The Homeopathic Medical Council of Canada website (which was launched in 2008) is, as the title suggests, just like Homeopathy.
How, you ask?
1.) For the most part, it has nothing in it. Most of the links have no content (ie. "Work in progress. Please visit again to view these details.")
2.) There is nothing helpful in the site.
3.) It is completely useless.
4.) It can distract you from going to something that might actually be worthwhile.
See for yourself: http://www.hmcc.ca/
(This was going to be a blog entry about a Woo-woo homeopathic practitioner in Watford - YAY WATFORD!! - named Amanda Brown but after I had written the entry, I looked for some links to include about Homeopathy and came across this one. The link talks about what is found on the Society of Homeopath's website about Homeopathy - something I didn't think they'd really admit to. As a result I wanted to see what Canada's own "group" had to say about Homeopathy... apparently not much.)
But I can't let Amanda Brown off so easily. Amanda has a flyer about "Homeopathic Flu Prophylaxis". What is amazing about Homeopathic Flu Protection, as Amanda states it, is that it "has been proposed as safe and effective way to protect against childhood and other epidemic diseases including influenza." Seriously! She is claiming that a non-existent amount of the flu virus contained in a highly-dilute liquid can protect against more than just the flu!
"This remedy is a homeopathic preparation of the flu virus. It is produced by Dolisos Pharmacy, using the flu virus strain recommended by the World Health Organization vaccine production." (Interestingly, the World Health Organization doesn't produce vaccines.)
She then claims "the remedies used for homeopathic protection are prepared according to safe homeopathic principles. They are free of harmful components... " (Hmmm, it contains the ACTUAL flu virus (which vaccines don't, by the way) and thus the statement is not true or it doesn't contain the flu virus and the former statement isn't true.) It continues "...and capable of stimulating a strong protective response from the body, increasing its resistance to disease." Really? You have the nerve to state that when there isn't a single scientific study to support your claims?
Here's my favourite part... "Homeopathic flu protection is safe for all ages. It can be used with babies through to the elderly and even during pregnancy. There are no adverse reactions or side effects associated with these vaccines." Right. Except if the person who is simply using the Homeopathic protection actually encounters the virus it is supposed to protect against. The fact of the matter is this: If there is no potential for harm from ingesting a "medicine", there can be NO method of action therefore it is not possible for it to provide any benefit. (Misusing real medicine doesn't have the same effect.)
If you didn't read the article I referenced above, I suggest that you read it now.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
The End Goal Isn't Acceptance of Evolution
First of all, the "accommodationists" that suggest we need to work with the religious who accept evolution fail to realize that the "evolution" they accept is not evolution as it occurs. (Most fail to accept common ancestry!)
On to the point of this entry.
I've blogged, in the past, about many of the "flock" not knowing what their official church doctrines are - they don't. Surveys and studies often show that many Catholics do not know that the official stance of the church is acceptance of evolution - and though that is on the topic of this entry, I don't suggest it is the only spot where followers are unaware of official doctrine.
So we need to get more Catholics to accept the official church doctrine, right? Wrong.
Many "accommodationists" will suggest to others that they will have a better chance of convincing others to accept evolution if they can point to other believers who also accept evolution. Many argue that you can keep your faith and accept evolution - "Look at Francis Collins" or "Take Kenneth Miller for example" or "Even the Catholic church officially recognizes evolution".
The first point I want to make is that we're appealing to authority - ie. you are to throw out that dogmatic belief because someone in a higher position in the church has done so OR someone seemingly smarter than you says you should/can OR someone closer to "god" says you now should/can. Not only has it failed to work, it is the wrong approach. We want people to think, to follow the evidence and to accept things on their own validity - not to simply believe/accept things because others say it is okay to accept them. If the argument is not valid, it matters not who is making it.
The second point that needs to be made is that it isn't only the topic of evolution that we need to tackle - people who don't think for themselves and don't demand adequate evidence before accepting a life-affecting (their life or the lives of others) proposition have not moved much further ahead if they simply accept evolution as a scientific fact. (As an aside, evolution is occuring (fact) and the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is one of the most tested and supported theories in science.) We need people to consider the evidence and understand what is necessary for a "theory" to be generally accepted - it has to account for all of the evidence, it needs to make predictions and it needs to be falsifiable.
I'm not going to argue that we should all take the confrontational approach or that people are wrong for trying to partner with believers to keep evolution in the school curriculum (NCSE, etc.). That is an important temporary measure but the need goes away when we get people to respect science and trust the scientific process. Sadly, many accommodationists are willing to sacrifice what is "true" to achieve a single (and short-sighted) goal.
Though I realize different people respond to different methods of criticism or argument, don't sacrifice the truth. Use a different approach, sure, but keep in mind that we should be arguing against appeals to authority (or arguments from authority) and other methods of coercion. We're arguing for a skeptical and scientific evaluation of the evidence before accepting a proposition. Saying "well, Mr. Famous accepts it so you should too" is the wrong direction. And sacrificing honesty with the goal of getting (keeping) evolution in the science curriculum also does not help achieve the real objective.
On to the point of this entry.
I've blogged, in the past, about many of the "flock" not knowing what their official church doctrines are - they don't. Surveys and studies often show that many Catholics do not know that the official stance of the church is acceptance of evolution - and though that is on the topic of this entry, I don't suggest it is the only spot where followers are unaware of official doctrine.
So we need to get more Catholics to accept the official church doctrine, right? Wrong.
Many "accommodationists" will suggest to others that they will have a better chance of convincing others to accept evolution if they can point to other believers who also accept evolution. Many argue that you can keep your faith and accept evolution - "Look at Francis Collins" or "Take Kenneth Miller for example" or "Even the Catholic church officially recognizes evolution".
The first point I want to make is that we're appealing to authority - ie. you are to throw out that dogmatic belief because someone in a higher position in the church has done so OR someone seemingly smarter than you says you should/can OR someone closer to "god" says you now should/can. Not only has it failed to work, it is the wrong approach. We want people to think, to follow the evidence and to accept things on their own validity - not to simply believe/accept things because others say it is okay to accept them. If the argument is not valid, it matters not who is making it.
The second point that needs to be made is that it isn't only the topic of evolution that we need to tackle - people who don't think for themselves and don't demand adequate evidence before accepting a life-affecting (their life or the lives of others) proposition have not moved much further ahead if they simply accept evolution as a scientific fact. (As an aside, evolution is occuring (fact) and the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is one of the most tested and supported theories in science.) We need people to consider the evidence and understand what is necessary for a "theory" to be generally accepted - it has to account for all of the evidence, it needs to make predictions and it needs to be falsifiable.
I'm not going to argue that we should all take the confrontational approach or that people are wrong for trying to partner with believers to keep evolution in the school curriculum (NCSE, etc.). That is an important temporary measure but the need goes away when we get people to respect science and trust the scientific process. Sadly, many accommodationists are willing to sacrifice what is "true" to achieve a single (and short-sighted) goal.
Though I realize different people respond to different methods of criticism or argument, don't sacrifice the truth. Use a different approach, sure, but keep in mind that we should be arguing against appeals to authority (or arguments from authority) and other methods of coercion. We're arguing for a skeptical and scientific evaluation of the evidence before accepting a proposition. Saying "well, Mr. Famous accepts it so you should too" is the wrong direction. And sacrificing honesty with the goal of getting (keeping) evolution in the science curriculum also does not help achieve the real objective.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Emile Varsava's Letter to the Editor - Sarnia Observer
In a recent edition of The Sarnia Observer, Emile Varsava writes:
As an aside, when one reads a letter like Emile's they should be driven to ask "Is that why Christians spend billions and billions annually on their massive houses of worship?" but I digress.
Without getting into whether or not Jesus or Isaiah existed, the reality is that the idea of taking care of others pre-dates Christianity by many many years. Humanity has existed for a couple hundred thousand years and it is clear that co-operation is what enabled our species to thrive. It didn't take some sky-fairy to tell us that murdering was bad for us to realize that permitting murder wasn't in our best interest.
Since all of us (but the truly wacky) realize that Adam and Eve (Cain and Abel, etc.) did not exist, the premise of Emile's first paragraph is no stronger than referring to a Berenstain Bears story or one from another children's book. (Though I think the Berenstain Bears probably make the points better without getting into a jealous papa bear that kills off thousands of his "children" for owning something like a stuffed teddy bear.)
Emile goes on to relate her reading of Luke when she speaks about the lawyer asking Jesus how he is to gain eternal life (which almost certainly does not exist). The "law" states that you must first love "god" (what a jealous bugger he is!) and then love thy neighbour. The concept of mutual respect, again, predates Christianity and can be derived from a naturalistic set of morals based simply on the goal of reducing human suffering (and likely was arrived at that way in the beginning).
In other words, (and using Emile's), "the foundation of the Christian faith" is copied from earlier myths and societies. That's not much to base your beliefs on!
Though the bible does suggest some pretty good things, we can't forget the other doctrines of many faiths that are based on the very same book (not to consider the many things that were justified/supported for years by the bible - slavery and other horrific ideas like an eye-for-an-eye or stoning people to death for not believing).
Many people use the bible, today, to support the restriction of human/equal rights for women, homosexuals and others. It also interferes with science education, medical research and other attempts on reducing human suffering (ie. population/birth control, contraceptives, vaccinations and others). It leads people to hold irrational beliefs about the destruction of our planet and how we should treat it - the idea that only "god" can destroy what he has created.
So, Emile, let's agree that we should work together to alleviate the suffering of others. Let's give credit where credit is due, however - to humanity. The golden rule was a man-made construct as your letter suggests (Isaiah wasn't "god") - we need not believe in any "gods" to accept it and we need not give credit to anyone or anything else.
And keep that in mind the next time something "amazing" happens - like when miners are rescued from a collapsed mine by technology and humans - thank those who are like you and I - the people who want nothing more than for the human condition to be improved. It is no time to be thanking a "god" - it is time to be amazed and intrigued by human ingenuity, the search for "truth" and the continuing advancement of technology. The world, as it is, is amazing enough - we don't need to make crap up.
Sir: After Adam and Eve were put out from the Garden of Eden, the Bible states that they had two sons, Cain and Abel (they had other children also), Jealousy developed between Cain and Abel, because Cain's sacrifice to God was not accepted like Abel's was. In anger, Cain killed his brother. God called to Cain, and asked, "where is your brother Abel?" Cain answered, am I my brother's keeper? The Bible does not state if God answered Abel.If that were all that the Christian Faith was all about, I can't see many people being against it. However, I think the foundation of the Christian faith is dogmatic acceptance of unbelievable (literally) doctrines.
Centuries later, in Luke's Gospel, Jesus gave the answer to Cain's question, am I my brother's keeper.
Lawyer asked Jesus, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus asked him what is written in the law, he answered, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with thy soul, with thy mind, and love thy neighbour as thyself. Jesus said thou hast answered correctly. The lawyer asked, who is my neighbour? Jesus told him the Good Samaritan story. How a certain Samaritan stopped to help a man who had been beaten, robbed, and left for dead.
The Samaritan poured wine and oil on the victim's wounds, put him on his own steed, took him to an Inn, paid the innkeeper to look after the victim until the Samaritan returned. Jesus told the lawyer, "go and do likewise." What Jesus said to the lawyer, Jesus is saying to all of us, go and help those in need.
John's Gospel tells us to love one another. Our live must be active, we must all be Good Samaritans. The doctrine of feeding the hungry was introduced by the Prophet Isaiah, who lived 750 years before Christ. Isiah said feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, help those in need. This is the foundation of Christian faith.
-- Emile Varsava Sarnia
As an aside, when one reads a letter like Emile's they should be driven to ask "Is that why Christians spend billions and billions annually on their massive houses of worship?" but I digress.
Without getting into whether or not Jesus or Isaiah existed, the reality is that the idea of taking care of others pre-dates Christianity by many many years. Humanity has existed for a couple hundred thousand years and it is clear that co-operation is what enabled our species to thrive. It didn't take some sky-fairy to tell us that murdering was bad for us to realize that permitting murder wasn't in our best interest.
Since all of us (but the truly wacky) realize that Adam and Eve (Cain and Abel, etc.) did not exist, the premise of Emile's first paragraph is no stronger than referring to a Berenstain Bears story or one from another children's book. (Though I think the Berenstain Bears probably make the points better without getting into a jealous papa bear that kills off thousands of his "children" for owning something like a stuffed teddy bear.)
Emile goes on to relate her reading of Luke when she speaks about the lawyer asking Jesus how he is to gain eternal life (which almost certainly does not exist). The "law" states that you must first love "god" (what a jealous bugger he is!) and then love thy neighbour. The concept of mutual respect, again, predates Christianity and can be derived from a naturalistic set of morals based simply on the goal of reducing human suffering (and likely was arrived at that way in the beginning).
In other words, (and using Emile's), "the foundation of the Christian faith" is copied from earlier myths and societies. That's not much to base your beliefs on!
Though the bible does suggest some pretty good things, we can't forget the other doctrines of many faiths that are based on the very same book (not to consider the many things that were justified/supported for years by the bible - slavery and other horrific ideas like an eye-for-an-eye or stoning people to death for not believing).
Many people use the bible, today, to support the restriction of human/equal rights for women, homosexuals and others. It also interferes with science education, medical research and other attempts on reducing human suffering (ie. population/birth control, contraceptives, vaccinations and others). It leads people to hold irrational beliefs about the destruction of our planet and how we should treat it - the idea that only "god" can destroy what he has created.
So, Emile, let's agree that we should work together to alleviate the suffering of others. Let's give credit where credit is due, however - to humanity. The golden rule was a man-made construct as your letter suggests (Isaiah wasn't "god") - we need not believe in any "gods" to accept it and we need not give credit to anyone or anything else.
And keep that in mind the next time something "amazing" happens - like when miners are rescued from a collapsed mine by technology and humans - thank those who are like you and I - the people who want nothing more than for the human condition to be improved. It is no time to be thanking a "god" - it is time to be amazed and intrigued by human ingenuity, the search for "truth" and the continuing advancement of technology. The world, as it is, is amazing enough - we don't need to make crap up.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
You say my car is crap but you don't even have a car yourself?
I was recently at an auction and standing beside a grey truck waiting for some people to clear out before we left. The conversation that followed actually happened:
Man standing beside me: (Him) "Is that your truck?"
Me: "No, sorry." (I thought he was going to ask me to move it.)
Him: "Good, Chevy makes a horrible truck. I wouldn't drive a Chevy if someone gave it to me."
Me: "Oh, what kind of a truck do you recommend? Or should I ask what kind of a truck do you drive?"
Him: "I don't own a truck but I'd definitely buy a Ford if I got one."
Me: "Oh? What kind of a car do you own?"
Him: "Well, I don't have one at the moment."
Me: "So you'd probably drive a Chevy if someone gave you one?"
Him: "Yeah, if someone gave me one."
Me: "That's what I thought."
Stupid.
I had a giggle at his expense and I hoped that he learned how silly his argument was. He probably didn't.
It reminds me of people who are Intelligent Design advocates. They're knocking a theory, that does everything that it needs to, simply because the theory they don't have but wish they had would be better than evolution. Intelligent Design advocates have yet to postulate a theory to replace the theory they vehemently oppose.
Stupid squared.
Man standing beside me: (Him) "Is that your truck?"
Me: "No, sorry." (I thought he was going to ask me to move it.)
Him: "Good, Chevy makes a horrible truck. I wouldn't drive a Chevy if someone gave it to me."
Me: "Oh, what kind of a truck do you recommend? Or should I ask what kind of a truck do you drive?"
Him: "I don't own a truck but I'd definitely buy a Ford if I got one."
Me: "Oh? What kind of a car do you own?"
Him: "Well, I don't have one at the moment."
Me: "So you'd probably drive a Chevy if someone gave you one?"
Him: "Yeah, if someone gave me one."
Me: "That's what I thought."
Stupid.
I had a giggle at his expense and I hoped that he learned how silly his argument was. He probably didn't.
It reminds me of people who are Intelligent Design advocates. They're knocking a theory, that does everything that it needs to, simply because the theory they don't have but wish they had would be better than evolution. Intelligent Design advocates have yet to postulate a theory to replace the theory they vehemently oppose.
Stupid squared.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Back to Basics: Debating the uninformed
Sometimes I'm just stuck for what to blog about. Many arguments against religion, alt medicine, anti-vaccination are so basic and have been used for so long that I wonder what it is going to take to get people to start thinking.
The recent Pew study that showed that atheists and agnostics have a greater knowledge about religion than the religious is pretty telling of what I should be blogging about - the basic arguments. It is often clear in my daily discussions that many "believers" haven't even thought about some of the main concepts and doctrines of their own religion so when they are faced with a rebuttal to a new-age-ish philosophical argument their faith is unchanged. I think the same can be said for alt-med acceptance and other odd beliefs.
Maybe it is truly time to get back to the basics. Maybe a simple understanding or explanation of the elementary aspects is what we really need to be doing. Maybe I've missed out on opportunities to get someone to think simply by making an argument that is far more complicated than anything they think they'll ever spend the time/energy to comprehend (nothing against that, there are times when I wish I didn't feel the need to understand the justification for things - ask my wife, sometimes she'll lose me for hours as I try to find out WHY it is that something might be true or WHY it is that something works).
The Pew Study is a great place to start - and to expand on some of the questions. Here are some simple arguments (or ideas) that I think we often skip right past and they're ones that might just be ones people haven't thought about. (This list is obviously not exhaustive.)
When discussing evolution with a Catholic who doesn't accept evolution, maybe a simple reminder (it turns out that maybe it isn't a reminder) that the Catholic church accepts evolution. They also accept that the earth is billions of years old. (That leads to Adam & Eve not existing - what does that mean for original sin? The creation of the earth in 7 days? World-wide flood?)
For people who suggest that the universe needed a creator and that creator was "god", ask them what created god? If god, himself, didn't need a creator, then why must the universe have needed one? You are forced with the ultimate regression (what created god? what created that? what created that?) - at some point something would have had to come to being without a creator. To postulate a god is to complicate things unnecessarily.
Questions relating to god's ability to do anything and the idea that prayer works: Why doesn't god heal amputees? If other species are able to do it (as George Hrab said - You can cut off a starfish's limb and not only will it grow back but that fucker will never mouth off to you again.) why couldn't humans?
Many are not aware that the stories about Christ were not written by eyewitnesses - it wasn't even written by people who were alive at the time that the events supposedly happened.
Speaking of the Christian bible, I often am discussing it with people who don't even realize that it wasn't compiled until hundreds of years later. Depending on your faith, the bible contains a varying number of books too - if it is the word of god, do you think he's pissed that people are leaving out some of his books (or including books that aren't his word)?
The bible doesn't state that Adam ate an apple. It doesn't even specify the fruit - many Christians are surprised to learn that (especially after claiming that they've read the bible many times).
There is no supporting evidence outside of the bible of Jesus' existence. There wasn't a census around the time of Jesus' birth and, even if there was, it'd be no reason for Joseph to have headed "home" - Jesus wasn't from Joseph's bloodline (immaculate conception) and, if he was, the logic fails as to why you would be counted where your ancestors (many generations removed) lived.
Jesus wasn't born on December 25 (if he even ever existed, that is) - Christmas was moved to that date to coincide (take over?) the pagan holidays of the time. The bible clearly (ha!) states when Jesus was born and it wasn't December 25!
Simple bits of information can be provided to dismantle other beliefs as well:
Have a belief in homeopathy? Do you know that many homeopathic "medicines" are so dilute that they can't simply contain a single molecule of the supposed active ingredient?
Ionic Foot Cleanse? When you go for your foot cleanse, don't put your feet in and the water will change colour just as it does if you put your feet in.
Ear Candling? Burn the candle without putting it in an ear - the same "debris" and "wax" will result.
The recent Pew study that showed that atheists and agnostics have a greater knowledge about religion than the religious is pretty telling of what I should be blogging about - the basic arguments. It is often clear in my daily discussions that many "believers" haven't even thought about some of the main concepts and doctrines of their own religion so when they are faced with a rebuttal to a new-age-ish philosophical argument their faith is unchanged. I think the same can be said for alt-med acceptance and other odd beliefs.
Maybe it is truly time to get back to the basics. Maybe a simple understanding or explanation of the elementary aspects is what we really need to be doing. Maybe I've missed out on opportunities to get someone to think simply by making an argument that is far more complicated than anything they think they'll ever spend the time/energy to comprehend (nothing against that, there are times when I wish I didn't feel the need to understand the justification for things - ask my wife, sometimes she'll lose me for hours as I try to find out WHY it is that something might be true or WHY it is that something works).
The Pew Study is a great place to start - and to expand on some of the questions. Here are some simple arguments (or ideas) that I think we often skip right past and they're ones that might just be ones people haven't thought about. (This list is obviously not exhaustive.)
When discussing evolution with a Catholic who doesn't accept evolution, maybe a simple reminder (it turns out that maybe it isn't a reminder) that the Catholic church accepts evolution. They also accept that the earth is billions of years old. (That leads to Adam & Eve not existing - what does that mean for original sin? The creation of the earth in 7 days? World-wide flood?)
For people who suggest that the universe needed a creator and that creator was "god", ask them what created god? If god, himself, didn't need a creator, then why must the universe have needed one? You are forced with the ultimate regression (what created god? what created that? what created that?) - at some point something would have had to come to being without a creator. To postulate a god is to complicate things unnecessarily.
Questions relating to god's ability to do anything and the idea that prayer works: Why doesn't god heal amputees? If other species are able to do it (as George Hrab said - You can cut off a starfish's limb and not only will it grow back but that fucker will never mouth off to you again.) why couldn't humans?
Many are not aware that the stories about Christ were not written by eyewitnesses - it wasn't even written by people who were alive at the time that the events supposedly happened.
Speaking of the Christian bible, I often am discussing it with people who don't even realize that it wasn't compiled until hundreds of years later. Depending on your faith, the bible contains a varying number of books too - if it is the word of god, do you think he's pissed that people are leaving out some of his books (or including books that aren't his word)?
The bible doesn't state that Adam ate an apple. It doesn't even specify the fruit - many Christians are surprised to learn that (especially after claiming that they've read the bible many times).
There is no supporting evidence outside of the bible of Jesus' existence. There wasn't a census around the time of Jesus' birth and, even if there was, it'd be no reason for Joseph to have headed "home" - Jesus wasn't from Joseph's bloodline (immaculate conception) and, if he was, the logic fails as to why you would be counted where your ancestors (many generations removed) lived.
Jesus wasn't born on December 25 (if he even ever existed, that is) - Christmas was moved to that date to coincide (take over?) the pagan holidays of the time. The bible clearly (ha!) states when Jesus was born and it wasn't December 25!
Simple bits of information can be provided to dismantle other beliefs as well:
Have a belief in homeopathy? Do you know that many homeopathic "medicines" are so dilute that they can't simply contain a single molecule of the supposed active ingredient?
Ionic Foot Cleanse? When you go for your foot cleanse, don't put your feet in and the water will change colour just as it does if you put your feet in.
Ear Candling? Burn the candle without putting it in an ear - the same "debris" and "wax" will result.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
I can't explain it, but it worked for me!
To begin let me assure you that I am not picking on Jeffrey Needham anymore than, say, doctors are picking on a section of skin when they are attempting to remove a patch of skin cancer. There is little in chiropractic that has been proven to offer benefit but, given that there is some areas where it MAY be helpful, I do not think that chiropractic is worthless. Much of what Jeffrey Needham "pushes" is bullshit. Chiropractic does not cure colds, asthma, bed wedding, ear infections, etc. Without reservation I would discourage a child from ever seeing a chiropractor unless under the specific direction and care of an orthopedist (which will seldom, if ever, happen).
A number of people have sent me emails or, in person, asked me questions about Chiropractic and many of the defenders of it say "I can't explain it, but it worked for me!" That is almost a standard line used by any "supporter" of alternative medicine. Most importantly, the question is "by work, what did it do?".
Many diseases are self-limiting - they follow a natural course and, ultimately, go away. The common cold, headaches and ear infections are examples of diseases that typically run their course on their own. It is often said that when you have a cold if you take some cold medicine, it goes away in 7 days whereas if you do not, it goes away in a week.
Muscle soreness, joint pain, back pain, etc., often follow cycles - periods where it isn't as bad compared to periods where it seems worse. Some people with chronic pain report periods of little (or no) irritation and periods of increased pain - with no apparent contributing causes (or changes in activities).
Before suggesting that chiropractic "worked", we must be sure that the explanation doesn't lie elsewhere. For chiropractic, it is often the case that the pain would have naturally diminished (or gone away) and, in some cases, would have done so sooner without chiropractic.
This fallacy that people fall victim to is the correlation not causation fallacy. Simply because some "thing" occurs after another "thing" does not mean that the first thing "caused" the second thing. (I've mentioned in an earlier blog that blaming autism on vaccination is like blaming vaccination for the child turning 1.) The fallacy is often called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (translates to "after this, therefore because of this").
A number of people have sent me emails or, in person, asked me questions about Chiropractic and many of the defenders of it say "I can't explain it, but it worked for me!" That is almost a standard line used by any "supporter" of alternative medicine. Most importantly, the question is "by work, what did it do?".
Many diseases are self-limiting - they follow a natural course and, ultimately, go away. The common cold, headaches and ear infections are examples of diseases that typically run their course on their own. It is often said that when you have a cold if you take some cold medicine, it goes away in 7 days whereas if you do not, it goes away in a week.
Muscle soreness, joint pain, back pain, etc., often follow cycles - periods where it isn't as bad compared to periods where it seems worse. Some people with chronic pain report periods of little (or no) irritation and periods of increased pain - with no apparent contributing causes (or changes in activities).
Before suggesting that chiropractic "worked", we must be sure that the explanation doesn't lie elsewhere. For chiropractic, it is often the case that the pain would have naturally diminished (or gone away) and, in some cases, would have done so sooner without chiropractic.
This fallacy that people fall victim to is the correlation not causation fallacy. Simply because some "thing" occurs after another "thing" does not mean that the first thing "caused" the second thing. (I've mentioned in an earlier blog that blaming autism on vaccination is like blaming vaccination for the child turning 1.) The fallacy is often called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (translates to "after this, therefore because of this").
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
An unexpected pregnancy is no time to take advantage of people
Let me make this clear: You may agree or disagree with this blog entry solely on your preconceptions of abortion. This blog is not about whether or not abortion should be legal (it is in Canada. In Ontario it is a practice that is covered by OHIP) - it is about lying for Jesus.
I've recently noticed an advertisement for The Pregnancy Centre on a local website in Sarnia. I have discussed this "organization", in person, with a number of people and the discussion almost always seems to be trumped by the word "abortion". I'm not pro-abortion (I don't think anyone is) and I promised my mom that I'd never have one - a promise that I have kept and will keep. (My mom was proud to hear that I'd never consider an abortion but she was probably concerned I didn't realize that, as a boy, I couldn't get pregnant anyway.)
The Pregnancy Centre is a front for a religious attack and not only on the woman's right to choose - but (and most importantly) on a woman's right to make an INFORMED choice. They spend a lot of time advertising many of the services they offer - pregnancy tests, options counseling, support groups and material support. I applaud organizations for their willingness to fill gaps in services and I find it even more noble when they are able to offer the services at no charge to the client.
Though the services (or most of them) are offered "free" at The Pregnancy Centre, not all of them are - some come with pretty serious requirements. However, most of the services they offer are offered for free already. Pregnancy testing is even covered by OHIP! Counseling is also available (and from licensed professionals, none-the-less) as well as support groups. More importantly, the counseling available elsewhere (and government supported) is non-sectarian and is designed to be based on the best available knowledge not an ancient text.
The "Material Support" that is offered from the Centre is not quite free - yes, you can borrow clothing from them but in order to do so, you have to take part in their activities. To get "baby bucks" (as they call them) to "buy" stuff from them you have to take their courses.
The problem that we should all have with The Pregnancy Centre is that it is a front for religious instruction and indoctrination. The agency is not government funded (and it shouldn't be), it is funded by a couple dozen churches, is (or was) operated by the wife of a Baptist minister in Sarnia and the sales pitches that it makes to churches is FAR different from those that it makes to the general public. The Pregnancy Centre lies for Jesus.
The Pregnancy Centre's "options" counseling never includes a referral or true information on getting an abortion - they spend a substantial amount of time speaking with clients about belief and trust in "god" and discourage abortion with "horror stories" (yes, stories - some of which could be completely made up and others might be exaggerations). Vulnerable and confused women (often teenagers and young adults) are subjected to images and stories to discourage them from considering their options.
Whether or not you agree with abortion, lying about it is not a reasonable or humane way to "inform" a person - especially a person facing an enormous life-changing decision.
If you know someone (or are, yourself) in a situation where you need advice and information about the options available to you in situations like these - stay away from The Pregnancy Centre - misinformation, shame and Jesus are a dangerous mix.
(Options counseling, material support and support groups have a strong Christian/Jesus focused theme. Don't believe me? Let them tell you about it...)
I've recently noticed an advertisement for The Pregnancy Centre on a local website in Sarnia. I have discussed this "organization", in person, with a number of people and the discussion almost always seems to be trumped by the word "abortion". I'm not pro-abortion (I don't think anyone is) and I promised my mom that I'd never have one - a promise that I have kept and will keep. (My mom was proud to hear that I'd never consider an abortion but she was probably concerned I didn't realize that, as a boy, I couldn't get pregnant anyway.)
The Pregnancy Centre is a front for a religious attack and not only on the woman's right to choose - but (and most importantly) on a woman's right to make an INFORMED choice. They spend a lot of time advertising many of the services they offer - pregnancy tests, options counseling, support groups and material support. I applaud organizations for their willingness to fill gaps in services and I find it even more noble when they are able to offer the services at no charge to the client.
Though the services (or most of them) are offered "free" at The Pregnancy Centre, not all of them are - some come with pretty serious requirements. However, most of the services they offer are offered for free already. Pregnancy testing is even covered by OHIP! Counseling is also available (and from licensed professionals, none-the-less) as well as support groups. More importantly, the counseling available elsewhere (and government supported) is non-sectarian and is designed to be based on the best available knowledge not an ancient text.
The "Material Support" that is offered from the Centre is not quite free - yes, you can borrow clothing from them but in order to do so, you have to take part in their activities. To get "baby bucks" (as they call them) to "buy" stuff from them you have to take their courses.
The problem that we should all have with The Pregnancy Centre is that it is a front for religious instruction and indoctrination. The agency is not government funded (and it shouldn't be), it is funded by a couple dozen churches, is (or was) operated by the wife of a Baptist minister in Sarnia and the sales pitches that it makes to churches is FAR different from those that it makes to the general public. The Pregnancy Centre lies for Jesus.
The Pregnancy Centre's "options" counseling never includes a referral or true information on getting an abortion - they spend a substantial amount of time speaking with clients about belief and trust in "god" and discourage abortion with "horror stories" (yes, stories - some of which could be completely made up and others might be exaggerations). Vulnerable and confused women (often teenagers and young adults) are subjected to images and stories to discourage them from considering their options.
Whether or not you agree with abortion, lying about it is not a reasonable or humane way to "inform" a person - especially a person facing an enormous life-changing decision.
If you know someone (or are, yourself) in a situation where you need advice and information about the options available to you in situations like these - stay away from The Pregnancy Centre - misinformation, shame and Jesus are a dangerous mix.
(Options counseling, material support and support groups have a strong Christian/Jesus focused theme. Don't believe me? Let them tell you about it...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)