rumours also began circulating that the Millerites had prepared "ascension robes" that they could wear as they rose into Heaven.  Though these rumours were likely exaggerated, some sources suggest that many Millerites prepared special robes for that reason (even though Miller never called for any special preparations). 

March 21 came and went with nothing remarkable happening.  Undaunted, William Miller insisted that the Second Coming was at hand but concluded that it would likely happen in the fall instead (though this time, he was careful not to provide an exact date).    Another Millerite, S.S. Snow, floated the suggestion that October 22, 1844 would be the correct date since it fell on Yom Kippur (also my birthday, but that was likely a coincidence).   William Miller had his doubts but allowed his followers to convince him.  

At the same time, there was also a growing disenchantment with Miller and his followers.  Many of the ministers who had invited him to speak to their congregations were now ignoring him completely.  Even the newspapers were doing little more than ridiculing the movement.    Editorials predicted "mob scenes" and public disorder while many stores and shops were closed with signs saying "This shop is closed in honor of the King of Kings, who will appear about the 20th of October.  Get ready, friends, to crown him, Lord of All."    When October 22 came and went, the Millerite movement was essentially over though William Miller and Joshua Himes took up a new cause raising money for Millerites who had impoverished themselves by leaving their jobs and giving away their possessions.

Thus began the period known as "the Great Disappointment".   While many Millerites tried to come up with varied explanation of which Christ failed to arrive (eg, Miller had his date wrong, Christ HAD arrived secretly, etc.), the anguish that many of the followers felt was immense.   As one follower later wrote, "Our fondest hopes and expectations were blasted, and such a spirit of weeping came over us as I never experienced before... We wept, and wept, till the day dawn."     Though the movement struggled on, William Miller was no longer part of it.   Though devastated by the failure of his calculations, William Miller continued preaching until his eyesight failed him.   He died on December 20, 1849, still convinced that the Second Coming would happen at any time. 

The Millerite movement might well have petered out completely if it had not been for Joshua Himes.  Refusing to give up on the message of imminent salvation, Himes and his son established the Adventist movement and launched a series of publications, including the Advent Christian Times.    Himes eventually abandoned the Adventists and rejoined the Episcopalian church before dying in 1896 but, by that time, Adventist churches were well-established with various offshoots including the Seventh-Day Adventists and Advent Christians. 

Though the Adventists who followed after Miller and Hines tended to downplay Miller's message of imminent judgment, there were several other false alarms involving Adventist predictions of Christ's return.  These included Jonathan Cummings' prediction that Christ would return in 1854 and William Thurman's prediction that it would happen in 1875.   Despite attracting a small following, neither of them had the impact that William Miller did.

Miller's ultimate legacy was to discredit Doomsday prophets for a least another generation.   Though other doomsayers would arise, it would a long time before any of them would work up the nerve to have their predictions put to a public test and risk the same fate as Miller and his followers.    The "Great Disappointment" would cast a shadow on evangelist movements for decades to come.

Females have more complex patterns of childhood adversity: Implications for mental, social, and emotional outcomes in adulthood.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been identified as an important public health problem with serious implications. Less well understood is how distinct configurations of childhood adversities carry differential risks for mental health, emotional, and social outcomes later in life. A new study published in the European Journal of Psychotraumatology  attempts to determine if distinct profiles of childhood adversities exist for males and females and to examine if unique associations exist between the resultant latent profiles of childhood adversities and multiple indicators of mental health and social and emotional wellbeing in adulthood. Method: Participants (N = 1,839) were a nationally representative household sample of adults currently residing in the USA and the data were collected via online self-report questionnaires. Latent class analysis was used to identify the optimal number of classes to explain ACE co-occurrence among males and females, separately. ANOVAs, chi-square tests, and t-tests were used to compare male and female classes across multiple mental health, emotional, and social wellbeing variables in adulthood. Results: Females were significantly more likely than males to report a range of ACEs and mental health, social, and emotional difficulties in adulthood. Two- and four-class models were identified as the best fit for males and females, respectively, indicating more complexity and variation in ACE exposures among females. For males and female, ACEs were strongly associated with poorer mental health, emotional, and social outcomes in adulthood. Among females, growing up in a dysfunctional home environment was a significant risk factor for adverse social outcomes in adulthood. Conclusions: Males and females have distinct patterns of childhood adversities, with females experiencing more complex and varied patterns of childhood adversity. These patterns of ACEs were associated with numerous negative mental, emotional, and social outcomes among both sexes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

For the abstract

Prison Sentence Handed Down For Operators of Chinese Internet Addiction Camp

Curing video game abuse has become big business in China, but is the cure worse than the disease?   The recent conviction of four men who placed children at an internet addiction camp into  solitary confinement is raising troubling questions about what is happening in these treatment camps.

Ever since the Chinese government  declared internet addiction a clinical disorder in 2008, hundreds of treatment centers have sprung up across the country, many of which are largely unregulated.    With an estimated 900 million users and with 93 percent of minors going online, not to mention surveys suggesting as many as 24 million internet addicts between the age of fourteen and twenty-nine, the reported panic over potential harm of  digital abuse to young people means a virtually unlimited demand for these treatment services.   But recent headlines are causing China's authorities to take a closer look at these centers and  allegations of abuse that are becoming more common.   In 2017, for example, an 18-year-old man died two days after being sent to a treatment camp with parents later reporting that they found bruising and scars covering his body.   Another case from  2014 involved a 19-year-old girl who died after reportedly beaten by instructors at an "internet detox center"   in China's Henan Province.   Other camps have also been reported forcing children to take medication as well as undergoing aversive therapy akin to electroconvulsive therapy to punish students.

In the latest case, the four men were found guilty of illegal detention after placing 12 young people in solitary confinement for ten days at the Yuzhang Academy in Jiangxi province. Eleven of the victims were less than 18 years old at the time.  They received sentences ranging from three years to eleven months.  Allegations of physical abuse at the Yuzhang Academy go back for years  with reports of severe corporal punishment to "cultivate teenagers' moral character" as well as frequent use of putting new students  in "little black rooms" with nothing but a blanket and a pot for a toilet.  

While the Chinese government appears to be cracking down in Internet treatment camps, they are also imposing harsher measures to curb what they view as problematic Internet use.  This includes imposing curfews on adolescents to keep them from playing late in the evening.    On weekdays, they are allowed 90 minutes of play with up to three hours on the weekend.   Last year, the Chinese government also introduced  a new  "juvenile mode" for children on eighteen popular video sites, which restricts usage time as well as the type of content they are allowed to see.   The new system is expected to be expanded to other popular sites in the near future.  

In the meantime, most Western mental health organizations continue to wrestle over whether Internet addiction can be considered a treatable mental condition though Gaming Disorder has been formally added to the latest version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11).    Though many other countries, including South Korea have launched their own initiatives to curb online abuse, treatment centers such as those found in China remain rare,  for now.  

Why Are People So Skeptical About Psychology?

Why can't psychologists get respect?

A provocative article published in American Psychologist a few years back tackles that very question.  Written by Emory University psychologist , Scott Lilienfeld (who is also one of the co-authors of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior), the article examines why psychology has become the "Rodney Dangerfield of the sciences" with a public reputation for being unscientific.    While the science of psychology has often faced legitimate criticism for overly depending on statistical significance testing, overly vague psychological models, and political correctness that limits legitimate scientific investigation into sensitive issues,  most of those criticisms have been raised by psychologists on the inside seeking to strengthen the discipline as a whole. 

Most of these disputes are often invisible to people outside psychology itself and public skepticism concerning psychology typically focus on misunderstandings of what psychology is and the sorts of questions that psychologists attempt to answer.  And this pervasive misunderstanding can have far-reaching consequences.   Not only do elected politicians voting on science funding often short-change psychological research projects for not being "real science" (including omitting psychology from some funding agencies lists for  STEM disciplines), but potential mental health consumers who might otherwise benefit from psychological treatment may be reluctant to seek help due to misconceptions about what a psychologist actually does.

While psychologist advocacy groups (including the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science) have tried to fight back against these misconceptions, public attitudes concerning psychology and psychological research have been slow to change.  In 2006, the American Psychological Association Science Directorate released a pamphlet titled  Prepare Now to Prevail If Your Research is Attacked:  Self-Defense for the Psychological Scientist which basically advised researchers on how to defend themselves  against political, media, and public attacks that misrepresent their findings.   The pamphlet provides basic self-defense tips such as: 

• Be aware that the grant application abstract from your research is accessible to and searchable by the public and Congress and should describe your research in lay terms.
• Create an easy-to-understand, one-page summary of your research that illustrates why it is important to the public.
• Request media training from your university.  and
• Establish a relationship with your university’s public and legislative affairs office.

Unfortunately, as Dr. Lilienfeld points out, efforts by researchers to fight misconceptions about their research are only mildly effective since they overlook the underlying reasons for widespread skepticism about psychology.   In addressing this skepticism, he focused on two basic questions:  a) are the negative views of psychology's scientific status held by many outsiders warranted? and b) what are the principal sources of the views?    Negative media views about psychology date to the very beginnings of psychology itself wth early psychologists such as William James who wrote uncritically about spiritualism and other pseudoscientific fads.  While other psychologists including Hugo Munsterberg and Theodore Flournoy distinguished themselves as skeptical debunkers, their efforts tended not to be so well-publicized.  Early attempts by forensic psychologists to prove the credibility of psychological research in the courtroom also helped damage the credibility of psychologists as a whole.  As one example, Harvard psychologist, Hugo Munsterberg, had a particularly troubling love-hate relationship with the media and his testimony during the 1907 Harry Orchard trial severely undermined the credibility of the fledgling science of forensic psychology for years afterward.  Regardless of the scientific merits of the research, media  controversies surrounding psychologists such as William Moulton Marston and his lie detector, B.F. Skinner' and his "Heir Conditioner", and Wilhelm Reich and orgone technology likely reinforced the view of mental health researchers as wooly-headed and unscientific.

Even in the the present day, numerous editorials and unflattering stories about psychological research are still common.  A 1982 New York Times editorial by Nicholas Wade reported on a Psychology Today survey that asked eleven psychologists to identify the most significant finding in psychology for the previous fifteen years.   The editorial, titled "If This is Consensus, Psychology Can't Be Much of a Science" used the lack of consensus among the polled psychologists and concluded that  "The results are astonishing: it would seem that there have been none".  The editorial's author added that the failed consensus "evinces a serious problem in their academic discipline".    It was during this same period that David Stockman, President Reagan's then-Director of the Office of Management and Budget justified the decision to slash behavioural science funding by declaring that psychology was a pseudo-science. 

Along with unflattering criticisms of psychology in the media, opinion surveys have indicated that large segments of society continue to view psychology as unscientific and that daily life experiences were often sufficient to provide most people with adequate exposure to make informed opinions about human behaviour.  One 1998 survey study found that both the general population and college faculty rated psychology and sociology as being significant lower than five other disciplines (biology, chemistry, economics, medicine, and physics) in terms of their "contribution of the discipline to society".  Psychologists were specifically identified as being lower in expertise than most other disciplines and that the general population was typically better off relying on "common sense".

A 2008 marketing study commissioned by the American Psychological Association reflected ongoing public misgivings about the scientific value of psychology.  While 82 per cent of study respondents agreed that psychological research helped to improve people's lives, only a minority of participants had a clear idea of what psychologists actually did or the full range of research issues addressed by psychological research.  The overwhelming consensus was that psychology is a "soft science" with less rigour than most other disciplines as well as requiring less time to develop expertise as opposed to other sciences.   Other studies have shown widespread skepticism about psychology's value to society compared to other scientific disciplines seen as more important.

But why is this skepticism so widespread?  According to Dr. Lilienfield, the skepticism often focuses on six common misconceptions about psychology that are often cited by critics:

• Psychology is merely "common sense"
• Psychology does not use scientific methods
• Psychology can not yield meaningful generalizations because everyone is unique
• Psychology does not yield repeatable results
• Psychology can not make precise predictions
• Psychology is not useful to society

While psychologists can respond to these misconceptions effectively, Dr. Lilienfield stresses that widespread skepticism is often reinforced by the slowness on the part of psychologist to weed out those questionable practice that often still thrive.   These practices include the continuing use of treatments and tests that do not have adequate scientific support such as alternative medicine, "recovered memories" of past abuse using hypnosis or other suggestive techniques, as well as the failure of psychologists to use the best evidence-based treatments to treat emotional or behavioural problems.   Of the thousands of self-help books (many of which prominently feature the authors as psychologists), only a small percentage actually off scientifically tested information.  These books often feature oversimplified advice or make elaborate claims that go well beyond established scientific research.   Also,there seems to be widespread resistance among psychologists to test established mental health treatments scientifically which can often feed into public skepticism.

In the end, this failure to police psychology as a whole means that media psychologists such as Dr Phil McGraw and Dr. Laura Schlessinger (whose Ph.D is in physiology) are free to present themselves as psychology's public face and to dispense unscientific advice freely.  That  the American Psychological Association invited "Dr. Phil" to speak at its 2006 annual convention to highlight the effective communication of psychology to the public reflects the problem that many psychologists face in being accepted as scientists.  Even the very word "psychologist" is often a source of confusiondue to role diffusion between psychologists, psychotherapists, psychoanalysts, social workers, and psychiatrists who often provide highly similar services.   Surveys have consistently shown that large segments of the American general population are unable to distinguish between different mental health professionals.

Along with the general role confusion facing psychologists seeking acceptance, Dr.Lilienfeld also identified cognitive biases underlying public skepticism of psychological research.   These include hindsight bias (regarding a research conclusion as seeming obvious in hindsight),  that research questions addressed by psychologists are often perceived as less difficult to answer than questions addressed by scientists in other disciplines, the failure to distinguish basic from applied research, the popularity of reductionist explanations of human behaviour (including explanations based on neuroscience, biochemistry, and human evolution),  as well as the refusal to accept that certain subjects can be tested empirically at all, a.k.a  the scientific impotence excuse. 

So where does this leave us?   While large segments of the general population are still skeptical of psychology's value, survey data suggests some cause for optimism although there is considerably more that needs to be done.   As Dr. Lilienfeld points out, psychologists cannot blame their continuing credibility problems exclusively on public misconceptions.    The failure of psychologists to embrace evidence-based practices and to keep advocating treatments that have been shown not to work effectively is definitely part of the problem.  As well, we shouldn't let flashy media psychologists continue to be seen as psychology's public face instead of the more legitimate research psychologists who can provide a more balanced view of what psychology is realy about.   Since academics are often reluctant to confront pseudoscience, misconceptions continue to flourish.

In his conclusion, Dr. Lilienfeld makes the following recommendations:  on the individual level,  psychologists need to make a greater effort to make their work available to the public through popular writing (Daniel Kahnemann, Steven Pinker, Dan Ariely,  Christoper Chabris and Daniel Simons are all examples of psychologists who have written bestselling books on psychology).   On the institutional level, universities and psychology advocacy groups need to make a greater effort to integrate psychological research into psychology's public face instead of simply reacting blindly to controversies as they arise.  He also stresses the need to debate the often legitimate objections that many people raise to questionable practices in psychology and to weed out those fads that are ultimately damaging to our reputations as psychologists.  Psychologists should stop feeling threatened by public skepticism and learn to recognize that this skepticism can be a useful way of identifying potential problems in our profession and how we are seen by non-psychologists.

To close this post, I think Dr. Lilienfeld's closing words would probably work best:

Just as former New York City Mayor Ed Koch (1981) became famous for asking his constituents “How'm I doing?” as a means of gauging his performance, we as a field should continually be asking the general public “How are we doing?” and be prepared to take their critical feedback to heart if their answers are not to our liking

For the abstract.

Disaster-related prenatal maternal stress, and childhood HPA-axis regulation and anxiety: The QF2011 Queensland Flood Study.

The fetal programming hypothesis suggests that prenatal maternal stress (PNMS) influences aspects of fetal development, such as the Hypothalamic Pituitary Adrenal (HPA) axis, enhancing susceptibility to emotional problems. No study (to our knowledge) has investigated this pathway considering development of preschool anxiety symptoms. A new study in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology uses data from the Queensland Flood study (QF2011) determine whether toddler HPA-axis functioning mediated the association between aspects of flood-related PNMS and child anxiety symptoms at 4-years, and whether relationships were moderated by the timing of the stressor in utero or by the child’s sex. Women, pregnant during the 2011 Queensland floods (N = 230), were recruited soon afterwards and completed questionnaires regarding their objective hardship (e.g., loss of personal property), subjective distress (post-traumatic-like symptoms) and cognitive appraisal of the disaster. At 16 months, indexes of the child’s diurnal cortisol rhythm (awakening response, total daily output, diurnal slope [N = 80]), and stress reactivity (N = 111), were obtained. At 4-years, N = 117 mothers reported on their own mood and their children’s anxiety symptoms; of these, N = 80 also had valid child cortisol reactivity data, and N = 64 had diurnal cortisol rhythm data. Results show that a greater cortisol awakening response at 16 months mediated the relationship between subjective PNMS and anxiety symptoms at 4-years. Greater toddler daily cortisol secretion predicted more anxiety symptoms, independent of PNMS. The laboratory stressor did not elicit a cortisol response. PNMS effects were not dependent upon child sex nor on gestational timing of flood exposure. The researchers conclude that indexes of diurnal cortisol in toddlerhood may represent vulnerability for anxiety symptoms in preschoolers, both independent of, and following, exposure to disaster-related prenatal maternal subjective distress. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

For the abstract

Why Has An Autistic Man Been in a U.K Psychiatric Hospital for Fourteen Years?

It began over fourteen years ago when Sharon Clarke called the U.K. National Health Service (NHS) due to her concern for her 17-year-old son, Ryan.   Though the wounds he inflicted on himself with a razor were superficial, Ryan's long history of psychiatric treatment (he was on Olanzapine at the time), his mother recognized his self-injuring as a "cry for help" and hoped that the NHS crisis team would be able to help stabilize Ryan's condition.  Instead, her was placed in a psychiatric hospital unit.  And he remained in legal custody ever since.

Now 31 years of age, Ryan Clarke has been in secure forensic units for the past nine years and his parents insist that years of segregation and potential abuse have caused incalculable harm.   He is currently in the Humber Centre in Hull, a facility normally reserved for inmates who have committed serious crimes, and is kept heavily medicated as well as under constant observation.    Though he was originally placed in an open mental health facility, his condition quickly deteriorated because of his separation from his family. 

"He was crying to come home but I told him he had to stay because they were going to make him better," Sharon Clarke said in a recent interview. "All these years later, look where we are."    According to hospital reports received by the U,K. newspaper, The Independent,  Ryan was finally diagnosed as autistic in 2018 but is also experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his years of segregation.   He is also showing signs of physical abuse and has lost many of his teeth due to his long medication use.   While he is scheduled to receive new dentures, hospital officials remain uncertain when this will occur.  

And Ryan Clarke is far from being the only autistic patient being held in secure psychiatric units.  According to data recently released by the Independent, there are more than 2000 patients with learning disorders and/or autism detained in hospitals.   Many of them are being kept from their families and the kind of emotional support that might help them function better.  Instead, they are locked away under conditions guaranteed to aggravate their symptoms and make it much harder to release them into the community.   And there are more cases like this than ever.  

According to Sharon Clarke, her son showed no signs of violence prior to being hospitalized.  But, after years of being segregated, and with no physical contact allowed with any family members, Ryan has become increasingly agitated and combative, particularly with staff.   Though the rule against hugging has been relaxed following Ryan's autism diagnosis, his mother still sees the effect of his years in isolation.  "He did have problems. He hated surprises but apart from that he loved animals and was a proper family person. He was never violent or aggressive, never," she said.  “I can’t believe the things they say he has done, it’s just not my son. He has become institutionalized. I want him to come out and become the son I know.  If I was locked up like him I would probably react the same way.”

While his doctors, nurses, and even an NHS tribunal all agree that Ryan shouldn't be in segregation, his prospects for release seem remote at best.   Where he can go, and how he will be handled outside of a secure unit, are questions that have yet to be answered.   As for Sharon Clarke, she can only continue visiting her son and crusade for his release.  But she is well aware that the damage of his long hospitalization may never be reversed.  “They have not only stolen him away from me, they’ve stolen his youth away from him," she says. 

The Sleepwalker Defense

On May 24, 1987, 23-year-old Kenneth James Parks left his home in Pickering, Ontario and drove more than twenty kilometers  to the home of his in-laws, Barbara Ann and Denis Woods.   Since it was still early morning, his in-laws were sleeping when Parks let himself into the house with the key they had given him.   On entering their bedroom, he then bludgeoned his mother-in-law to death with a tire iron he had been carrying.   While he managed to seriously injure Denis Woods, Parks left the house and returned to his car.   He then drove to a nearby police station where, still covered in blood,  he told the officers, " I just killed someone with my bare hands; Oh my God, I just killed someone; I've just killed two people; My God, I've just killed two people with my hands; My God, I've just killed two people.  My hands; I just killed two people.  I killed them; I just killed two people; I've just killed my mother‑ and father‑in‑law.  I stabbed and beat them to death.  It's all my fault."

Arrested for the first-degree murder of Barbara Ann Woods and the attempted murder of her husband, Parks seemed destined for conviction and life imprisonment.  That is, until the case came to trial and his defense attorney put forward a rather unique legal defense:  Kenneth James Parks could not be held liable for his actions because he had committed them while sleepwalking.  Long classified as a sleep disorder, somnambulism represents a twilight state between sleep and wakefulness during which sleepers could engage in complex activities usually seen during wakefulness.   This includes activities such as carrying on phantom conversations, wandering around or outside the home, , eating, or even potentially dangerous activities such as swimming or driving.    And yes, there have been cases of homicides committed by people while sleepwalking, though they tend to be rare.

While somnambulism had been successfully used as a legal defense in previous criminal trials in other countries,  there we no legal precedents under Canadian law so convincing a jury remained a major challenge for Parks' defense attorney.  During the trial, the court heard testimony about Parks' long history of deep sleep, including difficulty waking up on many occasions.   In the year leading up to the murder, Parks had reportedly been under intense stress due to having to work ten hours a day at his job as a project coordinator for an electric company.  He was also experiencing financial problems resulting from heavy loses from his gambling on horse races.   This resulted in his embezzling $30,000 from his employer, the discovery of which led to his being fired from his job and facing charges as well (he would later make full restitution).  

His wife and in-laws were fully aware of all of this and were reportedly supportive.   Parks had an especially strong relationship with his mother-in-law who referred to him as "the gentle giant."   Though his father-in-law was more distant, Parks' in-laws were willing to help him and his wife financially.   As a result, there was no motive for the murder and attempted murder, something which undermined the prosecution's case against him.   To bolster the defense case, the court also heard testimony that other members of the Parks family also suffered from sleep problems such as sleepwalking, adult enuresis, nightmares and sleeptalking.    The defense also brought in different medical experts in psychiatry and neurology who testified about the validity of the sleepwalking defense as well as EEG measurements of Parks' brain activity while asleep and awake that was consistent with findings from other somnambulists.

Despite the initial skepticism about Parks claim that he was not criminally liable due to his somnambulism, he was unanimously acquitted of murder in May, 1988. Also, because somnambulism was not ruled to be a "disease of the mind",  he was also not deemed to be mentally ill.    The Crown later appealed this decision and argued that Parks should have been committed to a psychiatric hospital by reason of insanity as he had been in a state of "automatism" at the time of the murder.  This included reexamining the medical evidence, including testimony from Five physicians were heard:  Dr. Roger James Broughton, a neurophysiologist and specialist in sleep and sleep disorders, Dr. John Gordon Edmeads, a neurologist, Dr. Ronald Frederick Billings, a psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Wood Hill, a forensic psychiatrist, and Dr. Frank Raymond Ervin, a neurologist and psychiatrist, all of whom reaffirmed their belief that Parks wasn't mentally ill and that somnambulists who committed criminal acts while asleep rarely reoffended.  

In a decision that was later upheld by the Canadian Supreme Court, the original acquittal was deemed to  be valid since there was reasonable doubt that Kenneth Clark had voluntarily attacked his in-laws.  As for the question of whether his somnambulism was due to a disease of mind, the Supreme Court ruled that the Crown had failed to provide sufficient proof that he had been insane at the time of the murder and, as such, no legal mistakes had been made that might have overturned the earlier court decision.  The Court thwn ruled that there was insufficient evidence to show that the defendant posed a recurring danger to the public or that special precautions, including placement in a psychiatric hospital, would be needed to reduce the risk of his reoffending.   The Crown was also deemed to have failed in proving that that Clark's somnambulism stemmed from an "internal cause", i.e., that it had been due to psychological or emotional factors that  might reflect mental health concerns. 

Along with setting legal history in Canada, the decision generated headlines around the world.   Even the Supreme Court judges handing down their decision recognized that problematic nature of the sleepwalking defense when they wrote, "Some will regard the exoneration of an accused through the defense of somnambulism as an impairment of the credibility of our justice system...However, these views are contrary to certain fundamental precepts of our criminal law.  Only those who act voluntarily with the requisite intent to commit an offense should be punished by criminal sanction.   The concern of those who reject these underlying values of our system of criminal justice should accordingly be discounted."  

 In 1990, author June Callwood wrote a book on the Parks case titled, The Sleepwalker:  The Trial That Made Canadian Legal History which quickly became a true crime classic.   She also championed similar criminal cases, including Dorothy Joudrie who attempted to kill her estranged husband in 1995.   While Joudrie's legal defense focused on temporary insanity stemming from abuse rather than somnambulism, the circumstances seemed close enough to evoke the specter of the Parks decision of just a few years earlier (Joudrie was acquitted though the decision continues to be controversial).   Callwood also helped write a 1997 film, The Sleepwalker Killing, which was loosely based on the Parks case.

In the years since Kenneth Parks was acquitted, there have been at least five known cases in which homicidal sleepwalking has been invoked as a defense in a criminal trial.    The circumstances of these crimes, and how they were treated by the courts, varied widely range from outright acquittal to life imprisonment (typically in cases where the killer's actions were seen as "too complex" to justify a somnambulism defense).   Despite many of the concerns raised by the R. Vs. Parks decision, homicidal sleepwalking hasn't proved particularly popular as  a criminal defense, largely due to the difficulties involved in providing adequate proof to satisfy the courts.   

As for Kenneth Parks, he has returned to his normal life and, aside from the continuing public interest in his case, has largely remained out of the public eye.   No word on whether he still walks in his sleep...

The Lady and the Ouija Board

It's still not certain how "Patience Worth" came into Pearl Curran's life.

Born Pearl Lenore Pollard in 1883, her childhood seemed normal enough. By all accounts, she was extremely sensitive about her appearance and wished that she were more attractive. While not a good student (who eventually dropped out of high school), she had a passion for singing. Pearl's parents arranged for voice lessons and she eventually moved to Chicago to continue her voice training. To support herself, she worked in a music company and taught music herself.Whatever dreams Pearl had for a career as a singer or actress ended when she married John Howard Curran at the age of 24 and settled down to be a housewife in St. Louis, Missouri. While John wasn't wealthy, he made enough for Pearl to have a comfortable life, a maid to do the housework, and a fair sized home. The first seven years of marriage seemed happy enough.

Except...

Spiritualism was tremendously popular during the early years of the twentieth century with countless occult believers across most English speaking countries. Mediums like Eusapia Palladino and Helene Smith regularly conducted seances for the rich and not-so-rich alike and news of "spooky" happenings definitely sold newspapers. While Houdini's anti-spiritualism crusade helped deflate spiritualist claims, there was still enough interest for ouija boards to be a common item in many homes.

Which brings us to Pearl Curran having a quiet tea with her mother and a family friend at her home in 1913. Pearl was reluctant about using the ouija board that the friend had brought to her home but, after some initial success with messages from "Pat-C", the three of them decided to keep trying. On July 8 of that year, they received the following message: "Many moons ago I lived. Again I come. Patience Worth my name. Wait, I would speak with thee. If thou shalt live, then so shall I. I make my bread at thy hearth. Good friends, let us be merrie. The time for work is past. Let the tabby drowse and blink her wisdom to the firelog."

The "entity" in question identified herself as Patience Worth and that she had lived in one of the American colonies between 1649 and 1694. Pearl seemed to be the main target for the messages though she soon outgrew the need for the board.   As she later reported, she realized that the board was unnecessary since she could see the sentences "forming" in her mind at the same time that they were being spelled out. While she later hired a secretary to keep track of Patience's messages, she often wrote them out herself.

According to Patience, she was born "across the sea" (later identified as Dorsetshire in England) and made an Atlantic crossing in a three-masted schooner to live in one of the American colonies. The details of Patience's life (and her violent death by natives) were typically sketchy with no real details that could be independently verified. Despite initial skepticism, Pearl (and Patience) were able to gain a considerable following. During the next 25 years, "Patience Worth" would dictate an estimated 400,000 words including 5,000 poems, a play, various short stories and four novels.

The controversy over Pearl Curran and her writing quickly polarized into two camps. On one side, the skeptics picked up on the various inconsistencies of her story. Not only was there no evidence that Patience Worth had ever existed, but at least one of the novels she wrote was set in Victorian England, long after Patience "lived". On the other side, Pearl's supporters stressed her limited education making it unlikely that she could have written everything on her own.

One researcher in particular who took an interest in Pearl's case was Walter Franklin Prince (who had already made a name for himself through the Doris Fischer multiple personality case). He first began studying Pearl Curran in 1926 and, after a thorough investigation, published The Case of Patience Worth in 1927. Prince described the case as representing "an unexpected display of literary genius, ability to carry on complex mental operations, together with apparent divination of other minds". While he was ambivalent about whether Pearl Curran was actually "channeling" Patience, Prince wrote an article that was published in the 1926 issue of Scientific American titled The Riddle of Patience Worth.In the article, he specifically asked anyone with information that could related to the case to come forward. Nobody took him up on the offer.

Whatever reservations John Curran had about his wife's link to a long-dead women, he would keep careful records of the sessions until his death in 1922. Afterward, Pearl supported herself and her family through lecturing and financial help from friends but the sessions went on. She received her final communication from Patience in November, 1937, a little more than a month before Pearl's death from pneumonia (which Patience reportedly predicted). While later mediums would claim to receive messages from Patience over the years (Pearl didn't seem inclined to make contact herself), nobody would ever match the quality of the original writing.

Although Patience Worth is still considered to be a genuine example of spirit writing by true believers, skeptics tend to regard the case as being an example of dissociation (if not an outright hoax). Although automatic writing has long been recognized as a clinical tool by Freudian psychoanalysis, its value has been hotly disputed by other clinicians. Research into automatic writing tends to be limited although the phenomenon has been linked to hypnosis and suggestibility. There have been more recent examples of literary works being produced through automatic writing but the case of Pearl Lenore Curran is still the most well-known of its kind.

In the meantime, ouija boards continue to be sold (Parker Brothers still owns the trademark) but they're not as common as they used to be.  Fledgling writers hoping to get published would probably be better off with a good writing class.

The Road to Better Mobile Mental Health Apps

Practicing psychologists are being faced with the reality that mobile mental health apps for smartphones and tablet devices are increasing in popularity. This growth area within e-mental health has been well documented in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. A new article published in this journal provides an update on the issues of safety and efficacy in mental health app development, two of the biggest concerns that practicing psychologists have about these new digital tools. Governments and medical authorities are wrestling with how to regulate the health app market to avoid harm to users. At the same time, a lack of research into the efficacy and effectiveness of most mental health apps in the various app stores leaves clinicians and consumers with uncertainty. The vast majority of the limited research to date has been completed by those involved in an app’s development. Further independent research and replication are required to demonstrate legitimacy and increase the acceptance of mental health apps as valid sources of therapy. Complicating this issue is disparity about an acceptable methodology for examining the effectiveness of a mental health app. This article proposes a new approach to incorporate multiple baseline single-case designs to increase the amount of evidence and to guide larger-scale randomized controlled trials, something that could and should include practicing psychologists. This novel approach also proposes that mental health apps undergo a new “certification” process with the participation of app store marketplaces.

For the abstract

Alfred Russel Wallace and The Vaccination Wars

Although  antivaxxers still wage their very public crusade against vaccination, there's nothing really new about their arguments. Opposition to vaccination is as old as vaccination itself.

Smallpox was once one of the most devastating and feared diseases in history. As recently as the 18th century, frequent outbreaks killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans each year and left many survivors disfigured. Especially dangerous in children, 80% of those who contracted smallpox died of the disease. When Lady Ashley Wortley Montague arranged for her son and daughter to be inoculated against smallpox in 1717 (the practice was common in Asia but was unknown in Europe), she had no idea of the storm she would unleash as a result.

Although early opposition to inoculation had a valid basis (patients undergoing the first inoculation technique, also known as variolation, had an estimated 3 percent chance of developing serious complications), much of the resistance came from religious leaders. In a July 8, 1722 lecture by Edmund Massey at St. Andrew's Church in Holborn, England, he based his sermon on a passage from the Book of Job, "So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord and smote Job with boils, from the sole of his foot, unto his crown". Massey argued that the Biblical disease in question was smallpox and added, "With this view, I will not scruple to call it a diabolical operation, usurping an authority founded neither in nature or religion. This practice also tends to support vice and immorality, inasmuch as it diminishes the salutary terror which prevails respecting the uncertain approach of this disease".  In other words, being afraid of smallpox built character.

Although Edward Jenner's discovery of vaccination meant a safer alternative to variolation, it would still take many years for vaccination to be widely accepted. In 1840, the British Parliament passed the first Vaccination Act which banned variolation. The Act also gave local boards the power to vaccinate everyone in their districts but still allowed individual objectors to refuse. While vaccination campaigns led to a dramatic drop in smallpox cases, outbreaks continued to occur (especially in the growing city slums). Following pressure from medical authorities, Parliament amended the act in 1853 to make vaccination compulsory. Not only were all newborns required to be vaccinated within the first three months of life but any parent refusing to comply was fined. By 1867, the law became even more stringent with parents being prosecuted for refusing to have their children vaccinated.

It was the stringent laws that inspired the development of the first true anti-vaccination movement in the 1870s. One of the leading figures in the movement was William Tebb who co-founded the London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination in 1880 (it later became the National Anti-vaccination League in 1896). A lifelong firebrand, Tebb had been prosecuted thirteen times for refusing to vaccinate his third daughter. Along with his supporters, Tebb pushed for the abolition of the Vaccination Act and an end to compulsory vaccination in the UK and abroad. Realizing that the movement needed an eminent scientist to support the anti-vaccination cause, Tebb recruited an unlikely champion: Alfred Russel Wallace.

Although Wallace was already famous for his role in the development of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, his willingness to take on unpopular causes had earned him considerable notoriety as well. Wallace had not always been an anti-vaccinationist (his earlier writings praised Edward Jenner as a medical pioneer and he had his own children vaccinated).  Still, his involvement with Spiritualism brought him into regular contact with anti-vaccinationists (especially Tebb). It was Tebb who persuaded Wallace to join the movement by presenting him with statistics that he had compiled concerning the risks associated with vaccination. Whether due to the statistics or his own concerns about the basic infringements on individual freedom resulting from the Vaccination Act, Wallace became a convert to the cause sometime in the early 1880s.

In fairness to Wallace, there was probably was some basis for his skepticism. At the time, nobody knew exactly why vaccination worked. Despite Louis Pasteur's research and the recent acceptance of the germ theory of disease, the science of immunology was still in its infancy. The fact that medical authorities were eagerly pushing for something that the anti-vaccinationists were condemning as "quackery" and prosecuted parents who refused to comply was enough for Wallace to get involved.

Working with the statistics that Tebb provided, Wallace began his own research into vaccination and the government statistics on smallpox and vaccination. He also attempted to link incidence of smallpox to more general issues of sanitation. While the Public Health Act of 1848 began to improve living conditions in most slums, progress remained slow and health problems related to sewage and industrial waste were still common. Wallace and his fellow anti-vaccinationists argued that smallpox and other infectious diseases were actually caused by contamination and that vaccination was likely dangerous in itself. There was (if you'll pardon the expression) a germ of truth in that since there was no generally accepted antiseptic guidelines in vaccinating children and doctors often reused the same needles on their patients. Wallace also argued that there were no controlled experiments showing how long the protection from vaccination lasted.

All of Wallace's findings were written up in a tract titled Forty-five Years of Registration Statistics, Proving Vaccination To Be Both Useless and Dangerous.Published in early 1885, Wallace compiled statistics from across Great Britain and continental Europe (where compulsory vaccination laws were also in place).  Not limiting himself to smallpox, Wallace examined incidence patterns for diphtheria, measles, scarlet fever, and whooping cough (pertussis). He concluded that vaccination did more harm than good and that public sanitation played a greater role in disease prevention. Almost immediately, Wallace came under attack by physicians who were horrified that a scientist of Wallace's reputation would side with the anti-vaccinationists. The fact that popular opinion was turning against mandatory vaccination (helped along by graphic stories of conscientious objectors being arrested), added to the pressure for changing the vaccination laws.

In 1889, the British government appointed a Royal Commission to evaluate mandatory vaccination policies. While Wallace turned down an offer to sit on the Commission himself, he appeared as the anti-vaccinationists' star witness. The fifteen members of the Commission included some of the prominent British physicians of that time (most of whom were pro-vaccinationists which outraged Tebb and the others). The Commissions members held twenty-one meetings in 1890 and examined ten witnesses (mostly anti-vaccinationists). Wallace appeared four times before the commission and presented all of his graphs and statistics. While the commission members were initially impressed by Wallace's testimony, that changed after they had a chance to evaluate his findings more carefully.

Wallace's statistics seemed impressive but the committee members found numerous errors that seemed unworthy of someone of Wallace's reputation. Not only did Wallace and his fellow anti-vaccinationists ignore statistics that failed to support their view but many of the statistical tables were highly selective (doubly embarrassing since Wallace had accused the pro-vaccinationists of doing the same thing).  Wallace was caught off-guard by the findings and was forced to admit that many of the statistics that he had presented were worthless. While he continued to argue that sanitation was more important than vaccination, Wallace's credibility had been severely undermined by the time he concluded his testimony. Anti-vaccination activists defended Wallace throughout the entire process and accused the commission of being biased in favour of the pro-vaccinationists. One source commented that, "Dr Wallace stood an examination which proved, if nothing else, that anyone who gives anti-vaccination evidence before this commission must be prepared to keep his temper through insults which most would resent and which few would indulge".

Although the Commission issued a preliminary report in December 1890, the final report wouldn't come out until six years later. After the final report, Wallace published his most scathing pamphlet yet on the Commission's findings. Titled Vaccination a Delusion; Its Penal Enforcement a Crime: Proved by the Official Evidence in the Reports of the Royal Commission, Wallace accused the Commission's final report as being "not only weak, misleading, inadequate but is also palpably one-sided". His critics reacted as expected and accused Wallace of simply restating all of his old arguments without providing any new evidence. Still, his crusade had some impact and the Commission's report led to changes in compulsory vaccination (penalties for noncompliance were reduced) and adoption of less risky methods of inoculation.

Wallace was hardly satisfied.  He continued to write anti-vaccinationist pamphlets until his death in 1913. Being one of the most  well-known scientists of his generation certainly lent an air of respect to the anti-vaccination crusade that it never had since. In one of the last pamphlets that he wrote for the Anti-Vaccination League in 1904, he said that "the figures go increasing and decreasing so suddenly and irregularly that by taking a few years at one period, and a few at another, you can show an increase or decrease according to what you wish to prove".  Most of the arguments that he raised against vaccination are still being used by anti-vaccinationists today. Even in the 20th century, anti-vaccination societies continued to proliferate and attracted numerous "star" supporters including Wallace and George Bernard Shaw (who wrote that vaccination was "a particularly filthy piece of witchcraft"), as well as health faddists, anti-vivisectionists, trade unionists, etc.   

While compulsory vaccination was eventually phased out in Britain with the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948, it still remains a thorny issue in many other countries today. The aggressive spread of vaccination campaigns across the world (in combination of containment of known cases) led to a drastic reduction in many communicable diseases for which vaccines are available. Although 50 million cases of smallpox were recorded world-wide in the 1950s, the last naturally occurring case of smallpox occurred in Somalia in 1977 and the World Health Organization declared the disease eradicated three years later.

Despite equally aggressive vaccination campaigns for other diseases, the World Health Organization missed its target date of 2000 for the eradication of polio (although the campaign is still underway). Whether similar victories will be possible with measles, diphtheria, and other diseases largely depends on the success of current vaccination campaigns and the role that anti-vaccinationists are playing in opposing them. There's also the fundamental question of why children in many Third World countries are still dying of diseases that are supposedly preventable through the use of vaccines.

The autism-vaccination link may only be the latest development but the basic arguments seem pretty much the same as ever. The battle continues.