StopSylviaBrowne - Your Help With 1997 Predictions

[Tirdun]

HEALT-02: A combination of amino acids and vegetable enzymes will be introduced to help diabetes.

Touchy subject there, Ms. Claws.

I guess complaining about the vague word "help" as well as the enormous range of words like "amino acid" and "enzyme" would be redundant.

There are no breakthrough papers on diabetes in 1997 in Pubmed.
The words vegetable and enzyme only appear ONCE in any of these diabetes medical publications in the 1990s, and here is the excerpt:

Diabetes Care, Vol 14, Issue 12 1115-1125, Copyright © 1991 by American Diabetes Association
G Riccardi and AA Rivellese
Institute of Internal Medicine and Metabolic Diseases, Second Medical School, University of Naples, Italy.

The fiber content and physical form of the food can influence the accessibility of nutrients by digestive enzymes, thus delaying digestion and absorption. The identification of these foods with a low-glycemic response would help enlarge the list of foods particularly suitable for diabetic patients.

Other Research
Pubmed and the ADA describe numerous types of research into diabetes, including something called Insulin-degrading enzyme (IDE). There's research going back quite a ways, but here's one from 1986
and 1980.

Current State of Diabetes Care
If there was a breakthrough in 1997, surely we'd still be hearing about it today:

Help = Prevention
The ADA (diabetes.org) says that diet, exercise and awareness are keys to preventing Diabetes. Amidst the food information, there is nothing describing what "enzymes" might do if ingested.

Help = Treatment
There is no mention of anything vegetable or amino related when it comes to treatment. The standard treatments are diet/exercise, medication and insulin depending on the type (I/II) and severity.

Help = Vaccine
There is none, and nothing in Pubmed to suggest one in 1997 or any other date.

Help = Cure
There is none, and nothing in Pubmed to suggest one in 1997 or any other date.

Diagnosis Prevelance
Here is a chart showing the prevelance of diabetes diagnosis in the USA. There is no statistical change in or after 1997, the rate steadily keeps going up.

My conclusion would be WRONG.

 

[bbarnold123]

1. WORLD-08: The Middle East still simmers and explodes in February which makes us send more troops to quell Saddam Hussein.

2. WRONG

3. Although Browne refers to the "Middle East," the prediction only makes sense if she is referring solely to Iraq. At no point in 1997, much less February, did the U.S. or any Coalition forces send in troops to quell Saddam Hussein. The State Department maintains a timeline of events in Iraq in the 1992-2002 timeframe. The only entry on the timeline for February 1997 states: "Iraq allows UNSCOM to remove Scud missile engines from Iraq." Thus, far from "exploding," February saw a rare act of compliance with U.N. and Coalition Force demands. The timeline is at: usinfo.state.gov/ products/ pubs/ iraq /timeline2.htm#1997 (Sorry, can't produce the full link yet.)

Hussein began a "protracted confrontation" with U.N. inspection teams and Coalition forces in October 1997. However, Coalition Forces did not take any military action (other than monitoring the "No-Fly" zones) until December 16-19, 1998. At that point, Coalition Forces undertoook a massive air campaign to take out military targets in Iraq, called Desert Fox. defenselink.mil /specials /desert%5Ffox /timeline.html.

This is consistent with the Wikipedia entry for Saddam Hussein, which states: "Western charges of Iraqi resistance to UN access to suspected weapons increased tensions between 1997 and 1998, culminating in intensive U.S. and British missile strikes on Iraq, December 16-19, 1998."

 

[Magic 9-Ball]

• HEALT-02: A combination of amino acids and vegetable enzymes will be introduced to help diabetes.

In following what Tirdun says, I, too, have been trying to work on this. There are quite a few problems with this, and I think the result will be UNKNOWN/UNKNOWABLE, because there exists massive amount of herbal, “natural”, and homeopathic-type treatments specifically claiming to treat/cure diabetes using amino acids and enzyme treatments.

I also found nothing to indicate anything new introduced in 1997 that matched HEALT-02, unless some natural/herbal whatever website happens to claim this, but we’d have to look through dozens of unsubstantiated sites.

 

[Worm]

WORLD-04: The stock market keeps "roller coastering," especially in March and October. This is when it goes into a downward spiral.

If we assume NYSE, as per SB's history, then she's:
Wrong

DJIA opened 1997 at 6544 and ended around 8000, following a trend that has lasted decades. There was very little overall shift for the year. As for Mar/Oct, March varied from 6700 to 7000 and back to 6800, which makes for a pretty boring rollercoaster. There was a fair drop at the end of October (from 8100 to 7100) but that was gained back in early November. There is no downward spiral in 1997, in fact the markets grew until 2001.

NASDAQ could at least be called "interesting" in April/May, but hardly a rollercoaster. It followed the Dow through the second half of 1997, which was up.

Stock Market trends are a nightmare to analyse really.

I came up with this, which shows the Dow, NASDAQ and S&P

I think a fair description would be there was a general, but insignificant drop in March, which quickly recovered, and a larger, but equally short-term drop in October. However, as noted by Tirdun, the general trend throughout 1997was upwards, and there was certainly nothing that could be described as a 'downward spiral'. I agree that there is nothing in the data that could be reasonably described as 'roller coastering'

 

[bokonon]

WORLD-02: The interest rates begin to climb again in July of 1997.

"Interest rates" is a vague term, which could mean many things. Rates for consumer credit (credit cards, mortgage rates, etc.) depends primarily on an individual's credit rating, which in turn depends on each individual's credit history. No month-to-month aggregation of such data is available which would make analysis of such trends possible.

Assuming, therefore, that the prediction is something which might be confirmed or refuted, we still have a choice of major indicators - the Federal funds rate, the Federal discount rate, LIBOR...

Historical Changes of the Target Federal Funds and Discount Rates

The Federal Discount Rate remained unchanged throughout 1997. The Federal Funds Rate was raised once in 1997, on March 25, from 5.25 to 5.50, but this is hardly the beginning of a "rising" trend, as the rate is cut 3 times in 1998 (by a quarter of a point each time), and the four changes preceding the March 25 increase were all cuts as well. March 25 is thus a "blip" in a long-term decreasing trend which spans 1996-1998. And it isn't in July anyway...

Because it can change every day, the LIBOR is frequently used as a basis for adjustable interest rates.

LIBOR for 1997

This table shows the 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month LIBOR values.

7/1/1997 5.68750 5.78125 5.90625 6.12500
7/31/1997 5.62500 5.71875 5.81250 5.96875
Each LIBOR value actually fell during the month of July.

1/2/1997 5.50000 5.56250 5.60156 5.78906
12/31/1997 5.72266 5.81250 5.84375 5.96875
Though the larger trend for 1997 was up.

1/2/1997 5.50000 5.56250 5.60156 5.78906
2/3/1997 5.43750 5.56250 5.68750 5.93750
3/3/1997 5.43750 5.53906 5.68750 5.96875
4/1/1997 5.68750 5.77344 5.93750 6.27344
The trend had ALREADY been up during the first third of the year.

5/1/1997 5.68750 5.81641 6.00000 6.31250
6/2/1997 5.68750 5.81250 6.00000 6.25781
7/1/1997 5.68750 5.78125 5.90625 6.12500
8/1/1997 5.62500 5.70703 5.80078 5.93750

But it began to fall during the second third, including through the month of July.

9/1/1997 5.65625 5.71875 5.84375 6.03125
10/1/1997 5.65625 5.76953 5.84375 6.00000
11/3/1997 5.64844 5.75000 5.78516 5.91797
12/1/1997 5.96875 5.90234 5.91406 6.01172
12/31/1997 5.72266 5.81250 5.84375 5.96875
Short-term rates continue to rise, long-term rate falls slightly.

1/2/1997 5.50000 5.56250 5.60156 5.78906
4/1/1997 5.68750 5.77344 5.93750 6.27344
12/31/1997 5.72266 5.81250 5.84375 5.96875
Most of the increase could be seen prior to July.

1/2/1996 5.68750 5.62500 5.50781 5.42578
1/2/1997 5.50000 5.56250 5.60156 5.78906
1/2/1998 5.71875 5.81250 5.84375 5.96875
While the short-term trends had been down at the time (presumably late 1996) she made her predictions, the long-term trend was already rising.

I'd score this one as a miss, though there might conceivably be another index somewhere in the world which would match her prediction.

 

[ColumbusRyan]

WORLD-08: The Middle East still simmers and explodes in February which makes us send more troops to quell Saddam Hussein.

WRONG

The Middle East is always simmering. Small events can turn into major problems in a few days. However, the United States did not invade Iraq in February of 1997. In 1996, the US launched 27 cruise missiles against Iraq and during 1997 there was a continuing crisis regarding disarmament. I suppose if you were just making stuff up a pretty good guess could be that we would have had a major skirmish with Iraq the following year regarding disarmament.

The United States did NOT send troops into Iraq in 1997.

Of course, as everyone knows, the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

Sorry...I had links but the system won't let me post the links I had.

 

[Steven Howard]

• WEATH-04: Earthquakes come in rapid succession. There will be a series hitting the Northwest in April and September, approximately 4.9. No real damage.
• WEATH-05: There is a series of earthquakes hitting Los Angeles in January again. No real damage: 5.2.
• WEATH-06: Northern California sees another earthquake in October, about 5.0, and in the Central Valley, 4.6.

WEATH-04: WRONG.

This is two predictions: A series of 4.9 earthquakes in the Northwest in April, and another series in September.

I checked the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network's earthquake catalog. The largest seismic event I found in April of 1997 was a 3.8, and the largest in September was a 3.5. There was a single 4.9 quake on October 4, with the epicenter at 41N 02' 54", 125W 23' 38", which is out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, about 70 km or so offshore near Eureka, California.

WEATH-05: WRONG.

Using the Southern California Earthquake Center's online search tools, I was unable to find any Southern California earthquakes with a magnitude above 4.0 in January of 1997. The biggest was a 3.97 out in the desert near Death Valley on January 4.


WEATH-06: WRONG.

This is also two predictions: A ~5.0 earthquake in Northern California, and a 4.6 magnitude quake in the Central Valley, both in October.

Again, I can't link directly to the search results, but for this I used the Northern California Earthquake Data Center. I found four earthquakes in October with magnitude over 4.0, all in roughly the same area, around 100 km offshore in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. None in the Central Valley, none in Northern California.

 

[Bri]

Robert,

What's the status of this? Personally, I find these analyses rather enlightening and suspect that a lot of fence-sitters do too. Sylvia makes these predictions with such confidence that I think a lot of people don't realize that they're almost always either too vague to mean anything or dead wrong. I think that with a large number of these analyses available to them, a lot of people will see a clear pattern, and be able to see the same pattern when she does her annual predictions on the Montel show.

I also find it a little odd that with all the "important" predictions Sylvia and her spirit guide could be making (like 9/11) she chooses instead to be entirely wrong about the love lives of celebrities. What exactly is her spirit guide thinking? "Hmmm...I could ask God about something important, but I think instead I'll ask him whether Jay-Lo is going to have a baby this year. I hope God doesn't pull a fast one on me again, that crazy old jokester! I've only fallen for it, what, 48 times so far?"

Or maybe it's Sylvia's spirit guide who is the jokester. "Dead you say? Boooooooring! This time I'll tell Sylvia their little girl has been sold as a sex slave! That'll be really funny!"

-Bri

 

[RSLancastr]

Robert,

What's the status of this?

Not done. The article is partially written, but I have not had the time to complete it.

I think that with a large number of these analyses available to them, a lot of people will see a clear pattern, and be able to see the same pattern when she does her annual predictions on the Montel show.

Yup. That's the idea!

 

[ColumbusRyan]

Wow. Reading all of the research everyone has done is just amazing. Not once has she been proven right. At this point if she says it going to be a sunny day I am going to take an umbrella.

 

[ColumbusRyan]

WORLD-08: The Middle East still simmers and explodes in February which makes us send more troops to quell Saddam Hussein.


Here is the link I mentioned. It is a great timeline about the history of Iraq: libcom.org/history/1900-2000-iraq-timeline

 

[RSLancastr]

Thanks, Ryan!

I hope to make a lot of progress on this article this coming weekend.

 

[Uncle Vanya]

WORLD-11: Correct... if you give her about four years and four months of wiggle room... and pretend that planes were bombs... and pretend that the WTC was a government building... As previous posters have mentioned, saying something is at risk is a meaningless statement.

Those types of statements remind me of an old Mad TV sketch where some old lady called up a psychic and asked if she was working on September 10th, 2001.

 

[Worm]

Personally, I think all of the 'could be at risk' ones are pretty much 'Unknown' or 'Already known'

Government Buildings, Large Corporates, Malls, Train Stations etc. are always 'at risk' of bombing or attack - it's a meaningless statement in terms of predicting.

Look, my prediction for 2008 :

The White House will be at risk of terrorist attack.

Anyone want to show that to be untrue?

 

[Gravy]

WEATH-09: New York will have a milder winter.

CORRECT!

New York had it's second warmest winter in 1997-1998. Another source reports this winter as almost snowless.

Properly, we should be talking about the winter of 1996-1997, since Browne's predictions were made in October, 1996, and winter runs from late December to late March. It is rare to have severe winter weather in NYC before January.

The winter of 1996-1997 was also mild. However, it should be noted that the prediction of a milder winter was hardly risky, since New York City set a seasonal snowfall record in the winter of 1995-96, and had its second-largest snowstorm in history (up to that time) in January, 1996.

 

[Gravy]

WORLD-08: The Middle East still simmers and explodes in February which makes us send more troops to quell Saddam Hussein.

WRONG

The Middle East is always simmering. Small events can turn into major problems in a few days. However, the United States did not invade Iraq in February of 1997. In 1996, the US launched 27 cruise missiles against Iraq and during 1997 there was a continuing crisis regarding disarmament. I suppose if you were just making stuff up a pretty good guess could be that we would have had a major skirmish with Iraq the following year regarding disarmament.

The United States did NOT send troops into Iraq in 1997.

Of course, as everyone knows, the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

Sorry...I had links but the system won't let me post the links I had.

We have to be a bit careful here. Browne didn't say there would be an invasion of Iraq. The U.S. did have a major buildup of force in the Persian Gulf in 1997 to "quell Saddam Hussein." It was very serious, and was commonly termed a "crisis" and a "showdown."
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9711/16/iraq.us.military/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/iraq/

That said, this crisis was not due to a major event in the Middle East in February, 1997. It was precipitated by Iraq's expulsion of U.N. weapons inspectors in November, 2007. The crisis continued into 1998, but there was no major U.S. military action against Iraq until December of that year.

Edit: I see the last part of this was covered above by bbarnold123.

 

[Ocelot]

CELEB-01: Liz Taylor's health fails even more.

RIGHT/COMMON SENSE?

Liz Taylor did need surgery for a benign tumor found in 1997

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E3D8173CF935A35751C0A961958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/T/Taylor,%20Elizabeth

ELIZABETH TAYLOR will have surgery to remove a benign brain tumor, but first she will celebrate her 65th birthday with a black-tie gala to raise money for AIDS, The Associated Press reported yesterday.
The surgery is scheduled for Feb. 17, a day after the benefit entitled ''Happy Birthday, Elizabeth -- A Celebration of Life'' at the Pantages Theater in Hollywood. Her actual birthday is Feb. 27. The money raised will go to the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation. ABC will broadcast the show on Feb. 24.
''She postponed the surgery until after the birthday celebration to raise as much money as possible for AIDS,'' Shirine Coburn, Ms. Taylor's publicist, said. ''Her doctor expects that she will recover fully and without complications.''
The tumor was discovered on Monday during the actress's annual physical, and she canceled a trip she had been planning to Istanbul to raise funds for young victims of the conflict in Chechnya.
Over the years, Ms. Taylor has struggled with respiratory, cardiac and orthopedic problems, and recently, she had both hips replaced.

The question is whether we can give Browne much credit for such a vague prediction that a person well known for contiuning health issues would continue to have health issues.

http://www.hellomagazine.com/profiles/elizabethtaylor/

But Elizabeth has also struggled with her own health over the years, cheating death on more than one occasion. She's broken her back at least five times, had three bouts of pneumonia – of which one, in 1961, required a tracheotomy, and another, in 1990, nearly killed her. Then there were the two hip-replacement operations and surgery to remove a benign golf ball-sized brain tumour, plus two stints at the Betty Ford clinic. By all estimates, she's been hospitalised at least 30 times during her lifetime.

CELEB-02: Katherine Hepburn and Bob Hope die this year.

WRONG

This is a lose-lose bet, in 1997 Bob Hope was 94 and Katherine Hepburn 90 both way above the average life expectancy. If she gets this right it's hardly impressive. If she's wrong then she just looks foolish. In this case she's wrong. Both died in 2003.

CELEB-03: Barbara Streisand marries an actor.

WRONG... but close. Barbara Streisand Married Actor James Brolin on July 1st 1998. The two met in July 1996 and went public with their relationship by September.

http://www.barbrafile.com/199099.htm

JULY 1, 1996
At a party thrown by Jon Peters' ex-wife, Christine, Barbra meets actor James Brolin. Instead of returning to an all-night editing session for Mirror, Brolin takes her home with him.
AUGUST 14, 1996
Mirror has a preview screening in Pasadena, with Barbra and James Brolin in attendance. "It Doesn't Get Better Than This," is sung by Barbra over the end credits.
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
Barbra goes public about the new man in her life, James Brolin, and releases a photo to USA Today and Newsweek (September 9) to circumvent the frenzy among the tabloids.

So guessing her beux's proffession is not so much a prediction as an accurate assessment of what was already in the gossip pages by the time she issued her predictions on October 19th 1997

So we can't even give her half points for the part of her precition that came true at the wrong time.

By May Barbra Streisand and James Brolin officially announced their engagement. I wouldn't be suprised if there were non-psychic clues long before this, even before Sylvia made her predictions.

CELEB-04: Tom Cruise adopts again.

WRONG

Tom Cruise was still married to Nicole Kidman, they only adopted twice, once in 1993, Bella and Connor in 1995.

http://gossip.commongate.com/post/Nicole_Kidman_I_did_lose_Tom_s_baby/

CELEB-05: The J.F.K. Jr's expect a baby.

WRONG

A fair guess. He married Carolyn Bessette on September 21, 1996. It's not uncommon to try for a baby after marriage especially, you might think, in a large Irish Catholic family. However in this case no baby.

CELEB-06: There is a scandal revealed about Hillary Rodham Clinton and an old affair.

WRONG

Or at least if there was an affair I can find no record of a scandal and nothing that stopped her susequently becomeing a senator and potential president.

 

[ColumbusRyan]

We have to be a bit careful here. Browne didn't say there would be an invasion of Iraq. The U.S. did have a major buildup of force in the Persian Gulf in 1997 to "quell Saddam Hussein." It was very serious, and was commonly termed a "crisis" and a "showdown."

That said, this crisis was not due to a major event in the Middle East in February 1997. It was precipitated by Iraq's expulsion of U.N. weapons inspectors in November, 2007. The crisis continued into 1998, but there was no major U.S. military action against Iraq until December of that year.

Edit: I see the last part of this was covered above by bbarnold123.

When I see that she says "send troops to quell Saddam Hussein" I look at the definition of quell, which is: to suppress; put an end to; extinguish:

That tells me that she was predicting we were going to invade Iraq in 1997...something that did not happen. There were missile attacks and such, but those have been going on since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Clearly we did NOT quell Saddam Hussein in 1997.

I also disagree with the characterization of the attacks in December as major military action. I would consider the current war in Iraq a major military action. The attacks in December were mainly fought in the air. In any case, it does not qualify as "send(ing) more troops in..."

(Links removed from original post because I have not acquired the requisite number of posts to be able to include links - the original links in the quote are above in the original post.)

 

[desertgal]

First time poster, but long time reader of the Stop Sylvia Browne website-it's a great site, and you are doing a thorough job at providing the truth about the woman.

With respect, to the celeb predictions of 1997, I just have to point out that Browne failed to predict what turned out to be the biggest story of that year: the death of Princess Diana. I realize this thread is about the things she DID predict, but I would think a genuine psychic would have seen that one coming.

The rest has been covered. As a Diana biographer and dedicated debunker of Diana conspiracy theories, I'll see you on the 1998 Browne predictions thread to address a certain remote control device in a particular car engine.

 

[RSLancastr]

DesertGal, thanks for the kind words.

And yes, as I do subsequent articles regarding her Annual Predictions, I will be including a section on the major stories of the year which Browne did Not predict. The death of Diana would definitely qualify!