Danie Krugel: can you please call me?

October 9th, 2007 by Ben Goldacre in bad science | 31 Comments »

I’m trying to get in touch with Danie Krugel, following his dramatic discovery of forensic evidence in the Madeleine McCann case, as reported in the Observer. To be honest, I’m a bit disappointed he hasn’t spookily contacted me on my private mobile number already, as this blogger reported recently in a totally excellent posting:


Danie Krugel phoned me on my cellphone this morning. He refused repeatedly to tell me where he got my name and number and eventually made a vague reference to it being out there on the internet. Interesting then that I can’t find it myself… can anyone else out there confirm if it’s possible to find my name and number online?

To be honest, ick factor aside, I actually find that kind of theatre quite stylish, and feel a genuine sense of appreciation for those who can at least carry their projects through with a degree of panache (contrast).

Danie, if you could call me, or email me on ben@badscience.net that would be great, as soon as poss natch, thanks!

If you like what I do, and you want me to do more, you can: buy my books Bad Science and Bad Pharma, give them to your friends, put them on your reading list, employ me to do a talk, or tweet this article to your friends. Thanks! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

31 Responses

  1. Robert Carnegie said,

    October 10, 2007 at 1:27 am

    I presume he uses his amazing GPS-based DNA tracking machine to find telephone numbers. I might be alone in still reading the Fantastic Four comics, but that’s how Mister Fantastic usually organises pursuit of the villain of the week – he invents a new tracking device especially for them. Or sometimes, he just happens to know their address. Several Fantastic Four villains are mainly in it for public attention, usually in particular to be recognised as a genius equal or superior to Mister Fantastic. This has been going on for forty-five years now, I believe, which doesn’t reflect well on anyone concerned. Any resemblance to Mr Kruegel’s business activities –

  2. Skeptico said,

    October 10, 2007 at 4:40 am

    Ben you could email him:


    Mind you, he didn’t reply to my email. Give it a try though.

  3. Bob O'H said,

    October 10, 2007 at 5:44 am

    Ben, send him a sample of your hair. He’ll find you.


  4. doris said,

    October 10, 2007 at 7:16 am

    Consult one of the 150 psychics who provided ‘evidence’ of Madeleine McCann’s abduction;
    or,ask the editor of the Observer,

  5. Acleron said,

    October 10, 2007 at 11:47 am

    By now he has reconfigured the quantum mechanics of his device into a quantum computer and set it into a super position of all telephone numbers in the universe. The only reason he hasn’t contacted you yet is that he is ploughing through the thousands of other skeptics who think he is a crock of …

  6. EnglishInBaltimore said,

    October 10, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    ‘it emerged the couple had used a scientist to help look for the missing four-year-old using a DNA-tracking device.’
    in the Daily Telegraph
    Wow, it’s amazing the forensic scientists in Portugal don’t have one of those DNA tracking device thingies…
    That the journalists can write a sentence that would almost make me laugh if it won’t so serious makes me angry. Who can write “scientist with a DNA tracking device” and not go “wait a minute, that sounds just a little fishy… maybe I’ll just do a little google search”?

  7. MostlySunny said,

    October 10, 2007 at 7:10 pm

    Living in South Africa I had the privelege of watching the original Carte Blanche programme (it’s like Panorama only very shit and with Psychics). To the intense annoyance of my housemates I spent the whole hour screaming “UTTER CRAP” etc at the TV screen – they were naturally of the “keep an open mind”/ “there may be something to this” mind…

    Ben, I tried to look into somehow downloading the “This is science science science” clip for you but don’t know how it could be done. It has to been seen to be believed…

    the whole programme is stroke inducing in fact. Maybe YouTube has it somewhere.

  8. marcdraco said,

    October 11, 2007 at 12:35 am

    It also emerged today that Dr Ben has a famous singing Mom who is presently recording a new song. Go Ben’s mom! 😉

    (Source, Radio 4).

  9. TheVisitor said,

    October 11, 2007 at 11:05 am

    The Amazing Mr K did consent to speak to the Glasgow Herald. You may be cheered up by the Herald journalist’s amused response.

    (The Herald only has online stories free to read for two days, so better read it soon)

  10. non_sceptic said,

    October 11, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    Please have a look at www.daniekrugelfacts.com

  11. Tabazan said,

    October 11, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    or www.daniekrugellies.com by the looks of it 🙂

  12. emilypk said,

    October 11, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    Dear non_sceptic, what exactly are we meant to be looking at in that link, the bad science or the incompetant journalism? The link doesn’t provide and information not already in… I want to say “evidence” but we don’t seem to actually have any of that.

  13. Pepper said,

    October 11, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    Sorry for off-topic! IMPORTANT INFORMATION!

  14. emilypk said,

    October 11, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    In case anyone is unaware, if you want to read the post that was deleted put the url into google and click ‘cache’. The internet is rather resistant to being silenced in that once something is posted it can generally be found somewhere.

  15. Andrew Clegg said,

    October 11, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    Also mirrored here for posterity:


    Can someone with Internet Explorer check it hasn’t gone funny? I’ve had CSS probs with IE before.

    Cheers 🙂


  16. gadgeezer said,

    October 11, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    Andrew – IE 7 is fine for that mirror.

  17. jackpt said,

    October 11, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    Also alt.med and misc.health.alternative.

    I don’t know who posted it to usenet but the SoH would effectively have to sue Google to get it removed. Google don’t sue well or scare that easy because they’d be in a world of shit if they set precedents of capitulation.

  18. Andrew Clegg said,

    October 11, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Usenet — genius! Old-skool 🙂

    Err, sorry for hijacking the thread Ben.


  19. emilypk said,

    October 11, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    Google does seem to be a little nervous about China, but that doesn’t really fall under ‘easily scared’ 😉

  20. misterjohn said,

    October 11, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    Worth going to alt.med just to see the related links on the right.

    If only they knew!

  21. doris said,

    October 12, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    I’m straying into ‘off-message’ territory here,but thinking abou emilypk’s comment:how does Google fare in such very frightening places like Iran and Saudi Arabia?
    Apogies for the diversion but I’ve often wondered about thsi

  22. Dr Aust said,

    October 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    Recommend the article from the Herald linked above by TheVisitor.

    One up for Scottish scepticism, as opposed to (Londonista) MetroStupidity.

    I was amused to find out that Danie Krugelrand is another one who likes to claim that it all works by quantum entanglement, just like noted homeopathic flanneler, sorry, “intellectual” Lionel Milgrom.

    Shpalman has some comments on why quantum entanglement doesn’t do / mean what Milgrom thinks.

  23. emilypk said,

    October 12, 2007 at 8:39 pm

    Am I the only one that can’t see the comments on the latest ‘powerwatch’ post?

  24. Ben Goldacre said,

    October 12, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    it got posted twice by accident, youve prob got the duplicate in your cache, go to homepage and try again, or clear your cache, or something

  25. jackpt said,

    October 12, 2007 at 9:15 pm

    No, it’s (the Powerwatch post) not working properly on Internet Explorer 7 and that may be the problem. I’ve put a capture of the problem here. The page cuts off. I used Firefox to comment, which is a better browser anyway.

  26. jackpt said,

    October 12, 2007 at 9:20 pm

    Apologies. Effing computers. Try this instead.

  27. Ben Goldacre said,

    October 12, 2007 at 9:37 pm



    waste of time

  28. jackpt said,

    October 12, 2007 at 9:56 pm

    That said, I don’t know what percentage of users come in to your site with Internet Explorer – on my site about 80% are Internet Explorer or Firefox (approx 40% each, the rest Safari/Opera etc.). Although all of the cool kids use RSS which I don’t log. Feel free to delete this and the other posts referencing the problem to save space for more relevent stuff. I agree about Jesus :).

  29. Mojo said,

    October 13, 2007 at 9:45 am

    jackpt said, “I don’t know who posted it to usenet but the SoH would effectively have to sue Google to get it removed. Google don’t sue well or scare that easy because they’d be in a world of shit if they set precedents of capitulation.”

    A Google.co.uk search for “gillian mckeith” brings up, at the bottom of the first page, “In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.

    And a link to this:

  30. jackpt said,

    October 13, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    Thanks Mojo. That’s terrifying.

  31. diudiu said,

    December 21, 2009 at 6:22 am

    free shipping ugg
    free shipping ugg