Stem Cells to the rescue – Doctors have given a woman a new windpipe with tissue grown from her own stem cells, eliminating the need for anti-rejection drugs.
Yesterday I blogged about Focus on the Family cutting 202 jobs. Well today Oral Roberts “College,” cut 100 jobs today, illustrating once again that God Hates Morons:
“Oral Roberts University will lay off about 100 employees, days after it agreed to a near-$450,000 separation agreement with its former president who resigned amid a spending scandal. The layoffs represent roughly 10 percent of the university’s work force.”
Bad news for Professional Murderer Kevin Trudeau –
Kevin Trudeau Banned from Infomercials For Three Years, Ordered to Pay More Than $5 Million for False Claims About Weight-Loss Book
Sadly, getting hit by oncoming train would have been a more appropriate punishment but I’ll take what I can go. Hey, when it comes to scum like this, I can be petty and vindictive too. This is not about First Amendment Rights. One of the few exceptions to free speech we have in this country (and one that I agree with) is when measurable harm has taken place. It’s the proverbial shouting fire in a crowded theater or even slander/libel. And in this case, it’s got nothing to do with the mere exercise of free speech but is about misrepresenting his products and scamming consumers.
New study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds gingko is utterly, utterly useless against dementia and Alzheimer’s disease – Though the extract has been long promoted as an aid to memory, it failed to produce results in “the longest and largest test of the extract in older Americans.”
“We don’t think it has a future as a powerful anti-dementia drug,” said Dr. Steven DeKosky of the University of Virginia School of Medicine, who led the study.
Extracts from ginkgo tree leaves have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, but earlier research on ginkgo and memory showed mixed results. Annual U.S. sales of the supplement reached $107 million in 2007, according to Nutrition Business Journal estimates.
The study including 3,000 people, ages 75 and older.
Catholics for Choice published a scathing criticism of Bill Donohue and the Catholic League – And they NAILED IT!
50 facts you might not know about Barack Obama – And no, this does not include his being a secret Muslim and a member of the New World Order. . .cause everybody already knows that, duh! And finally a fellow Lefty is president. . .left-handed that is. And who knew he had something in common with George Costanza.
Now this pisses me off! – the Mercury Militia have claimed 2 more celebrities: Goose and Rainman. That’s write, rumor has it that Anthony Edwards and Dustin Hoffman are antivaccinationists. I don’t really give a crap about Edwards but Hoffman!! NOOOOOOO!!!!
There is some hope though:
The reason I wonder if they really are involved with this pseudoscientific naturopathic quackery is because the only place their names are mentioned is in the title of the press release, and I’ve been unable to find any other information on the web linking them to this effort other than–you guessed it–copies of this press release.
Well at least Ashton Kutcher became awesome:
. . .as opposed to Pamela Anderson, who’s crazy.
Health Care Freedom – aka “Freedom Is Slavery.” This is the equivalent to the creationists’ proposed “Academic Freedom Laws.” People are much more willing to swallow the barrel of a shotgun when it’s wrapped in “Freedom.” As a wise senator once said, “This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.”
Want to know which stores deserve your hard-earned money this holiday season? First here’s this year’s annual Naughty and Nice List from Liberty Counsel, a Christian Right organization. And then there’s this rational alternative Naughty List, a list of people, companies, and organizations that gave over $5,000 in support of California’s Prop. 8, ending same-sex marriage in the state.
I’ve called the American Family Association bigots but many Christians insisted they love gay people and just hate gayness, causing me to substitute the term “fascist” instead. Well, I’m switching back to “bigots.”
And if you just change a few words, you get this.
Should atheists adopt the Godless label? – Probably not, but this is a funny read.
WHAT’S THE HARM?
When homeopaths kill by neglect
A healing therapist died after a minor injury went gangrenous because his ‘inner being’ told him not to see a doctor, an inquest has heard.
Russell Jenkins shunned conventional treatment for his foot injury after he trod on an electrical plug at home.
He instead tried the ancient remedy of putting honey on it but his toes later went black and began to stink.
AND NOW FOR A MOMENT OF SCIENCE:
Got Raw Milk? – “Raw milk is illegal in many countries as it can be contaminated with potentially harmful microbes. Contamination can also spoil the milk, making it taste bitter and turn thick and sticky. Now scientists have discovered new species of bacteria that can grow at low temperatures, spoiling raw milk even when it is refrigerated.”
‘New’ Penguin Species Found Using Ancient DNA – “Australian and New Zealand researchers have used ancient DNA from penguin fossils to make a startling discovery that may change the way we view species extinctions.
A team from the University of Adelaide, the University of Otago, and Canterbury Museum in New Zealand has identified a previously unknown penguin species while conducting research on New Zealand’s endangered yellow-eyed penguin, one the world’s rarest penguin species and the subject of an extensive conservation effort.”
Floppy-footed Gibbons: How Early Humans Walked? – “The human foot is a miracle of evolution. We can keep striding for miles on our well-sprung feet. There is nothing else like them, not even amongst our closest living relatives. According to Evie Vereecke, from the University of Liverpool, the modern human foot first appeared about 1.8 million years ago, but our ape-like ancestors probably took to walking several million years earlier, even though their feet were more ‘floppy’ and ape like than ours.”
Long-lost ‘Furby-like’ Primate Discovered – “A team led by a Texas A&M University anthropologist has discovered a group of primates not seen alive in 85 years. The pygmy tarsiers, furry Furby-like, or gremlin-looking, creatures about the size of a small mouse and weighing less than two ounces, have not been observed since they were last collected for a museum in 1921.”
Iron Age Monument: Soul Lived In Stone? – “Archaeologists in southeastern Turkey have discovered an Iron Age chiseled stone slab that provides the first written evidence in the region that people believed the soul was separate from the body.”
Skepacabra 
While Pamela Anderson’s political suggestions are not very bright, she is correct about animal testing. And she is especially correct about ending world hunger. Whoever wrote that article on skeptigirl is very misinformed.
Skeptigirl cites her 5 years of professional experience in animal testing; Anderson on the hand, has no professional experience in any related field and is a spokesmodel for a quasi-religious organization that actually has palled around with domestic terrorists and has a long history of distorting facts and promoting bad science in the interests of their propaganda. So I’m less inclined to view Anderson as the informed party in this instance unless these rather extraordinary claims are backed up by some seriously reputable scientific studies as opposed to PETA’s literature.
She said: “Stop all these garbage, wasteful and ineffective ,ancient animal tests (from 80 years ago?)- create a REAL working dedicated and active group of people assigned to this issue- science is suppose to be progressive? We need to get with it- update like Europe has – it’s an embarrassment and nobody wishes this senseless cruelty to go on.”
These tests are neither wasteful nor ineffective. This testing has evolved significantly in that past 80 years and therefore IS progressive, nor is animal testing senseless (which is obvious), nor particularly cruel as Skeptigirl argues from her 5 years of professional experience actually doing what Ms. Anderson can only speak about from a distance.
Skeptigirl calls tis, “More rich, white, ignorant crap,” which while only an opinion, I’m inclined to agree as everything Ms. Anderson says here strikes me as bourgeois, quixotic crap on par with Sarah Palin’s infamous ridicule of fruit fly research.
PETA is a non-religious group. And they have never been linked to any terrorist organization. That is pure propaganda.
Animal testing is cruel. To think it’s not is just 100% denial. And it is senseless, considering the fact that our makeups are different than animals.
And while it is her opinion, it is a terrible one. Clearly she has no knowledge of the industries in which she speaks of because Anderson’s hunger comment was very on point.
PETA has long-standing ties to militant groups like the Animal Liberation Front, and the Earth Liberation Front, organizations that the FBI calls a “serious domestic terrorist threat.” PETA’s handled the press for the Animal Liberation Front, PETA continues to defend them. PETA has adopted the tactics of an Animal Liberation Front offshoot known as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, a group notorious for taking protests into living rooms, attacking their targets at their homes. Ergo, PETA supports domestic terrorists. PETA is even viewed as fringe radicals among many mainstream animal rights groups.
This is ideology every bit as anti-science as creationism and I stand by my statement they represent quasi-religious views. Creationism is appropriate here as our makeups are NOT different than animals. We use rats and monkeys because our DNA is nearly identical. And the notion that modern medicine can do without animal testing and the we can all do without animal byproducts is an unrealistic fantasy.
Firstly, I am aware of all of those organizations. There is absolutely no connection to any of them. There have been statements that they do not differ from their values, but they do not support them.
Where is there any tie to creationism? Or religion? That’s an unnecessary and illogical leap.
Furthermore, the makeup is different. All animal’s DNA and humans are not similar. And that is only the beginning. Testing is not just about DNA but about body type, the different systems of the body, and the way the organs process their jobs.
And to say that it is an “unrealistic fantasy” is so ignorant. They said that about black rights, women’s rights, and gay rights.
The Center for Consumer Freedom, a watchdog group devoted to tracking the tax-exempt nonprofit organizations reports among many other charges:
“By 2003, PETA activists had adopted SHAC’s protest techniques, stalking and harassing fast-food restaurant executives. Not content to write letters and picket the chain restaurant’s offices, PETA’s leaders met with the CEO’s pastor, and visited his country club and the manager of one of his favorite restaurants. PETA activists, one dressed in a chicken suit, even protested at the church of two executives, annoying worshipers by driving a truck with giant screens of slaughterhouse video back and forth along the street” (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm?oid=21&did=0&bid=0&hid=0).
“More than 20 years after its inception, PETA continues to hire convicted ALF militants and funds their legal defense. In at least one case, court records show that Ingrid Newkirk herself was involved in an ALF arson.”
As for my comment about creationism, I was comparing the degree of scientific denial found in PETA to that of the standard creationist group. And saying that humans and the animals used in medical testing have a different genetic makeup is deceptive. There’s a reason we use specific animals in medical testing and that’s because we are so genetically similar.
Regarding calling them quasi-religious, I am defining religious as basically a very strong emotional and ideological attachment to certain conclusions (especially false ones) while rejecting evidence to the contrary, thus employing confirmation bias. I can probably do better than that definition but I don’t have time now to sit around thinking of one.
You keep saying my position is ignorant but where’s the evidence of this? Where can I find studies to confirm this? And the last sentence here is a false continuum. People may have said black rights, women’s rights, and gay rights were unrealistic but not all things deemed by random people to be unrealistic really are unrealistic or are equally unrealistic. This is essentially the common “smart people used to think the world was flat” gambit, which is usually touted by pseudoscientists demanding absolute freedom to ignore criticism and deny evidence-based thinking when ultimately it only amounts to a reverse argument from authority. Yes, sometimes even smart people are wrong and some times smart people are right. But it’s not who believes in something or how many people believe something that matters; it’s whether or not they have good reason to believe it that counts. And I don’t think there’s good reason to believe humanity can kick its reliance on animal byproducts, at least not yet.
There’s no evidence in any of what you quoted. And there is NO link of Ingrid to an arson. Speculation is not proof. And since when is it harrassment to protest? Or to protest in front of a church? Just because you don’t like it does not mean it is “terroristic.”
And because there are people that belong to an organization, on a non-employed basis, that cross the line, does not mean the organization supports or endorses that.
Yes yes, the “world is flat gambit”. I get the jargon. It does not mean that hope and goals are not good motivation. And it does not mean because something is “unrealistic” that it is impossible. What does criticism of a movement matter? If you let that get in your way, you are not going to sustain the movement and make it progress.
True, there’s not enough to make a strong enough criminal case against PETA but there’s enough red flags to convince me they’re less than ethical, more than can be easily dismissed as isolated incidents. Whether they’ve just funneled money to the more extreme groups or have had a deeper hand in those groups, I don’t know.
Now “terrorism” is defined as: “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.”
Congregating outside a place of business to criticize that business’ policies is protesting. Targeting critics by following them home is stalking. And harassing them and those who know them is another form of intimidation. These are bullying tactics we’ve come to expect of Scientology, not benevolent, altruistic organizations claiming to be out to save the world.
And I suspect the reason other animal rights groups have distanced themselves from PETA is because they recognize that PETA’s methods are also highly ineffective, doing more damage to their cause than anything else. Reputable organizations fighting for scientific progress actually do science and participate in the process. They test hypotheses, write academic papers, and submit those papers for peer-review, where they can be properly judged on their merits.
(Now the following paragraph is meant to necessarily describe PETA. I don’t know enough about them. But my perception is that much of this does describe PETA)
Those who don’t practice good science, on the other hand, typically reject the process arrogantly proclaiming they know better or making appeals to conspiracy theories. And when they do write papers and those papers are rejected by the peer reviewed process, they typically protest that mainstream science is out to get them and is deliberately covering up something. These stories always go the same way, with those individuals or groups opting to no longer play the game and instead taking their claims directly to the public in the name of Truth with a capital T. Then if their ideas manage to survive for awhile within the public sphere, they engage in legal battles and encourage their supporters to stack school boards in order to get their ideas that didn’t hold up among scientists taught in Health and Science classes under the banner of some trite positive-sounding Newspeak usually involving the word “Truth” or “Freedom.”
I see signs of this mentality in PETA and I want nothing to do with them.
Well actually there is nothing concrete linking them to funneling or “a deeper hand.”
All of their protests, which I’ve attended before, are peaceful. They are not told to harrass, intimidate, or “bully.” Like I said, if people decide to do this, it is not because of PETA. These are non-employed people that are volunteer members.
In terms of PETA’s effectiveness, you have no idea what you are talking about. The amount of law suits they have won, the amount of changes they have implemented, and resources they have given to the public is immeasurable. There are other great organizations, and others are not so great.
This is in response to mjr. You are a skeptic right? Then it makes sense why you are questioning PETA, but why aren’t you questioning the motives of our government? You believe that the FBI investigation of an PETA (who is fighting against big corporations and that supply the US government with BILLIONS a year) is warranted just because the government decides they want to go and investigate? Guess what? The EPA investigates my father’s business almost every year to see if it complies with environmental regulations, and that doesn’t make my father an “eco-terrorist” just like an investigation with PETA doesn’t make them terrorists.
As a skeptic, you don’t find it strange that non-profit corporations pay for wildlife protection and environmental protection campaigns to go on air, and then they never do? The reason is because big corporations run this country and the networks won’t allow the ads to air. Consumers sitting at home are being brainwashed with loads of crap, telling them that Kraft Cheese macaroni is healthy and fun. Meanwhile more than half of America is obese and our leading #1 killer is Heart Disease. I’m surprised that “skeptics” don’t think that is strange.
All I’m saying is that as a skeptic, you should probably look at both sides of the story. Going and finding quotes endorsed by the government or media is not sufficient “proof” that PETA is doing any harm to the world. In fact, as an organization they are the most progressive in terms of their winning law suits in animal cruelty cases and they have brought the most attention to the animal rights cause. Yes, some organizations believe this is “negative attention” sometimes, but they don’t argue when PETA helps them with their campaigns or provides funds.
It all comes down to the funding, and the corporations who are paying for the lies that you are believing. If you took the time for yourself to volunteer with PETA, you would learn that the members as a group are anything but radical terrorists. Many people may act in the name of PETA and do wrong things, but it doesn’t make the group wrong. The abuses that animals endure every day is wrong. Wearing them, eating them, using them for entertainment: It’s all wrong.
I met Ingrid Newkirk and she a sweet, quiet person who has a deeply compassionate heart for animals. I ensure you she is not running into restaurants wearing ski masks and blowing them up. You have the wrong idea, and unfortunately you let yourself be easily influenced by the greedy makers of Kraft and Butterball. Corporate greed is quickly poisoning our minds and our bodies, and we are already suffering tremendously for it.
Because this is a rather lengthy post, it’ll probably take me a few days before I’ll have the time to really flesh out a thoughtful and coherent response but one will be forthcoming.
That PETA funneled money to fanatics is a matter of public record. As a non-profit, they’re required to make their spending public. In 2001 they donated $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front and in the 1990s, they paid $70,200 to Rodney Coronado, an Animal Liberation Front member found guilty of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory and a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime, though granted, there wasn’t enough evidence to bring Newkirk down as well.
“All of their protests, which I’ve attended before, are peaceful. ” This is the impression one would be expected to have regardless of whether the charges against PETA are true as it’s in the best interest of the organization to have a large number of its membership sincerely believe this as a means of providing cover. Most Scientologists are convinced Scientology does no wrong too. That doesn’t necessarily in and of itself make it true. Any intelligent criminal organization is expected to keep the vast majority of its members in the dark about their shady activities. But regardless of whether a clear order is given to this effect, PETA members have a long history of lies, harassing, intimidating, and bullying. Likewise, I’m sure nobody in the Catholic Church hands down orders to molest children, but it sure seems to happen a lot among their priests anyway. But I’ve seen some of PETA’s dishonest and repulsive tactics for myself.
The unbelievable number of lawsuits PETA is involved in or has won doesn’t remotely compel me to accept them as a benevolent organization. In my opinion, benevolent organizations should strive to minimize lawsuits not be out to beat Scientology’s record. And I have to question the alleged wonderful difference they’ve contributed to the world given their utter lack of published research in academically reputable journals and extreme unpopularity of PETA among non-PETA members.
“Then it makes sense why you are questioning PETA, but why aren’t you questioning the motives of our government?” Who says I don’t question the motives of the government? I check numerous independent resources for my information. But I have to ask who “the government” is anyway? The Democrats? The Republicans? The House? The Senate? The President? The Supreme Court? Who is “the government?” Last I checked there were no monolithic, unilateral force in our government.
“You believe that the FBI investigation of an PETA (who is fighting against big corporations and that supply the US government with BILLIONS a year) is warranted just because the government decides they want to go and investigate?”
I’ve never read a single report by the FBI on PETA. This seems like a classic red herring argument that I usually hear in one form or another at least a couple of times a day, usually as an argument to get me to believe the world is ruled by evil Jewish bankers or shape-shifting lizards from outer space or that the government is poisoning our vaccines, water, skies, etc. Organizations receive funding. That funding is imperative to their day-to-day operation. Serious allegations of a grand conspiracy require evidence. Without such evidence, this is just a dodge. Yes, the FBI has investigated PETA. My primary concern is the constant stream of misinformation PETA pumps into its propaganda, which stands in stark opposition to the findings of just about every reputable health and environmental science institution.
“As a skeptic, you don’t find it strange that non-profit corporations pay for wildlife protection and environmental protection campaigns to go on air, and then they never do?” I fail to see the relevancy of the question. I’m not talking about other organizations, only PETA, whose activities are presumably entirely independent of what other organizations do. But again, what I do find strange is that a non-profit corporation that alleges to be the benevolent saviors of the planet is so despised by the mainstream scientific community, by fellow animal rights organizations who are presumably fighting the same cause, and by most of the average citizens who encounter them on the street.
“The reason is because big corporations run this country and the networks won’t allow the ads to air. ” Or maybe it’s because PETA has long since blown any chance at credibility a long time ago with their dishonest and despicable tactics like for instance, those they’ve borrowed from anti-abortionists, or the notorious epic fail on their part to link dairy products to autism based off of a single study that was discredited over 10 years prior. Now as far as I can tell, there are only 2 possibilities regarding the latter. Either they were being deliberately dishonest in presenting this long-debunked study as proper science or they stumbled upon this study that seemed to superficially support their cause and simply decided to run with it for their expensive campaign without making the effort to check their facts. Neither option makes me particularly convinced of their amazing contributions to science. Or maybe being media whores and provoking people with campaigns dominated with shock tactics is simply not as effective in winning people over to their cause as they think it does. This seems a far better explanation than concluding that the boogymen in the media are just out to get them.
“Consumers sitting at home are being brainwashed with loads of crap, telling them that Kraft Cheese macaroni is healthy and fun. Meanwhile more than half of America is obese and our leading #1 killer is Heart Disease. I’m surprised that “skeptics” don’t think that is strange.” I don’t think anyone thinks Kraft Cheese macaroni is healthy. But it sure is fun. But contrary to what PETA would wish us believe, many factors are responsible for heart disease and a reasonable amount of dairy has dietary benefits. But no, I don’t find it remotely strange that corporations would spend money on advertising for the purpose of selling more of their product. In fact, there’s an entire multi-billion dollar industry devoted to marketing products to consumers.
“All I’m saying is that as a skeptic, you should probably look at both sides of the story.” I have. I find it more than a little condescending and naive to assume that those who disagree with you on this issue can’t be reasonably well informed about it without simply accepting what political forces or the media tells me. My background is in media and I have a pretty firm grasp of how the media operates. But because, like most people, I myself have not spent decades researching nutrition and environmental issues, and because nobody can be reasonably expected to be an expert on literally everything, it’s only reasonable to seek the advice of trained scientific professionals who support the conclusions of the scientific consensus arrived at through a preponderance of evidence presented in proper peer-reviewed journals over the claims of a single non-scientific institution with their own clear political agenda.
“In fact, as an organization they are the most progressive in terms of their winning law suits in animal cruelty cases and they have brought the most attention to the animal rights cause.” As stated above, I don’t value the mere winning of lawsuits as a basis for determining scientific truth. Any idiot with a good enough lawyer can win a lawsuit, especially when there’s no guarantee of a scientifically literate jury or judge. Real science is determined through the scientific process, which involves rigorous testing and the peer-reviewed process. Those truly interested in progressing science do so by engaging in the process and putting their ideas through the peer-reviewed process where they can be properly judged on their own merits, whereas those who simply wish to bypass the scientific process altogether seek means of promoting their ideas directly to the mostly scientifically illiterate public.
“Yes, some organizations believe this is “negative attention” sometimes, but they don’t argue when PETA helps them with their campaigns or provides funds.” I don’t find this statement surprising in the least. Political organizations will typically embrace whatever gets them the results they wish regardless of whether the methods are proper or honest.
“It all comes down to the funding, and the corporations who are paying for the lies that you are believing.” Like organizations that frequently lie. . .like PETA, who remarkably ALSO HAVE AN INVESTED INTEREST, both financial and political for propagating their claims. If you’re going to make bold assumptions that those who disagree with you are just sheep who credulously accept whatever their told by corporate powers who simply must be evil because they’ve got an invested interest in a particular outcome then it’s inconsistent to give PETA a pass because your politics happens to align with theirs. Does PETA have an invested interest in denying the necessity of medical testing on animals: yes or no?
“If you took the time for yourself to volunteer with PETA, you would learn that the members as a group are anything but radical terrorists.” And if I took the time to join Scientology I might be fooled into thinking their members aren’t brainwashed cult members, even though they are. It’s simply not a reasonable demand to insist that one has to volunteer with an organization to determine if that organization is legit or not. They make very specific false scientific claims in their literature and that fact can’t possibly be overturned by my helping them to promote their political cause.
“Many people may act in the name of PETA and do wrong things, but it doesn’t make the group wrong.” No, the fact that they say things that are wrong makes them wrong. Behaving wrongly just makes them doubly wrong.
“The abuses that animals endure every day is wrong. Wearing them, eating them, using them for entertainment: It’s all wrong.” This is your political opinion and you’re certainly entitled to it. What I ask you is to respect is that many, many people don’t happen to share this political opinion and that many of them may even have good reasons for not sharing that opinion.
“I met Ingrid Newkirk and she a sweet, quiet person who has a deeply compassionate heart for animals. I ensure you she is not running into restaurants wearing ski masks and blowing them up.” She may very well be a nice person. But the literature her organization produces is still wrong.
“You have the wrong idea, and unfortunately you let yourself be easily influenced by the greedy makers of Kraft and Butterball. ” I can’t recall ever seeking the council of either of these sources. I’m far more likely to go directly to the scientific community.
“Corporate greed is quickly poisoning our minds and our bodies, and we are already suffering tremendously for it.” This may be but it doesn’t explain why PETA lies in their literature and uses shitty tactics to promote their message.