John of God: ABC’s Primetime Live Special About a Brazilian “Healer” Falls Far Short of Investigative Journalism
On February 10th, 2005, ABC’s Primetime Live aired an hour-long special on a man called “John of God” who works out of Brazil. This was a major show that could have been a useful, productive, and informative program, but failed to reach that standard.
The show dealt with the Brazilian “healer” João Teixeira, known popularly in his country as João de Deus, or “John of God.” He holds forth at the “Casa de Dom Inacio,” a healing center in Abadiania, Brazil, a tiny town about 70 miles southwest of the capital, Brasilia. Desperately ill people from all over the world flock to this place seeking cures. There is a group of thriving agencies organized to perpetuate the mythology surrounding the man, booking hotels, selling tours, trinkets, charms, and every sort of material that will satisfy these vulnerable people’s hope for healing. The tours can run into the thousands of dollars, though tour operators are coy about actually naming prices. Their instructions to would-be visitors who apply for visas, is to not mention that they’re going to Brazil for this purpose, because the government does not encourage such trips. The hotel stays start at two weeks and can run longer.
The Seven Stunts of John of God
What brings these victims in from far and wide? There are seven stunts and other anomalies that grab public and media attention:
- The forceps-in-the-nose trick.
- The random cutting of the flesh.
- The “scraping” of the eyeball.
- The absence of immediate pain as a result of numbers 1, 2, and 3.
- The subsequent absence of infection.
- The “trances” John of God enters into in order to “contact spirits.”
- The subsequent recoveries reported by patients.
On January 25th, 2005, I was filmed by ABC television for this special, to offer my opinions and observations. They indicated that they wanted a skeptical point of view on these “miracles,” and I had already seen a videotape prepared and distributed by the organization in Brazil that touted Teixeira’s abilities. Little evidential information was in the video except that some of the common tricks and misleading claims made by the Casa de Dom Inacio organization were there to be clearly seen and revealed. ABC-TV also invited Dr. Mehmet Oz, a cardiac surgeon with the Columbia University Department of Surgery in New York, to be interviewed with me by their on-camera host, John Quiñones.
The Wizard of Oz
I traveled to NYC, with my expenses (but no fee or other payment) covered by ABC-TV, and showed up at the recording studio. In the waiting area, I had the opportunity for a long conversation with Dr. Oz, and we came to general agreement on some major points such as the matters of pain and infection (items 4 & 5 above) that were sure to come up in the videotaping.
However, I also discovered during that conversation that Dr. Oz takes a rather fanciful view of the real world, in spite of his very down-to-earth profession. He supports, and has written extensively on, such “complementary therapies” as hypnosis, “therapeutic touch,” guided imagery, reflexology, aromatherapy, prayer, yoga, and “energy medicine,” and he encourages their use “in combination with the latest surgical techniques.” Dr. Oz believes in using “alternative” techniques—which he refers to as “Global Medicine”—in an attempt to unblock and balance the chakras (energy channels), thereby boosting the body’s natural healing capacities. His “complementary care” team at Columbia follows up with studies using Kirlian photography. All these are totally quack notions, and I began to suspect why he had been chosen by ABC-TV News as a participant.
For example, Dr. Oz said on the show: “Crawfish re-grow their nerves, right? Maybe there are things that we could harvest in our psyche that allow us to do it as well.” The scientific approach on such a claim would be to establish that the phenomenon itself exists in humans before you offer theories on how it works.
Oz also told viewers that the “visible surgery” performed by Teixeira “could be an old magician’s trick, but it’s a pretty powerful one from a physician’s perspective.” Oz learned about that trick from me during our pre-taping off-camera conversation; and what does he mean by “powerful”? Powerful enough to bring in the suckers to be “healed” by John of God? Dr. Oz also offered this comment on the forceps-in-the-nose stunt: “I’m wondering if touching the pituitary gland may influence all those chemicals that go between the body and brain.”
Incredible! Dr. Oz is groping around to save this carny stunt and John of God by invoking such a remote, unlikely notion that the forceps this charlatan pokes into the victim’s nostril might touch the pituitary gland and thereby produce some actual effect. No, strike that. It’s not “unlikely,” it’s impossible! Look at the diagram above. You’ll see that the round-shaped pituitary gland would be accessible through the nasal passage only after an instrument went about 5.5 inches into the nostril(the forceps can only go in about four inches) and through two thick layers of skull bone! Again, Dr. Oz is postulating theories on a phenomenon that doesn’t exist! There is zero evidence to show that John of God has ever accomplished anything but revulsion by sticking forceps up a victim’s nose!
The Taping Session at ABC News
The videotaping began. I sat before the ABC-TV cameras alongside Dr. Oz, prepared to enter into a dialogue with the doctor and respond to questions from the host John Quiñones. We recorded for about an hour, commenting on pertinent video material from Brazil that was shown to us on a studio monitor.
Those who unwisely fall for such scams are often the fiercest defenders of their initial decision to become involved, and they choose to endorse the swindle even after it has failed them.
The result of this recording session, inserted into the broadcast, was hardly what I’d expected. I was introduced as “a debunker of the paranormal,” with no other attribution. The opening phrase of the statement I made in my 19-second appearance wasn’t even my own. The video recording was edited so that it appeared that these were my own spontaneous words: “There are no greater liars in the world than quacks—except for their patients.” But these were not my words. I clearly said, preceding that quotation, “To quote Ben Franklin …” but it appears that ABC chose to put those words in my mouth to demonstrate what a cantankerous old curmudgeon I am, that I simply chose to rail against John of God as a quack. This seemed to indicate that I had nothing to contribute to the program except to rudely label John of God, and to scoff at him without adding anything to the discussion, while not providing any expert information. The rest of my statement was as follows:
Remember, these people have gone there for this kind of bizarre treatment. If they have to admit, “No, I’m not helped by this, I was swindled,” they have to say, “I was pretty damn stupid to go in there and think that sticking something up my nose was going to cure my back!”
Why Patients Support the Scam
I said this to illustrate the truth of Ben Franklin’s observation that those who unwisely fall for such scams are often the fiercest defenders of their initial decision to become involved, and they choose to endorse the swindle even after it has failed them, rationalizing and even hyperbolizing to bolster their conviction. We must remember, however, that such people are desperate and thus vulnerable, both aspects that brought them there in the first place.
I had plenty more to say on the subject, and I said it. But ABC didn’t use it. If they had, viewers would not only have been better-informed, but would have understood the true nature of the information they were being shown. Look, I’m very much aware of the fact that most of an interview can fail to be included in a final edited product, but much of what I provided for ABC-TV to use was pertinent data for achieving clarity on a controversial and critically important subject. Dr. Oz, who knows nothing about possible trickery, appeared in six lengthy inserts, offering what were, in my opinion, the appropriately woo-woo phrases that ABC-TV preferred on screen.
Note, too, that the John of God organization has set up a situation in which they simply cannot fail; if recovery is not experienced by their victims, it’s not a failure of the magical forces, but the fault of the patient. They state that sometimes a person comes to them for a healing “too late,” so it doesn’t happen. If a patient doesn’t have “the right attitude,” or doesn’t “keep the faith,” the healing will fail. If the rules aren’t followed no healing will occur. They say that one has to wait at least 40 days to see any healing—well after the victim has left Brazil—and sometimes up to two years have to pass before any effect will be seen. All this is a fail-safe scenario, one I’ve come upon many times in the faith-healing racket.
Forceps-up-the-Nose Stunt
In a dramatic scene in the show, John of God inserts a forceps up a patient’s nose. I explained on camera that this is an old carny effect that my friend Todd Robbins tells me dates back to the jaduwallahs of India and was adopted from their repertoire by an American performer named Melvin Burkhardt, first being done on this continent in 1926. It’s now known as the “Blockhead Trick,” and is usually done with a heavy 4 1/2” (thirty-penny) iron nail tapped up the nose and into the back of the throat, a clear, straight path that seems improbable. It is done today by more than 100 performers in carnivals and sideshows around the world, and John of God simply uses it to impress his victims, though he has a far easier time of it by using smooth nickel-plated (or stainless-steel) forceps.
I obtained from Todd Robbins a videotape of him doing the trick, and I took it to the ABC producer in New York, who chose not to use it even though it was clearly the trick used by John of God. ABC decided not to inform their audience that this impressive “miracle” is only a common carnival stunt, nor did they make clear that it is very simply explained and not in any way supernatural!
On-camera host John Quiñones told the audience that he had an inflamed rotator-cuff problem in his right shoulder and had submitted himself to treatment by John of God as a “test” of his powers. He was told by the Casa de Dom Inacio handlers to submit to the “invisible surgery,” which consisted of merely meditating for two days and following a set of simple instructions—no sex, no pork, no alcohol, and no pepper—and then waiting 40 days to see the results. Quiñones reported no change in his condition at all, but excused that failure by revealing that he’d not followed the instructions! Why was it that this professional investigative reporter, actively at work on a major media shoot looking into the claims of a controversial healer, chose not to follow the instructions he was given, thus providing a convenient excuse for the failure of the “magic”? And why, knowing that Quiñones had made his own test invalid by violating the rules, did the ABC editors and producers still choose to include that event in the program?
There are two kinds of “operations” performed by John of God, “visible” and “invisible.” The “visible” ones are the forceps-up-the-nose, the reckless random slashing of the flesh, and the maneuver of the knife-on-the-eyeball. The “invisible” ones consist of prayer, meditation, reading of holy scriptures, and sitting with eyes closed. Why was it that Quiñones was not “visibly” operated on? Could it be that the “healer” was smart enough not to give any actual physical distress to this representative of a powerful American media outlet that could give him—and did give him—priceless publicity and validation?
I’ve performed the famous “psychic surgery” stunt many times, all over the world, notably on the Tonight Show with the late Johnny Carson many years ago. It consists of the performer apparently reaching into the body of the person on the table and extracting bloody lumps said to be tumors. That was clearly presented as a trick, and I explained on the Tonight Show that it was done by exactly the same means that the fakers in the Philippines are still using to cheat their victims. Imagine my surprise when Fred DeCordova, the Tonight Show producer, called to tell me that at the NBC-TV Los Angeles office alone, they’d received 102 phone calls following the broadcast, every one of them asking how to contact the Filipino “psychic surgeons”!
Well, I believe that this ABC-TV program will—even more than my Tonight Show appearance—encourage the incautious public to book trips to Brazil to go under the butchery that John of God inflicts on his victims. The huge difference here is that while the Filipino “surgeons” seldom if ever actually break the skins of their customers, the Brazilian faker regularly does so, and that means not only financial loss, but injury and very possibly loss of life, as well. Is ABC willing to accept the grief and damage that those misinformed people will suffer?
The Eyeball Scraping
John of God will seat a subject for his “visible surgery” stunt and apparently scrape the eyeball of the patient with the edge of a knife. I believe that this is a variation of the usual trick—illustrated on page 177 of my book Flim-Flam!—in which a knife-blade is inserted under the eyelid of a subject with little or no resulting discomfort. With the Brazilian faker, the “scraping” motion gives it a much more fearsome aspect, but for several good reasons I doubt that any contact takes place with the cornea.
The sclera (the white section of the eye) is relatively insensitive to touch. Try touching that area with a finger or any clean object, and you’ll see this is true. The cornea, however, is very sensitive—among the most sensitive areas of the body. Most persons (and I’m one of them) have a difficult time watching the eye being touched. We tend to empathize with the situation, and I’m sure that some readers are at this moment involuntarily squinting in distaste as they read these words. Few persons will resist looking away when John of God seems to scrape an eyeball, and I note that he was furtively watching the position of the camera as he performed this stunt, blocking the view with his body when a close-up was sought.
When you discover that the healings you’re looking for are not there, and all you have are anecdotal accounts supplied by the organization you’re investigating, the proper conclusion is that the claims are spurious
There is also the distinct possibility here that John of God introduces a temporary local anaesthetic—benzocaine would work—onto the eye surface, which would allow contact with the cornea. Unless an anaesthetic has been introduced, it is impossible for this man to be touching the cornea of a human eye as he appears to do without causing immediate involuntary flinching from the patient. The JREF will stake its million-dollar prize on that statement.
Adrenaline Rush and Pain
An adrenaline rush is often experienced by people who are under unaccustomed stress or sudden shock. We’re all familiar with accounts of soldiers in battle who are wounded in ways that would otherwise cause them great pain and bring an immediate reaction, but they remain unaware of the injury until the stressful conditions are relaxed. I’ve seen this happen when people onstage in front of a faith-healer’s audience manage to do things that would have otherwise brought great discomfort and pain. In the case of John of God’s sudden incisions, and considering the relatively insensitive areas he chooses to make these cuts, along with the fact that the victims are told to keep their eyes closed, I’m not surprised at the fact that—so far as the Casa de Dom Inacio people will permit us to see!—the victims show little or no reaction to the cutting procedure. But remember that we are only allowed to see the incision, not the possible subsequent reaction after the cameras are taken away.
The “Trance State” and “Spirits”
Where was there any evidence at all in the ABC broadcast that a “trance state” of any sort was present with John of God? The “healer” claims that he’s “taken over” by spirits of long-dead medical doctors. Host Quiñones expressed no doubts about this claim, which is so easily accepted and believed by many Brazilians because of their cultural traditions. No probing questions about it were asked, no proof was looked for—it was all allowed to slide by uncritically. Incredibly, John of God piously claims that when his body is taken over by any one of 40 different deceased doctors and/or King Solomon, he becomes unaware of what he does or says (surely the handiest “out” that could be imagined). And, when interviewer Quiñones bravely suggested that John might be getting rich at this practice, the ABC-TV cameras moved into an excruciating close-up of the beleaguered man with trembling lip and tear-filled eyes, asserting that he gave away all his money to the poor. As another reputable interviewer at ABC likes to say, “Give me a break!”
The Absence of Infection
During my on-camera discussion with Dr. Oz, I was challenged to explain why the patients of John of God who undergo actual invasion of their bodies, suffer no infection—another “miracle” claimed by John of God. I turned to Dr. Oz and asked him if I was correct in stating that not all breaking of the skin—incisions, scrapes, punctures—resulted in invasion and proliferation by bacteria or viruses, and that it should not be assumed that an unsterilized instrument always brought on infection. Dr. Oz agreed. That comment and discussion was not used by the editors, even though one of the most powerful arguments used to support the supernatural nature of the operations in Brazil is this “non-septic” factor! But including this basic biological fact could have spoiled a perfectly good sensational story.
An Appeal to Reason and Common Sense
Let’s think about the whole picture here. In sending a film crew off to Brazil on this project, ABC-TV took no prior advice from expert investigators, but actually seriously considered that these claims were possibly viable:
- The body of a man in Brazil is periodically “occupied” by “beings of light”—spirits of an assortment of dead doctors—including King Solomon—who provide him with their accumulated medical expertise.
- This man can glance at a person and correctly diagnose their disease(s).
- He can heal a breast tumor by sticking a surgical clamp up the patient’s nose, and a nervous condition by passing a knife over the patient’s eyeball.
- He goes into trances and has no memory of what he does when he performs his stunts.
Where, in the wide assortment of fantastic possibilities that ABC-TV might accept as suitable subjects to present seriously to the American public, do we place Santa Claus and flying pigs? If they had a report that a fat man in a red suit was manufacturing toys at the North Pole, would they dispatch a video crew to check it out? No, I think not, because making a small effort to contact experts would doom that project; but they eagerly rode off pursuing the four ridiculous premises listed above! And, I hasten to add—though they did not seek my advice on this matter—pigs cannot fly.
How ABC Should Have Covered This Story
When you discover that the healings you’re looking for are not there, and all you have are anecdotal accounts supplied by the organization you’re investigating, the proper conclusion is that the claims are spurious—that you’ve been lied to, as the public you serve has been lied to. Is that too radical an approach? I think not.
I am not saying that John of God should not have been investigated and used as a subject for an ABC special, because this is a major matter of public curiosity, and it is news. This bizarre circus needs to be looked at and reduced to facts, with the fantasy aspects properly identified. What I am saying is that the project should have been done better so that lives might be saved and the public could be more properly informed. I dare to say that if ABC’s John Stossel had been involved in the production of this program, the results would certainly have been far different. John would have researched the subject, might have called on me or another experienced observer for consultation in advance of obtaining the raw material, and would have used more reason and common sense.
Though I earnestly wish it could be different, based on what we know to be the hard facts, for those featured in the ABC special, David Ames will not recover from ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Lisa Melman will most probably die of breast cancer because she’s decided to forego legitimate surgical help, Matthew Ireland’s brain tumor will still be there and will probably kill him, and João Teixeira will continue to flourish and be worshiped.
What’s the Harm?
I was once in Mexico City on the plaza outside the shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe when a young peasant father crawled by me along the rough pavement with an obviously dead infant in his arms, swaddled in a tiny white serape. There were twin tracks of blood behind him from his bleeding knees. He was seeking a miracle. Through the adjacent barred window in the basilica I could hear the coin-sorting machines packaging the money that was pouring into the offering boxes inside. I turned away and wept.
In a St. Louis auditorium I stood in the lobby as paramedics treated a heavy elderly woman who lay in a fetal position on the carpet, white-faced and moaning in agony. Moments before she’d been seized in ecstasy in front of faith healer “Reverend” W.V. Grant, leaping up and down in an adrenaline rush that made her temporarily oblivious to the bone spurs on her arthritic spine that were cutting into her muscle tissues and bringing about internal bleeding. The attendants got her onto two stretchers and into an ambulance. I wept.
Outside an arena in Anaheim, California, my camera crew approached a tiny, thin, Asian boy with twisted legs on worn crutches to ask him if he’d been healed by Peter Popoff, the miracle-worker who, he’d told us two hours earlier, was “gonna ask Jesus to fix my legs.” When he turned toward us, we saw his tear-streaked face and anguished eyes. The cameraman lowered his camera. “I can’t do this,” he said, and we both turned away and wept.
I have had my share of tears and sleepless nights, wondering what I might do to keep people from chasing this chimera. I had another chance in New York City with ABC-TV on January 25th, 2005, and I tried. I’d like to suggest to the government of Brazil that they shut down this charlatan and stop the victimizing of innocent-but-naïve people from all over the world. The international community can only look in astonishment upon any nation that allows such flummery in the 21st century. I’m well aware that Brazil is far from being the only country plagued by such a burden; here in the U.S. we have Benny Hinn, W. V. Grant, Peter Popoff, and many others who perform the same level of fakery on our citizens. The U.K. is full of similar scams, and all over Europe we find the operators at work.
Fifteen weeks ago, I sent letters to David Westin, president of the ABC-TV News division, ABC News VPs Kerry Marash, Phyllis McGrady and Paul Slavin, and producer Shelley Ross. I told them the whole story as outlined here. I have never even received an acknowledgement of any of those letters. ABC-TV simply doesn’t care because they don’t have to …