Iran and Afghanistan

First, I just want to say that not having reliable internet can be a bitch. I was offline for a little over a week, and I now realize just how addicted to the internet I really am. It's actually quite unhealthy. Anyway...

I have a few bones to pick with Obama. Prior to the election, Obama repeatedly talked about how Afghanistan was the good war, while Iraq was the unnecessary bad war. I took this to mean that he would not only focus his attention on Afghanistan and pull us out of Iraq, but that he would shift the Afghanistan war into something more productive. If the last 8 years of this war haven't shown that a traditional military offensive is worthless, then I don't know how one can be so blind. Obama has since increased the amount of troops in Afghanistan to 55,000, but his generals are requesting many more troops to fully secure the country. The Depart of Defense has even resorted to contracting out more and more duties in Afghanistan in order to free up space for more combat soldiers, without actually increasing the total number of soldiers currently serving in Afghanistan, which is an incredibly sneaky move due to public disapproval of the war. The fact that the Defense department admits to using contractors because the war isn't popular gives us a small idea of the current state of affairs in this country. They are using contractors (mercenaries) to bypass public disapproval of the war, which could hardly be considered Constitutional. Ironic that conservatives, who have recently embraced the Constitution after shitting on it for the last 8 years under Bush, aren't complaining about this. Probably because Bush started it and conservatives love themselves some warfare, no matter who's actually doing the fighting in our name.

Now Obama is becoming extremely wishy-washy on sending even more troops to Afghanistan. As if more troops would help. A country that even the British and Soviet Union failed to conquer is going to be taken out by an army that is so overstretched its forced to use mercenaries to carry some of the load. Give me a break. Obama had this to say about possibly ratcheting down this war and focusing on counterterrorism efforts rather than large scale war:

Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Two senior administration officials say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.

This reminds me of the same appeasement of conservative voices that Obama has been inclined to provide since his election, perhaps as a safety while looking ahead to the 2012 elections. Recently he shunned the Dalai Lama in order to appease the Chinese government. A government guilty of multiple human rights violations related to violent suppression of pro-democracy protests, notably the 1989 protest in Tiananmen Square, and continued hostility with Taiwan. They backed the Sudanese government both financially and politically, using the UN Security Council as their pulpit, while the Sudanese government carried out one of the most egregious acts of genocide in modern history. Of course, conservatives were in full support of this due to China being such a huge economic power. Yes, the same conservatives who always talk about supporting democracy and freedom abroad. I guess that kind of rhetoric takes a backseat when money is involved. Probably the same reason why we continue to sanction communist Cuba, but happily trade with communist China. The blatant hypocrisy is nothing new, however, so I guess I shouldn't rant so much about it. Afghanistan is one big cluster fuck, and Obama seems intent on keeping it that way.

Iran is another issue that Obama has taken a hardline position on. Hillary Clinton famously said that she would "obliterate Iran" in the Democratic primary, which she received flack for from none other than Obama himself. Now that he managed to get elected, he is kowtowing to the saber rattlers who want to start up another conflict with another Middle Eastern country. However, now the conflict has taken on conspiracy theory proportions with speculation of a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race and nuclear war with Israel, which would lead to the rapture, so you would think the Christian fundies would be supporting this...

"Our preferred method of action is diplomatic," [Obama] said. "If that does not work, then other consequences may follow."

How tough you sound. I'm sure Iran is shaking in their boots. And even if they aren't, Israel will be more than willing to follow up on this threat for us. The absurdity of this conflict reaches epic proportions when we take into consideration this Pew research poll showing that the majority of Americans support military action against Iran. Military action for what!? Blind speculation and fear? Sure. Let's remember that blind speculation and fear was more than enough to invade Iraq. Look how reliable that was.

There is broad willingness across the political spectrum to use military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Seven-in-ten Republicans (71%) and two-thirds of independents (66%) say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons even if it means taking military action. Fewer Democrats (51%) express this view; still, only about three-in-ten Democrats (31%) say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, if it means Tehran may develop nuclear weapons.

There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran is building a bomb. Furthermore, both Pakistan and Israel have had nuclear bombs for many decades, and yet both of this highly influential countries have failed to spark any kind of Middle Eastern nuclear arms race. But somehow Iran will be the one to spark this potential Armageddon. When the only thing you have is speculation and fear, there should automatically be a tempered policy to accommodate the lack of evidence. Instead this country can only react in extreme ways with absolutely no regard to past mistakes. We went to war with Iraq on questionable intelligence that Saddam could nuke us all, and yet the public as well as Obama are willing to start another war based on the same type of questionable intelligence. Xenophobic fear has been a motivater of this country for many years, but you would hope that we would eventually start to learn from our mistakes. To learn from our Korea's and Vietnam's and Iraq's. Instead we continue to make the same damn mistakes over and over again.

Whether it's his policy on Afghanistan or his posturing with Iran, Obama seems more than willing to kowtow to conservative pressure and jingoistic sentiment that has led to some of the most egregious hegemonic foreign policy debacles in this country's history. A conflict with Iran over imaginary nukes and a never-ending war in Afghanistan could be Obama's foreign policy legacy as President. I wonder if he's really okay with that.

Continue Reading...

Get Your Swine Flu Shot

Given the upcoming mass H1N1 vaccination campaign, a lot of alternative medicine quacks are coming out of the woodwork to try and stop people from receiving their vaccinations. Chief among them is Bill Maher, who recently tweeted that anyone who gets a swine flu shot is an idiot. Look in the mirror, buddy. You'll find all kinds of idiot staring right back at you. Among the internet sites telling people not to get vaccination, the most prominent is the Huffington Post (yet another liberal source for alternative medicine quackery):

This is why am I not recommending the swine flu vaccine
1) At this stage, for the most part the swine flu seems benign.
Over a million people in the US have already come down with swine flu, many of them without even knowing that they had it. The vast majority of people who get the swine flu recover after a week or so of high fever, aches, and respiratory distress. It's not pleasant, but except in rare circumstances, it is not fatal. Most people who've been infected by swine flu think so little of it, they believe they just had a really bad cold or a regular flu. So unless the swine flu evolves to a much more virulent form, there's no need for mass vaccination.
2) We don't know if the vaccine will be effective.
Vaccines are only useful against the specific viral strain that was available at the time of their manufacture. But influenza viruses mutate quickly, and as the WHO has already said, the real concern with H1N1 swine flu is that it will combine with seasonal flu in the Fall, creating a new strain that will of course be immune to all available vaccines.
3) We don't know if the vaccine is safe.
The FDA has authorized an expedited approval process for the swine flu vaccine but we don't know yet if it is safe. Even GlaxoSmithKline, one of the vaccine manufacturers has said, "The total population studied in clinical trials will be limited, due to the need to provide the vaccine to governments as quickly as possible. Additional studies will therefore be required and conducted after the vaccine is made available."
In other words, the only thing that is safe, is to say that no one knows. Since it's never been used before and they have not had time to conduct any sufficient human testing, by getting vaccinated you are being a human guinea pig.
4) Vaccine manufacturers have been insulated from liability by the government.
The Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius has granted legal immunity not only to the makers of the 2 drugs being used to treat swine flu, Tamiflu and Relenza, but also to the swine flu vaccine makers, for damages due to their use against swine flu. By effectively manipulating the legal system, the Pharmaceutical Industry through their powerful lobbyists have acquired almost complete and total insulation from any liability for their vaccines and adjuvants, which are additives added to generate a stronger immune response.

The statements he makes are simply not correct. Recent swine flu data from the CDC shows that swine flu hospitalization and mortality are either on par with seasonal flu or slightly above seasonal flu rates. For most adults, the swine flu seems to be no more or less serious than the seasonal flu, but for infants and adolescents, the hospitalization and mortality rates are much higher. Given the fact that 36,000 people die every year from seasonal flu here in the United States (upwards of 500,000 worldwide), I would say swine flu should be taken just as seriously as the seasonal flu, more so with children. And his claim that the swine flu vaccine may not be effective because the swine flu could combine with the seasonal flu is just factually incorrect. According to a study released by the University of Maryland, the swine flu cannot combine with the seasonal flu because the swine flu replicates at a much higher rate than the seasonal flu, making it much more virulent. However, the possibility of H1N1 combining with avian flu still needs to be studied. However, that has not happened yet and there are no indications that it's going to happen, which means the vaccine being released will be effective.

His 3rd point is your typical appeal to emotion by claiming that if you get a swine flu shot, you will be a "human guinea pig". Yes, it is true that in order to get the H1N1 vaccine out to the public before flu season hits, the government has allowed for a speedier approval process than what normally would be required. However, multiple trials are being conducted to test the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The only difference is that certain steps in the testing phase in between the actual trials being conducted are being moved along at a faster clip than normal, but the same rigor is being applied to the trials as they normally would be. You will not be a guinea pig if you get the swine flu vaccine, but you will definitely be more intelligent than this guy.

His 4th point is simply a non-sequitur, in that it has nothing to do with whether or not the vaccine is effective or safe. He has now stepped into the realm of conspiracy theories. He is trying to make the connection that if the government is giving immunity to vaccine manufacturers, then it must follow that they're doing something shady that would require immunity. This would of course mean that the government is in on this conspiracy, much like the government blowing up skyscrapers and not a single government official blowing the whistle on such a grand conspiracy. However, these 4 points are not what makes this guy a quack. Let's be fair, he could just be misinformed. We can certainly forgive that. Unfortunately, that's not the case. He also includes a list of recommendations for you to follow in order to avoid the swine flu. Among them are the following:

1) Optimize your vit D level (2,000IU daily)
8) Eat lots of garlic, it works as a broad spectrum antibiotic.
9) Take a probiotic daily (look for one with 10-20 billion organisms).
10) Keep a supply of antiviral herbal supplements on hand.
14) Keep homeopathic Oscillococcinum on hand

Keep in mind the author of this article claims to have a medical degree. And yet he recommends antibiotics and probiotics to deal with a VIRUS; he recommends a daily intake of Vitamin D that is far above the recommended daily intake by the National Institutes of Health, which ranges from 200IU to 600IU; he recommends antiviral herbal supplements that have no evidence of being effective at all, making yet another baseless claim that is factually unsupported; and, most egregiously, recommends a homeopathic treatment that has been shown to perform no better than a placebo. The fact that he believes in homeopathy, which is essentially magic, discredits him quite thoroughly, along with the factually incorrect and misleading medical advice that he gives.

The bottom line is H1NI is serious, and needs to be dealt with in a serious manner. The seasonal flu kills tens of thousands of people in the United States every year, even with a vaccine being readily available. Not getting the H1N1 vaccine puts you at an unneccesary risk to contract this highly virulent virus, possibly spreading it to vulnerable friends and loved ones who can't afford to be infected by this virus. Children especially must be protected as statistics have shown them to be most at risk of dieing from swine flu. The government will be monitoring any side effects of the vaccine once it's released to the public, so any danger of being killed or otherwise harmed by the vaccine will be minimal. When you include the many clinical trials taking place and the already available evidence showing minimal risk of taking the vaccine, there should be very little worry about being hurt by the vaccine. I would hope that all of you will get your H1N1 vaccination and help minimize the spread of swine flu throughout this potentially deadly flu season.

Continue Reading...

Dorothy: Racism, Lunar Ice, and Health Care Reform! Oh, my!

The Confederate flag is back in the news. For those who don't know, the Confederate flag is currently flown near the state capital building in South Carolina. The NAACP has staged numerous protests and have actively promoted various boycotts against South Carolina. One such boycott compelled the Atlantic Coast Conference to move the setting of three baseball tournaments out of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and relocate them to North Carolina. This has caused an uproar in South Carolina and among white supremacist groups for what they say is the ACC bending to political pressure. However, the NCAA has been quite vocal in supporting the NAACP in their boycott of South Carolina, most likely due to the fact that many NCAA athletes are black, so the organization is understandably conscious of racial issues.

But the current hoopla is over comments made during a debate between the Republican candidates running for Governor of South Carolina. One of the gubernatorial candidates said that he would be willing to speak with the NAACP about ending their boycott, but said that he would not remove the flag. A lot of good that will do...

During a debate Tuesday between the five GOP candidates for governor, Barrett answered "yes" when asked if he would consider sitting down with the NAACP to revisit the flag issue and come to some sort of resolution about the boycott, which began in 1999. Barrett was the only candidate asked if he would meet with the group.

But later in the debate, the entire GOP field was asked if the flag should be removed from the Statehouse grounds. All of them, including Barrett, said no.

"I think we have dealt with that issue, and I'm not willing to take a look at it right now," Barrett said.

"The congressman feels like this issue has been dealt with in a bipartisan fashion, but he remains open to talking to various groups about the issues that are of concern to them," Boling said. "Saying he's willing to talk to somebody but also saying he thinks the issue has been addressed, I don't see how that's contradictory."

Lonnie Randolph, the president of the South Carolina NAACP, said he would "absolutely" meet with Barrett about the flag if he becomes governor, despite the "wayward and disrespectful views" of all five Republican candidates. Barrett's GOP primary opponents are Attorney General Henry McMaster, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, state Rep. Nikki Haley and state Sen. Larry Grooms.

"I think you learn things by having conversations," Randolph said of a possible sit-down with Barrett. "It's obvious from his positions and his views that he is misinformed. I would be more than happy to share my views with him."

My bold. At first I assumed that was a joke, but then read it again and realized they were being dead serious. They truly do not see a contradiction in saying they would meet with the NAACP to address the flag issue, but also saying that they refuse to remove the flag. What good will this meeting do, exactly? Unbelievable. Surprisingly enough, the NAACP said they would welcome a meeting with him, despite the fact that he doesn't support removing the flag. I would have expected them to take offense at such a ridiculous proposition, but they didn't. This strikes me as one of those issues that should be getting more national attention, but sadly this seems almost mundane, perhaps due to the location (we all know the South has a racism stereotype). Flying a Confederate flag near the state capital is essentially telling all of the black residents of South Carolina to "Fuck off! This is Confederate country, negroes, so know your place." And the fact that this is still taking place in 2009--almost 2010--is dumbfounding. These people seriously need to get over their Civil War loss. Racism was so 20th century...

In lighter news, NASA says there may be more water ice on the Moon than previously thought. That image is from the Chandrayaan 1 probe, showing the composition of the Moon's surface. The blue indicates water, which is prevalent at the North and South poles. However, now they're seeing readings of water ice all over the Moon's surface. This finding comes ahead of NASA's LCROSS mission which will slam a freaking huge object into the Moon in order to analyze the debris that will get blasted out due to the impact. The whole point of this mission is to see just how much water ice lies underneath the lunar surface, which will have huge implications regarding a future lunar base of some kind. And once we build a lunar base, we can then use it to launch missions to Mars and beyond.

While scientists continued to suspect that water ice deposits could be found in the coldest spots of south pole craters that never saw sunlight, the consensus was that the rest of the moon was dry.

But new observations of the lunar surface made with Chandrayaan 1, the international Cassini spacecraft and NASA's Deep Impact probe are calling that consensus into question. Scientists say the probes made multiple detections of the spectral signal of either water or the hydroxyl group (an oxygen and hydrogen chemically bonded).

Chandrayaan 1, India's first-ever moon probe, was aimed at mapping the lunar surface and determining its mineral composition. In August, the orbiter's mission ended 14 months prematurely due to an abrupt malfunction. But while the probe was still active, its NASA-built Moon Mineralogy Mapper, also known as M3, detected wavelengths of light reflected off the surface that signaled the chemical bond between hydrogen and oxygen — the telltale sign of either water or hydroxyl.

Because M3 can only penetrate the top few millimeters of lunar regolith, the newly observed water seems to be at or near the lunar surface. M3's observations also showed that the water signal got stronger toward the polar regions.

Archived data from Cassini, which passed by the moon in 1999 on its way to Saturn, provided confirmation of this water/hydroxyl signal. The water would have to be absorbed or trapped in the glass and minerals at the lunar surface, Roger Clark of the U.S. Geological Survey wrote in a study detailing Cassini's findings.

Very exciting news, but will this translate into enough water to sustain a lunar base? That remains to be seen, although the LCROSS mission should answer part of that question. Once the Constellation program gets up and running, we'll be heading back to the Moon to take a closer look at this newly discovered evidence of water ice. We, of course, have President Bush to thank for pushing NASA to scrap the aging shuttle and start focusing on this new program, which will incorporate the best aspects of both the old Saturn rockets that launched the Apollo missions and the shuttle program. So, I guess Bush wasn't all that bad... Oh who am I kidding? He still sucks.

Finally, health care. This is an aggravating issue to talk about for me, mainly because of all the nonsense that has surrounded the 'debate' over the last few months. Ever since Obama kicked things off by challenging Congress to pass a health care bill before the August recess (Ha!), the crazies have come out of the woodwork to make these last few months almost unbearable. First there were accusations of socialism and opposition to supposed "government health care", then came the Hitler references and chants of fascism and "don't tread on me", then came death panels and accusations of Nazism and "Final Solutions" for grandma and her friends. Total nonsense, of course, but that didn't stop the dregs of humanity from throwing tea parties and worshiping at the alter of Fox News and Glenn Beck. Speaking of Glenn Beck, that guy is a genius. He has become the spokesmen of the right-wing and his book is selling like wild fire, while his show is among the highest rated shows on cable and his mug was printed on the cover of TIME magazine. He's accomplished all this by crying, screaming, and just routinely emitting high-pitched screeching sounds whenever he gets angry. Just genius.

For their part, the Democrats have kept themselves busy by bending over and taking it from Glenn Beck every single day. With no spine or courage to speak of, they have allowed the highly marginalized right-wing to dominate the discourse and have repeatedly folded under their insane rhetoric. Accusations of socialism caused the Democrats to fold on the public option; accusations of death panels caused the Democrats to fold on end-of-life counseling; and accusations of excessive government regulation has caused the Democrats to fold on limiting the power of insurance companies and making the system work for consumers, rather than lining the pockets of insurance company CEO's. The recent bill from the Democrats is so pathetic as to be counterproductive.

It forces everyone to get health care, penalizing those who refuse to get it. For low-income families, the government will provide subsidies by taxing high-income families, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and insurance companies. This bill supposedly lowers the cost of premiums and puts a cap on co-pays and deductibles, but no hard numbers have been released for that claim to be believable. There is absolutely no public option, nor will the government have any control over what plans the insurance companies provide. The insurance companies will simply be required to no longer exclude people for pre-existing conditions and must cover preventive care, dental, vision, mental health, and prescription drugs. There is no guarantee that insurance companies won't be able to drop people from their plans at the insurance company's whim. Nothing is mentioned about not allowing insurance companies to refuse to pay for procedures that are 'experimental'.

The bill prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, even though abortion is still legal the last time I checked. A total spineless bow to the conservative bloc. This includes the provision that prohibits illegal immigrants from being allowed to purchase health care coverage with their own damn money. I guess hospitals will be told to check for papers and identification before allowing anyone to receive medical care. If that's not the case, then this provision makes even less sense than it already does, because it would be more expensive if illegals were forced to go to the emergency room every time they needed medical care. Although, no one said conservatives were rational in their hatred for immigrants. Overall, this bill is a big "Fuck You" to every poor, sick person in this country and a big "Mission Accomplished" to the insurance companies and conservative right-wing. This country makes me sad, but we deserve the government we get. A stupid, uninformed populace electing stupid, uninformed politicians to run this country and write laws. I should stop acting so surprised...

Continue Reading...

Bill Maher At It Again

Watching overtime on Bill Maher's show caused me to lose all hope for the man. Not only did he go on another alternative medicine rant, but he went after cancer this time. He played the persecution card by claiming that anyone who even suggests alternative cancer treatments gets thrown in jail. The guy is so clueless that he doesn't even realize that if his claim were true, he wouldn't be able to google his favorite alternative medicine website where he gets all his information from.



It's almost exactly what most alternative medicine websites claim, which is that Western medicine doesn't cure anything and that people who have gone out of the country to receive cancer treatment have come back cured. What Bill Maher doesn't seem to realize is that alternative medicine is his sacred cow. Much like the 9/11 truthers, facts will not sway him from his belief. He even makes the ridiculous claim that cancer treatments have not improved survival rates in "50 years". I addressed this nonsense in a previous post, showing that cancer survival rates have gone up significantly since the 1970's (an even shorter time frame than his 50 years claim).

One of the problems is that no one bothers to challenge Maher on this issue. Toobin, one of the guests on the show, tried at first and then backed away. Perhaps in respect to Maher being the host, but to hell with that. At some point Maher needs to be challenged on his claims. He obviously only cohorts with like-minded people, because if he actually had anyone in his life knowledgeable about medicine and willing to stand up to him, he would not believe in this crap. His claims could be refuted by 5-10 minutes of research, which he clearly doesn't bother to do. This has really left a bad taste in my mouth, which is unfortunate because Maher otherwise makes very good arguments against religion and in support of liberalism. He has my support on two of the three pillars in my life, but the last one--skepticism--definitely needs some work.

Continue Reading...

Obama Has Revelation: Liberals say, "Better late than never."

Since the start of this push for health care reform, I've wondered why the Obama Administration seemed to be reluctant to take charge and push Congress to pass a decent bill. Instead they opted to sit back and throw out orders from the sidelines, which allowed the conservatives to take control of the dialogue and put the Democrats on the defensive. All of a sudden the push for health care reform became a constant denial of 'death panels' and accusations of Nazism! A mixed race President that would have certainly been sent to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany, suddenly finds himself being compared to Hitler and his approval rating sliding to nearly 50%. One of the fastest drops in popularity of any post-WWII president. Now it's pretty much common place to see images of Obama with a Hitler mustache and chants of tyranny and "don't tread on me", spurred on by the likes of Glenn Beck and other crazies.

But now Obama has seen the light. He's finally realize that health care reform will not happen so long as he remains on the sidelines. Congress is broken, that much is clear. Without the president moving things along, those children could sit there and bicker with each other until the end of time. It's Obama's job to keep the national dialogue in his favor. No more of this death panel nonsense, no more of this Hitler nonsense, and certainly no more interruptions during speeches to Congress. A president with dark skin is certainly at an immediate disadvantage, with many whites in this country refusing to accept a minority as their leader, but that can be overcome in the same way it was overcome on November 4th, 2008. Winning 365 electoral votes and 52% of the popular vote was an accomplishment that transcended race for at least one day. Obama needs to sprinkle some of that magic election dust onto this health care debate and make people realize that health care for all is the best possible thing for this country, no matter what Beck or Limbaugh have to say.

Obama's revelation took so long that I was getting worried. But then I read this Washington Post article and felt better about the prospects of passing health care reform:

In interviews conducted Friday in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Obama acknowledged being "humbled" by the challenge of "breaking through" in the complicated and emotional battle over health-care reform.

"I think there have been times where I have said I've got to step up my game in terms of talking to the American people about issues like health care," he told George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week."

"I've tried to keep it digestible, you know, it's very hard for people to get their -- their whole arms around it. And that's been a case where I have been humbled and I just keep on trying harder, because I, I really think it's the right thing to do for the country."

Better late than never. And no, Mr. President, you weren't telling yourself to step up your game, it was every single liberal in the country urging you to step up your game. One hopes that Obama's new lease on life will make a difference is dispelling a lot of the misinformation and outright lies that have been spewed about health care reform. We don't need shifty Democrats appearing on television and awkwardly denouncing Tea Party protesters and Sarah Palin clones, we need the President of these United States to step up and be the leader that he promised us he would be. If he does that, he will have the support of every progressive voter in this country. And we are numerous...

Continue Reading...

Chemotherapy: It Works

With the recent death of Patrick Swayze due to pancreatic cancer, there has been an influx of New Age internet hoopla from quacks advocating holistic cancer cures. They used him as a sales prop to promote their nonsense even before the man was buried. Much of their ire is based on a notion that chemotherapy is 'poison' and only makes things worse, thus cancer sufferers should pursue holistic cures that involve changing their diet and colon cleansing, among other things. I'm going to sound like a broken record on this, but there is, of course, no evidence that one's diet will have any affect on shrinking tumors and destroying cancer cells. This is yet another dangerous claim that alternative medicine proponents make. They are telling people not to pursue chemotherapy when they are diagnosed with cancer. That kind of advice carries an actual death toll, much like the anti-vaccination crowd.

Due to Swayze's high profile status, he was hounded by proponents of alternative medicine looking to cash in on his celebrity. For his part, he smacked them down pretty good. In an interview with Barbara Walters, Swayze had this to say about alternative medicine treatments:

"That's one thing I'm not gonna do, is chase, is chase staying alive. I'm not, you know, you'll spend so much time chasing staying alive you won't live, you know? I wanna live. If anybody had that cure out there like so many people swear to me they do, you'd be two things: you'd be very rich, and you'd be very famous. Otherwise, shut up," he told Barbara Walters in an interview that aired in January of this year.

Naturally, this particular argument does not phase your average alternative medicine proponent. The fact that any cure for cancer would net you all the wealth and power in the world is ignored. Instead they attribute the lack of proof for holistic cancer cures to a grand conspiracy involving all the world governments, doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and every other organization with any links to the mainstream medical establishment. Much like other conspiracy theories, the paranoia is unfalsifiable and shifts accordingly when contradictions are brought to light. No amount of facts will sway the conspiracy theorists, but we can certainly make it difficult for them to maintain this charade. In that same ABC News article, this point was made:

Swayze's feelings may be correct, according to a study released last month in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That study -- from Columbia University Medical Center -- compared standard pancreatic cancer care, including the chemotherapy drug gemcitabine, with a popular alternative therapy known as the Gonzalez regimen.

Researchers found that patients on the alternative regimen had a median survival time of a little over 4 months, while patients taking the standard of care regimen survived for a median of 14 months.

This is only one small data point out of an entire wall of contradiction that alternative medicine proponents must contend with. Chemotherapy, in conjunction with complimentary treatments, has scientifically been shown to work for a number of cancers, notably lung and stomach cancer. In a clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, chemotherapy given after surgery to remove lung cancer cells showed a higher survival rate than surgery alone:

Patients assigned to chemotherapy had a significantly higher survival rate than those assigned to observation (44.5 percent vs. 40.4 percent at five years [469 deaths vs. 504]; hazard ratio for death, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.76 to 0.98; P<0.03). Patients assigned to chemotherapy also had a significantly higher disease-free survival rate than those assigned to observation (39.4 percent vs. 34.3 percent at five years [518 events vs. 577]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.94; P<0.003). There were no significant interactions with prespecified factors. Seven patients (0.8 percent) died of chemotherapy-induced toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival among patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer.

My bold. In another clinical trial also published in the New England Journal of Medicine, chemotherapy given after surgery that removed cancer cells in the stomach showed an increased survival rate than with surgery alone:

Study participants were randomly assigned to receive either surgery alone or surgery followed by chemotherapy with the drugs fluorouracil and leucovorin plus five weeks of radiation treatment.

After an average of five years of follow-up, average overall survival was 36 months in patients who received the adjuvant (additional) therapy, compared with 27 months in patients treated with surgery alone. Survival without return of stomach cancer was 30 months on average in the group receiving adjuvant therapy compared with 19 months in the surgery-only group.

You sort of have to wonder whether this information makes it into the alternative medicine circles. And if it does, do they factor it in or dismiss it as part of the conspiracy? Whatever their level of intellectual honesty, it is clear that their fears are misplaced.

And yet they're still at it. Searching around for alternative medicine websites brought me to this article written on naturalnews.com in regards to Patrick Swayze's death:

Could he have been saved?

Could Patrick Swayze have saved his own life with natural medicine? Absolutely. Without question. Even late-stage pancreatic cancer can be reversed (yes, reversed) with full-on naturopathic treatments involving Chinese herbal medicine, deep body detoxification that includes sweat saunas and colon cleansing, radical changes in diet from "dead" foods to "live" foods, a healthy dose of vitamin D and the daily consumption of raw anti-cancer living juices made from fresh, organic produce like cabbage, broccoli and garlic.

Yikes! Even Suzanne Somers jumped in with her idiocy:

Suzanne Somers, a cancer survivor herself, thinks Patrick Swayze was killed by chemotherapy. "They took a beautiful man" and "put poison in his body," the "Three's Company" star told columnist Shinan Govani at the party for Tom Ford's movie, "A Single Man," at the Toronto Film Festival. While Julianne Moore, Naomi Watts, Clive Owen and Colin Firth made chitchat, Somers, who has a book about cancer coming out next month, said: "Why couldn't they have built him up nutritionally and got ten rid of the toxins? . . . I hate to be this controversial . . . but I have to speak out."

My goodness, these people must be curing cancer left and right. There must be mountains of evidence showing the cancer curing powers of "cabbage, broccoli and garlic" so we could all verify this information! Oh wait... there isn't. No evidence can be found for these claims. Much like the claims of Deepak Chopra and his Hindu spiritualism, there is never any evidence for their claims. Meanwhile, the evidence for conventional medicine keeps piling up. According to statistics published by the American Cancer Society, cancer survival rates have significantly gone up since the 1970's:

What can this be attributed to? One could only assume this is the result of conventional therapies, given the simple fact that holistic therapies are not in wide enough use to have an impact on national survival rates. Once again the entire alternative medicine argument is contradicted by the facts, much like Bill Maher's claim that mainstream medicine is making people ill, whilst curing illness and increasing the average life expectancy beyond any other point in human history. He has no explanation for that contradiction, and neither do the above mentioned quacks who claim that chemotherapy doesn't work, but eating garlic and broccoli will. How obviously ridiculous does a claim have to be in order for people to realize that these characters are simply talking out of their ass due to ignorance of science and a severe lack of medical knowledge?

Continue Reading...

Bill Maher + Deepak Chopra = Stupidity

The one thing that has always bugged me is the fact that liberals in general can be some of the most gullible people you have ever met, and I have always wondered why that is. This is true whether you're talking about 9/11 conspiracies, Big Pharma conspiracies, alternative medicine quackery, meaningless spiritualism, or general ignorance of science. The movie What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a perfect example of New Age liberalism based on unsupported metaphysics and a severe lack of understanding of quantum mechanics. In the movie you have this character named Ramtha, who is the reincarnated spirit of a 35,000-year-old warrior from Atlantis. His spirit is reincarnated in the body of a charlatan. I bring this character up because it exemplifies just how gullible people are. Here you have some woman who thought to herself, "I know a way to make some easy money. Just claim I'm the reincarnated soul of an enlightened warrior from Atlantis and then just make shit up while using the word 'Enlightenment' as much as possible." It worked. But that's not too surprising. In this country alone you have millions of psychics, chiropractors, and numerous other charlatans making tons of money by providing you absolutely nothing of value. One of those charlatans is our good friend Deepak Chopra.

Deepak Chopra is quite the character. A board-certified endocrinologist and member of the American Medical Association... and user of Transcendental Meditation? Sounds weird, I know. But he's dead serious. On his website you can find all kinds of articles about "mind-body healing" steeped in Hindu superstition. A good example is a Hindu healing system called Ayurveda, who's basic tenets involve a belief that three forces of nature are responsible for the "characteristics of our mind and body" that Chopra advocates for. These three forces are Vata(wind), Pitta(fire), and Kapha (earth). The mixture of these three forces determines our various attributes, which sounds eerily familiar to astrology. No one said these quacks were original. Speaking of astrology, one such service Chopra's health center provides is called Jyotish Astrology. It's a type of astrology that originated in India. Here's the website advertisement:

Jyotish, in Sanskrit translated as “science of light,” is a profound and mathematically sophisticated form of astrology that originated in the ancient Vedic tradition of India. It describes how planetary patterns at the time of our birth give valuable clues in helping us understand our life’s journey. Through careful analysis of these cosmic influences, Jyotish Astrology can help us realistically evaluate our strengths and weaknesses in order to optimize our full potential.

By forecasting the changing trends and periods of our lives, Jyotish Astrology can enable us to make more evolutionary choices. It can offer practical remedial measures to help alleviate areas of difficulty, giving us the confidence to manifest our true destiny and create success, happiness and harmony on all levels.

Each consultation costs $275. Notice the wording of this advertisement. Using such phrases as "optimize our full potential" or "make more evolutionary choices" and so on. I dare you to try and figure out what an "evolutionary choice" even is. Don't worry, you won't be able to because that is the ultimate goal of this advertisement, which is to sell you bullshit by making it sound as if they are giving you something invaluable. This is essentially free money they are making by giving you astrological readings based on archaic superstitions and nothing more. The very idea that the position of stars and planets in a Universe with trillions of stars and planets has anything to do with you is insane. There is, of course, absolutely no evidence for it either. One study, published back in 1985 in the journal Nature, had this to say:

We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers. Great pains were taken to insure that the experiment was unbiased and to make sure that astrology was given every reasonable chance to succeed. It failed. Despite the fact that we worked with some of the best astrologers in the country, recommended by the advising astrologers for their expertise in astrology and in their ability to use the [California Personality Inventory], despite the fact that every reasonable suggestion made by advising astrologers was worked into the experiment, despite the fact that the astrologers approved the design and predicted 50% as the "minimum" effect they would expect to see, astrology failed to perform at a level better than chance. Tested using double-blind methods, the astrologers' predictions proved wrong. Their predicted connection between the positions of the planets and other astronomical objects at the time of birth and the personalities of test subjects did not exist. The experiment clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis.

If the position of stars and planets has any affect on your boring personal life, then this Universe needs a hobby...

Deepak Chopra appeared on Bill Maher's show Real Time back in 2007 (episode 94), where he had this to say when asked if he has proven the existence of an afterlife:

If you agree there's no such thing as a separate 'self', then there is only the continuum of life in which birth and death are 'spacetime events'. So, you know, Bill Maher is not a person--Bill Maher is a consciousness that is transiently, impermanently pretending to be a person.

What? This is the type of nonsensical statement that people of Chopra's ilk love to make. They love it because these types of statements are so disjointed and meaningless, that the average person can't makes heads or tails out of it, thus assuming that it must be highly sophisticated and subsequently accepting the original premise that the existence of an afterlife has been proven. I should note, however, that even Bill Maher pretty clearly did not buy into it. That was refreshing to see and quite sad on Chopra's part that he wasn't able to convince Bill Maher, who is already half-way there.

Ah yes, Bill Maher, the liberal equivalent of Glenn Beck, but without the crazy. A television personality that can often times make powerful arguments for the liberal side of this country's political theater, but also an advocate for bullshit.

Much of Bill Maher's bullshit is centered on his conspiracy theory regarding 'Big Pharma'. He essentially argues that pharmaceutical companies are making people sick in order to sell them more drugs. He bases this horrific argument on the apparently self-evidence truth that pharmaceutical companies must continue to manufacture illness in order to remain in business. This basic premise is utterly false. According to the World Health Organization's ICD-10 classification system for diseases, there are over 10,000 known diseases in the world. Why would pharmaceutical companies need to manufacture disease, when there are literally thousands out there that people are currently suffering from and would love to have a drug that can cure them? This fact alone is enough to completely discredit most of Bill Maher's anti-Big Pharma rants, but there's more. If pharmaceutical companies and conventional medicine are making people sick, why has the life expectancy skyrocketed since the advent of modern public health initiatives, which are based on scientific public health programs such as vaccines, as well as science-based medical fields such as epidemiology? You cannot have today's life expectancy without modern medicine, therefore it makes absolutely no sense to claim that modern medicine is making people sick. The facts simply contradict that claim.

In a recent episode of his Real Time show, Bill Maher had this to say in regards to the current health care debate:

Why are we profiting from illness? I mean, let's get real. The insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the food companies, doctors, hospitals--they profit selling cures for illness. So they need illness.

The guest he was speaking to simply said, "Yes." not knowing what to say. I sympathize with him, because this argument Bill Maher is making simply is not logically consistent. If all of these companies are curing illness, then how are they simultaneously manufacturing illness? That would be like a radio station simultaneously broadcasting music and news. Broadcasting both at the same time would make it impossible for the radio station to function, and yet Bill Maher's argument makes it so that this radio station would actually profit from it. Not to mention, again, that we have seen the results of modern medicine. Humans have never lived for so long, so how do you square that fact with Bill Maher's argument? You can't, so don't waste your time. Ultimately, what Maher is advocating for is 'holistic' alternative medicine that has never been scientifically shown to work, instead of conventional medicine that is responsible for increasing the average life expectancy far beyond any other point in human history. Not only is that nonsensical, but it's dangerous as well.

My overall point for this blog post is not to say that Deepak Chopra and Bill Maher should be silenced, far from it. My point is that you as consumers and perhaps fans of these two men should be skeptical of their claims, for your own well being. Chopra has no moral qualms turning people away from conventional medicine, often times arguing against traditional cancer treatments that have been scientifically shown to work. While Bill Maher has no moral or intellectual qualms arguing that pharmaceutical companies and doctors are making you sick, while simultaneously curing your illnesses in some grand conspiracy to make a profit. None of their claims are scientifically based, nor supported by any verifiable evidence. They are essentially making shit up, much like JZ Knight and her Ramtha bullshit. I urge you to be skeptical of health claims made by these quacks and to research anything they tell you, because although their intentions are good, their arguments are not.

Continue Reading...