Give It Up Jenny McCarthy!

Back in late 90s, some lawyers were interested in filing a class action lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company that produced the MMR vaccine for children.  They had no other reason than to try and make millions in attorney's fees.  The problem?  They had nothing to blame on the company.  In comes, Andrew Wakefield.  He agreed to study something that he could link the MMR vaccine to so the lawyers could file a lawsuit.  They funded his study.  That study is the now infamous study that linked the MMR vaccine to autism.  His sample size was 12 children.  As a result of this study, the following facts are known:

• Shortly after the study was published, many other studies were commissioned by various entities to attempt to duplicate the findings.  Millions of dollars spent chasing the notion of this link.  No one could.
• Vaccination rates dropped quickly in many parts of England and the United States.
• Childhood diseases such as Pertussis, Measles, Mumps, and Rubella, among others, began to increase in frequency.  Some children died.
• All secondary authors of the original study withdrew their names from it.  There were 11 of them.
• Further investigations into the study itself found that Wakefield and committed various unethical tests on children, including, at one point, paying kids at his own son's birthday party 5 pounds to draw their blood.
• Even further investigations by the British Medical Association resulted in Wakefield's license to practice medicine being revoked.
• The original publisher of the paper, The Lancet, withdrew the article altogther.
• Further investigations have found that Wakefield not only committed ethical violations but ruled that he committed outright fraud in the paper and its conclusions.
• Autism is a spectrum disease that has many contributing factors identified as potential causes, none of which can or would be affected by a vaccination.

Here is a man, who, single-handedly, out of greed, has destroyed the lives of thousands of families and put tens of thousands more at risk because moms all across the United States would watch Oprah and see Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey parade their autistic child around claiming that it was the MMR vaccination that caused his autism.  Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that no such link exists, she continues to defend the disgraced doctor.

Now, are you sitting done, because if you're not you should.  Oh, wait.  You are at your computer, so you probably are.  For the last 12 years, Jenny McCarthy and other anti-vaxxers have been crying from the rooftops that this study shows a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.  So, what does Jenny McCarthy say to continue to defend this position?  She points out that the study didn't actually say there was a link!

Dr. Andrew Wakefield's study of 12 children with autism actually looked at bowel disease, not vaccines. The study's conclusion stated, "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described [autism]."

WTF!  Let me repeat.  She spends 12 years screaming that this study shows a link between autism and the MMR vaccine, treats this doctor like a god, and defends him to the n-th degree, only to defend him further by saying this study did NOT link autism to the MMR vaccine.  Again, WTF!

She is as dumb as the silicon in her breasts.

Thoughts on the Giffords' Assassination Attempt

Whenever a significant newsworthy event occurs, I find myself flipping between MSNBC, CNN, and even Fox News.  It is always interesting to hear who is reporting what and from where.  This story had quite a bit of misinformation early on, as is expected from any chaotic event.  I am generally not looking for facts at this point because I think about half of what is being reported is wrong or purely speculative. One thing I did learn is that the anchoring capabilities of the mid-day news channel personalities leave a lot to be desired.  Most of them are well trained at reading from a tele-prompter, but when asked to, or feel the need to summarize information, they are severely lacking.  Generally, after 5 minutes, or less, I turn everything off.  The real facts will take several hours once all the news organizations stop quoting each other as sources.

Now that we know a lot of the facts, the impact of the events can be better analyzed.  First are the tragic deaths of 6 people including a well respected federal judge and a 9-year old with a strong curiosity in government.  There are still a handful of others in the hospital along with Representative Giffords herself, who appears to have survived a wound that should be fatal nearly all the time.  From this rise stories of heroism at the scene and what appears to be an incredible 38-minute time period from when the shooting occurred to the time when Giffords was in surgery.  In a bit of irony, our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased our knowledge of traumatic head wounds by leaps and bounds.  I believe the doctor that lead the surgery had served in Iraq or Afghanistan.  His training and expertise, I'm sure, were paramount in her survival.  To the credit of the UofA Trauma Center, credit has been given to every person who in someway was involved in the transport and triage of Giffords and the other victims.

One interesting comment from the initial news conference at the hospital on Saturday was something like, "Nobody died that shouldn't have died."  In other words, even though the 9-year old died at the hospital, it was basically a case of nothing could have been done.  Sadly.

As for the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, there is still very little information.  As a side note, why do assassins have to have three names?  I think in every assassination or attempt in the last 50 years in the U.S., the shooter was referred to by three names.  The only exception being Sirhan Sirhan, but he had the same name twice, so... go figure.  Anyway, little is still known about him other than he was very troubled.  One article referred to him as an "ardent atheist," but nothing much to back that up with.  It was described that he had a shrine in the backyard complete with candles and miniature skulls.  Atheists and shrines don't normally go together.  If he was indeed an atheist, he was definitely a little 'a' atheist.  There was some speculation that he was anti-Semitic since Giffords in Jewish and one of his favorite books was Mein Kampf.  Some say he was definitely a strong left-wing nutter, but he list a book by Ayn Rand.  That, along with Hitler, is hardly leftist writings.  There is little evidence thus far to suspect that he was a right-wing nutter as well.  Maybe more will be revealed as more of his personal data is analyzed.

What this tragedy has done, is focused a lot of attention on the violent rhetoric used in the political discussions over the last several years.  Right or wrong as to whether that had a direct impact on these events is somewhat irrelevant at this point.  An important and long overdue dialog has been surfaced and several folks are now being called out for it.  The most famous example is the Sarah Palin "target" map of congressional districts marked with gun sights and the infamous tweet of "Don't retreat.  Reload."  In some bizarre twist, the Palin camp is now claiming those symbols are really "surveyor" symbols and apparently the map has been removed from the Palin website.  Also in the spotlight is Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment Solution" comment in the Nevada Senate race against Harry Reid.  A Democratic Representative of Pennsylvania is looking to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to say or use symbols that can be construed as inciting violence against a member of Congress.  This is fairly similar to some of the laws that make similar things illegal to be said (or used) with respect to the Office of the President.  This gives the Secret Service a good "probably cause" opportunity to pursue these matters to ensure there is no threat to POTUS.

It has also been noted that this may very well be the first assassination attempt of a female U.S. politician.

In two very bizarre and twisted angles to this whole thing, the Westboro Baptists and Fred Phelps are planning to protest at the funerals of the victims of this tragedy.  Phelps has essentially called the shooter a "gift from God."  These Westboro folks are sick fuckers.  The second weird twist is a fellow by the name of Mike Adams, the founder of NaturalNews.com, is finding a way to blame the pharmaceutical industry for the attacks.  Adams is all about the woo.  Among is crazy rants are claims that chemotherapy is what killed people like Tony Snow, Patrick Swayze, Farrah Fawcett, and more recently, Elizabeth Edwards.  Some people will stoop very low indeed for a little publicity and to further perpetuate their dangerous lies.

I'm sure I will have more thoughts on this as more facts are revealed.

Mike Vick "should be executed" according to Fox News' Tucker Carlson

Yes, really, he said that.

"I'm a Christian, I've made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances," Carlson said on the show. "But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did [it] in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should've been executed for that. He wasn't, but the idea that the President of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs?"

I will never condone what Vick did, but he served his time, and by all appearances, he seems to have himself on a pretty good path in his life right now.  This is not to say he couldn't screw up again, but his comeback has been remarkable so far.

This was all said in response to a story that President Obama spoke with the Eagles' owner and praised him and his organization for giving a convicted felon who has rehabilitated himself a second chance to be a productive member of society.

So, a couple of points here.  First Carlson is way out of line for that comment.  By that definition, the line to the gas chambers would be a very long one indeed.  I've often said that Vick would have gotten a fairer shake by society if he had killed a person instead of a dog.  This would be a prime example of that.  But then, he is on Fox News, so fair and balanced is only a slogan.

Second, there is a lot of talk of why Obama would make that call.  Well, he didn't call to talk about Vick, he called to talk about the Eagles' plans to make Lincoln Financial Field self sustainable energy-wise with their new 'green' initiatives.  The conversation turned to Vick after that, so the assumption that this was a call to solely praise Vick is wrong.  But, so what?  Vick is being made an example of in so many ways, why not make him a good example of someone who has committed a despicable crime and has rehabilitated himself.  Let's not use the reverse-celebrity bias here to belittle his rehab just because he plays football.  Shouldn't anyone who has excellent skills at a particular profession get a second chance?  Assuming of course that profession is not directly linked to the crime.  Having a convicted child molester going back to work for a daycare is not appropriate.  I would not expect Vick to open a kennel or animal hospital anytime soon either.

Let's not forget that Vick also owes creditors millions of dollars.  Those creditors would not have had a chance of getting any of that money back if Vick was not allowed to play football but instead had to bag groceries.

If we, as a society, are going to send people to prison for all sorts of crimes in the name of rehabilitating some of those people for when they are released, then why is Vick not getting credit for demonstrating that, in his case, the system worked?

Can't We All Just Get Along?

Oy vey!  Here comes the civility issue again. 

Over on ScienceBlogs, a new blog has started recently called Dean's Corner.  Written by a Jeff Toney, a Dean of a college at Kean University.  His most recent blog post was questioning the civility (and tone) of some of the ScienceBlogs bloggers and asking them to consider other words to use instead of "stupid" or "dumbass" when referring to someone who may not agree with their opinion.  Yes, yes, calling people names is an ad hominem argument.  There is a whole slew of atheist/agnostic religious apologists who implore the "Gnu Atheists" to be more civil so we can all just get along.  The commenters kindly warned him to put on his asbestos underwear for the inevitable response.

Another recent addition to ScienceBlogs (I think he's been around for a year or so, but not very active) is Evolution for Everyone.  His recent blog post is entitled, "What's Fair in Games, Sports, and Science" talks about how in Chess, once the king is taken, the game is over.  In sports, once the final buzzer has sounded, the game is over.  There is a clear winner and a clear loser.  In Science, the king has fallen on Creationists many times over.  The final buzzer has sounded on all their tired old arguments again and again.  Game over.  Yet, the keep coming back for more, such as Josh Brecheen of the Oklahoma legislature that makes no bones about wanting to bring Creationism into the science classroom as an equal to the teaching of evolution.  Sorry.  Game over.  Take your ball and go home.

It is increasingly difficult to remain civil when your opposition are zombies.  Dead arguments raised again and again to waste more and more taxpayer dollars in lawsuits that have already been tried.  Game over.  Dover vs. Kitzmiller took care of that for us 5 years ago with several others before that.  The Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank, has been promoting the idea of Intelligent Design for many years.   Intelligent Design theory is nothing more than Creationism with the word "God" removed from the argument so it doesn't sound so religious.  They argue, and will continue to argue, that Intelligent Design is a sound scientific theory to challenge evolution.   In order to be considered a valid scientific theory, once must put forth some hypotheses that are testable.  They must test them, and report on them through the process known as peer reviewed research.  There is not one single testable hypothesis that has yet emerged from Intelligent Design.  Their only method of attacking evolution is to attack science itself.  Again, with zombie like arguments that have been dismissed through scientific rigor again and again.  Take your ball and go home.

But they don't.  I'm relegated to using a quote from Road House. 

"If somebody gets in your face and calls you a cocksucker, I want you to be nice. Ask him to walk. Be nice. If he won't walk, walk him. But be nice. If you can't walk him, one of the others will help you, and you'll both be nice. I want you to remember that it's a job. It's nothing personal...I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice."~ Dalton

We are way past the time to be nice.

Now, you would think that all the Jesus loving Christians out there would be nice.  Not so much.

Dawkins, you and your atheist friends cannot win. America WILL become a Christian Republic even if we have to write a whole new constitution. Millions of us are dedicated to this righteous cause. We will suceed. And then we will invade godless countries like "Great" Britain and kill all of your heathens. First we need to take care of things at home and in the Middle East but we will get around to Europe. You Godless freaks will die but then you will roast in hell for infinite time. Goodbye you loser.

Or,

I hope you die slowly and you fucking burn in hell! You dammed
blasfemy!!! Right now you are rotting on the inside... But you must
now (sic) that there is indeed a God! A great god! And he will forgive you if you regret from your fucking behavior. And you should realise thatyour entire life has been a delusion...and that right now your destiny is all fucked up! Fucking atheist!!!!!!!!!!!

 and,

haha, you fucking dumbass, I hope you get hit by a Church van tonight and you die slowly

Those are real letters sent to Richard Dawkins.  Christians are so nice and civil aren't they?

PZ Myers will often post emails on his blog with a thoughtful running commentary on them such as this one.

So tone and civility is an issue on both sides.  Human nature will dictate that we will get upset if continuously pushed.  At what point are we allowed to push back?  I can assure you that every single one of the tired creationist arguments has been and will continue to be shot down time and time again with lucid, reasoned, and civil responses.  They just aren't listening anymore.  So some will continue down the civil path and other will advocate a more in your face approach.  Which one ultimately prevails?  I don't think we will know in my lifetime, but the civil method has been tried with little success since the publishing of Darwin's Origin of the Species.  Maybe a change in tactic is needed.

St. Joseph's Stripped of their Catholic Affiliation

This is good news.

I think PZ Myers sums it up pretty well also.

So, the hospital can do Mass.  Big Deal.  Is that ALL they hospital was getting out of the deal?  Good for them for standing up for basic human decency and sticking a middle finger up at he Diocese.

Let's hope they don't cave in to the murderous principles of the Diocese in the future.

The hospital's statement is here.

“Consistent with our values of dignity and justice, if we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case,” said Hunt. “We continue to stand by the decision, which was made in collaboration with the patient, her family, her caregivers, and our Ethics Committee. Morally, ethically, and legally we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.”

 Nice!

Here is the written statement from the Diocese.

Here is a list of some of the dispicable things the statement says the hospital has done.

• Contraceptive counseling, medications, supplies and associated medical and laboratory examinations, including, but not limited to, oral and injectable contraceptives, intrauterine devices, diaphragms, condoms, foams and suppositories;
• Voluntary sterilization (male and female); and
• Abortions due to the mental or physical health of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Creationist Interpretation: Catholic Priests are not Human

A crazy Young Earth Creationist by the name of Brock Lee has an interesting interpretation of the definition of species.

By biology's own definition of the word species, according to Mr. Lee, a species is an interbreeding population.  He expands on this point by saying that if you are a virgin, or a child, then you are not human because you are not yet breeding.  He states that, according to evolutionary thinking about species, it is OK to sacrifice a child or a virgin because they aren't really human and killing a non-human wouldn't be illegal.  Such is the warped mental gymnastics of a YEC.

He uses this as an excuse as to why kids are wanting to have sex at a young age, because us evilutionists have convinced them that they are not human until they start breeding.  So, does there have to be spawn, or just an attempt at breeding?  This warped theory would also apply to homosexuals as well, or so I would assume.

So, by expanding on Mr. Lee's own (ahem) logic, every Catholic priest should also be non-human.  Maybe that is why they are molesting all those children.  It is their own perverse way of thinking they will become human themselves.

Oh, the stupid is strong with this one.

Of Equinoxes, Solstices, and Seasons

My none to pleasurable journey through Utah in snow storms over the weekends that book end Thanksgiving got me thinking about the seasons.  That, and a few random Facebook comments from friends about my mis-adventures.

There are four dates on our calendar that represent the change in seasons.  These days have names.  For the first day of spring, it is called the Vernal Equinox and is supposed to represent the day when there is an equal amount of daylight and night, at least at the equator.  For those of us with a Northern Hemisphere bias, this day is March 21st.  For fall, it is called the Autumnal Equinox, and occurs on September 21st.  The other two days are solstices, which represent the minimum (winter) and maximum (summer) day of sunlight.  For summer, this is June 21st, and for Winter, this is December 21st.

So, my question to myself was, why are these days the actual start of the season?  Wouldn't it make sense if these days were the midpoint of the season?  Wouldn't it make more sense for the Summer Solstice, being the longest day of the year, be the midpoint of summer?  It does to me.  This seems to make a lot of sense in winter as well.  The weather conditions in Utah can only be described as wintery.  In fact, they had Winter Storm Warnings!  Wouldn't it make more sense for winter to begin 1 1/2 months before December 21st?

Just think, we'd be halfway through winter right now.