One more for the day. I think that is Janessa in this one.

Ahh a great one from my favorite web-comic.

http://xkcd.com/630/

Beware the Spinal Trap

Beware the Spinal Trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.
Simon Singh

On 29th July a number of magazines and websites are going to be publishing Simon Singh’s Guardian article on chiropractic from April 2008, with the part the BCA sued him for removed.

They are reprinting it, following the lead of Wilson da Silva at COSMOS magazine, because they think the public should have access to the evidence and the arguments in it that were lost when the Guardian withdrew the article after the British Chiropractic Association sued for libel.

We want as many people as possible around the world to print it or put it live on the internet at the same time to make an interesting story and prove that threatening libel or bringing a libel case against a science writer won’t necessarily shut down the debate.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Evolution

So the following is all from a note I wrote on face book, the responses to it and a subsequent note I wrote in response.

“IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE, THE CHURCH IS FALSE. If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel (who has been caught openhanded perpetrating a fraud), and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken.”

-Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie, 1:, p.143

I agree with this statement 100%


Paula Duerden at 3:26pm March 19
All things will be known in the long run. You either take a leap or not. Choices...

Randy Parry at 3:37pm March 19
Since evolution is already known, I guess that answers that question.

Paula Duerden at 3:57pm March 19
Guess we'll see.

Jon Heaton at 5:41pm March 19
How do we know that "all things will be known in the long run"?

Randy Parry at 8:09pm March 19
Because some guy in a suit behind a pulpit said so.

Brandi Duerden Newlan at 9:27pm March 26
Only the dead know the answers to the questions you are seeking. The question is...have you seen the dead? Because I have. Whether they know all or not does not matter but the fact that they simply exist after this life. Whether you know or believe that to be the truth, that is something you have to decide for yourself. If you do not believe in life after death then why does it matter what other people believe?


Then I got a comment that disappeared before I could respond to it in the original note. So here is my note about that comment.

Evolution: Continued
Share
Today at 8:34am | Edit Note | Delete
Someone close to me commented on my evolution note, however when I came in to respond to it this morning I can't seem to find the comments any longer. I guess they thought better of their position and decided to take it down. For that reason I will allow them to remain anonymous. However I still wish to respond to their claims.

The note as pulled directly from the email alerting me to it.

"Evolution is not already known my friend. Like most ideas in science it is in fact a theory, and if you know anything about the scientific community a theory isn't a Known truth. It is, just a theory, an idea. And as far as "some guy in a suit behind a pulpit said so" this some guy happens to be immensely inspired by God. (which last I checked, is awesome) You believe evolution because some twit spent some time on an island, and decided based on his own Perceptions of his surroundings that evolution must be so. But, to each their own I suppose."

Evolution is in fact known it has been demonstrated and you will not find any legitimate scientist who will question it. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a theory is in science.

In common parlance, a theory is a hunch or guess about something (e.g., "I have a theory that my teacher is an alien"). In science, however, a theory is an explanation of a set of observations that has been tested and found to be well-supported by evidence (e.g., "the theory of relativity"). The common usage of the word theory is closer in meaning to hypothesis in science: a plausible (or possible) explanation.

The distinction between a theory and a hypothesis (or even a guess) is an important one, and ignoring it leads to the kind of equivocation in apologetics exemplified by the claim that "evolution is only a theory".

As defined by Kevin Padian in his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial:

"A theory, in science, [is] a very large body of information that's withstood a lot of testing. It probably consists of a number of different hypotheses, many different lines of evidence. And it's something that is very difficult to slay with an ugly fact, as Huxley once put it, because it's just a complex body of work that's been worked on through time."

— Kitzmiller v. Dover trial transcript, day 9, a.m. session

"Theory" in science is like the graduation point. Something does not recieve theory status without tons of evidence in it's favor. Does that mean it is 100%, no however it is the best explanation based on all data and evidence at this point.

I am going to jump around a bit here and address another claim of this poster.

" You believe evolution because some twit spent some time on an island, and decided based on his own Perceptions of his surroundings that evolution must be so. But, to each their own I suppose."

I don't believe evolution because some twit spent time on an island and his perceptions lead him to believe in evolution. Darwin as we commonly call this "twit" did not come up with the theory of evolution.

Darwin wrote a book called "On the Origin of Species" in which he introduced natural selection as a method in which differentiation of species could be explained.

This was the seed for what eventually became the theory of evolution however Darwin was not the one who came up with it.

Evolution has been demonstrated, and like any good theory should it makes predicitions and those predictions come true. In evolution for instance we believe there should be a member of the fossil record that has certain traits. Having no fossil record for "missing link" organism we search for it, and time after time we find exactly what evolution says we should.

Evolution is proven in the fossil record, micro evolution is proven in bacteria. It happens, there is no disputing it. The only disputes are in what are the EXACT mechanism's of evolution.

For more evolution information is suggest http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Now to address this bit of information

"And as far as "some guy in a suit behind a pulpit said so" this some guy happens to be immensely inspired by God. (which last I checked, is awesome)"

Can you demonstrate that this guy is "immensely inspired by God". If this is true it should be very easy to come up with some evidence to back it up. I will even take it a step further for you, this guy is supposed to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator in your religion.

Tell me what has he Prophesied? What has he seered? What has he revelated? As for your current Prophet Thomas S. Monson, I won't claim to be terribly familiar with his work so the question is out there for you to answer

However I know a lot about your last Prophet the recently departed Gordon Bitner Hinckley. His powers of prophecy where very much lacking. I bet you are not familiar with the Mark Hoffman incident that happened in the 1980's. However I see this is a good example to show where Hinckley failed to even have any power of discernment, which is an attribute that any worthy church member should have, not just a Prophet.

Here is some in depth information about the case. I will leave it to you to read it or not.
http://www.mormoninformation.com/hofmann.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hoffman

Tell me though, where was your Prophet on 9/11? Where was your prophet on Dec 26, 2004? Aren't prophets supposed to warm of terror and calamity?

As for Monson, I am familiar with the man as a counselor in the LDS 1st presidency. He is a great story teller to be sure, problem is few of his stories can actually be corroborated. However if you like someone who looks like a kindly old man that tells stories about him helping widows, or raising animals in a sugar sweet soft voice he is can be great. I myself would like a little more substance from God's mouthpiece on the earth.

As for me I am and continue to be a skeptic. I am always open to more information so that I can believe the most correct of all things. When new evidence comes in I will reevaluate my position and change my views if I deem the new information to be more accurate than what my prior knowledge has been. Show me some evidence that your Prophet is more than just another guy in a suit behind a podium. If he really is this should be a simple task.

"A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking."

As for any claim of a religious or supernatural method my thoughts on the matter are best summed up by Carl Sagan.

"Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" Bring me the evidence and I will always be ready to examine it and reevaluate my views on the subject.

Our winter holiday

Sarah Palin Scares The Hell Out Of Me

http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/sara-palin-scares-me/

From the Quick Hitts Blog

A few years back the game “Would You Rather…” was inexplicably popular. “Would you rather have needles shoved in your eyes, or eat a dead rat that was rotting in a ditch?” The goal was to come up with the most disgusting selections possible. It was stupid, gross and pointless and I refused to play.

Now we have an official version: “Would you rather have a socialist president Sarah Palin Action Figurebacked by a socialist congress, or a right wing president in bad health with a far far far right wing fundamentalist vice president eagerly waiting in the wings?”

The vast majority of the problems in the US were directly caused by our government, including the current banking mess. Neither candidate is aware of this. Both propose more government to solve all our government created problems. It’s like a drunk saying “I know what will fix things, more Jack Daniels!”

Obama loves big government. He believes that every problem can be solved by government intervention. With a democratic congress behind him we can look forward to a lot more government, which equates to a lot less freedom. Currently the government pays half of the county’s medical bills. He doesn’t think that’s enough. He wants socialized medicine for virtually everyone. We can look forward to heath care that will eventually deteriorate to the level found in VA hospitals.

But as frightening as that may be, the possible alternative, a Palin presidency, is enough to make the bravest of us quiver like a poodle taking a dump.

She in incapable of learning. She still supports abstinence only sex education even though her daughter is living proof that the approach is useless. She looks at her daughters growing belly every day and says “Yep, we need to stick with this program.” If her daughter had been raped, she’d want the government to force her to bear the rapists child.

Fifteen seconds on Google informs us that the universe is 13.73 billion years old, +/- 2%. Sarah believes it’s six thousand. She believes that 1.4 million species of creatures all lived within walking distance of Noah’s house. And she wants that nonsense taught in public schools.

She believes politicians should be able to censor libraries. While she never followed through and banned books, the fact that the thought would even occur to her is chilling.

She believes that God wants everything she wants. She wants a pipeline, so God wants a pipeline. She supports the war in Iraq, and not surprisingly, she knows it’s God’s Will. This is especially scary coming from an end-of-the world fundamentalist. If she wants to attack a country, or even drop a nuke, she’ll do it knowing it is God’s Will. It’s unlikely she’ll be able to trigger the biblical Armageddon, but that might not stop her from trying. It’s God’s Will, after all.

So, “Would you rather have a socialist president backed by a socialist congress, or an unhealthy right wing president with a far far far right wing fundamentalist vice president eagerly waiting in the wings?” The choices are horrible, frightening and retarded, and I don’t want to play.

Snow and Halloween

I always love the mixture of snow and my halloween decorations. It snowed last night and here are the results.