French call Pope an Idiot

Accoring to the BBC today, "The Roman Catholic Church says marital fidelity and sexual abstinence are the best way to prevent the spread of HIV"

and goes on to quote the virginal spiritual leader of millions as descrbing HIV/AIDS as, "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem", suggesting the the solution lay in "spiritual and human awakening" and "friendship for those who suffer".

Well fuck you very much.

AIDS is a horrible, vicious killer that you know absolutely nothing about.

Stick to worshiping your invisible sky fairy and pretending that it matters and keep your nose out of how women (and men) protect themselves from being consigned to a horrible, slow death.

Effective and complete condom use could have even prevented Jade Goody's cancer: and you should keep your fucking idiot dark age solutions to yourself.

Hit Me With Your Stupid Stick

I'm all for new methods to help people conquer stress but when someone comes out with statement like this:

"There is strong evidence to suggest that drumming may actually be a healing activity " - Simon Lee, Musician.

My ears prick up a bit. It's words like "may" and "healing" that worry me particularly when they're connected with the phrase, strong evidence particularly when it's not cited and comes from someone who doesn't appear to have a science background!

Healing isn't word you hear uttered by real doctors unless they happen to alluding to fake faith healers. It's one of those wishy-washy verbs employed by people with no formal qualification who rely on people's fear to make a fortune.

As the BBC reports:

"Musician Simon Lee, from Kent, is called on to teach drumming to patients with problems ranging from addiction to autism, and learning difficulties to mental health issues.

"He has even offered help to terminally ill patients needing palliative care.

"And he says the results are amazing."

Fucking genius - more snake oil attached to autism. It's not bad enough that we have to copy with the idiotic MMR scandal still rattling on, now we're going to cure it by drumming. To be far, Simon doesn't say that... in so many words, but people will read such things into it.

There some evidence that we all have a natural rhythm, although real science has been unable to prove it either way, so it's fair to assume that some people will be able to find some solace bashing the shit out of a piece of tautened skin, in Analyse This (or was it the sequel, Analyse That?) Robert DeNiro's character took out his frustrations on a pillow: with a pistol.

Personally, I find that a couple of miles on a bicycle clears out the cobwebs, we all deal with it differently. My wife throws crockery - usually at me.

We have to be extraordinarily careful to confuse the correlation (people feeling better) with the actual cause. It may be that rhythm has something to do with it, but it's equally likely the cathartic effect is purely derived from the physical exercise.

I don't know - but I rather doubt Simon does either.

MMR and The Left Side of ©

Copyright is a thorny issue in today's world - and today the blogosphere is alight with the story of Ben Goldacre, MD threatened with legal action for stealing a large audio excerpt from a radio broadcasts where presenter and one-time actress, Jeni Barnett laid into the MMR debate and got it, er, wrong.

Dr. Goldacre described it (here) as:

"...some of the most irresponsible, ill-informed, and ignorant anti-vaccination campaigning that I have ever heard on the public airwaves."

Which he is completely entitled to to - and you know what I agree with him - but he made a grave (if rather naive) error in posting the entire audio to his blog and that landed him in deeeeep, deep shit as he was shortly served with a take down notice from lawyers representing LBC.

Unfortunately, and in spite poor Ben's bleating and messages of support from many, including yours truly, LBC were entirely within their rights to order a take-down. Not that it's helped their cause much - the Internet is well-known as a den of disregarded copyright and it's now popping up all over the place: including Wikileaks.

There's a good piece on Fair Use laws here (although it's US-based and the laws vary from country to country and judge to judge).

Ben admits that:

"...I posted the relevant segment about MMR from her show, 44 minutes..."

Uh oh.

44 minutes from 180 amounts to 24% of the entire broadcast - and worse - 100% of the arguments that were being discussed and in both cases, Fair Use (from my experience) does not apply.

You can't take a huge chunk from something and then claim Fair Use - it's simply not allowed; you can't even take a small section, say even a fraction of percent if that section represents (can be shown to represent) the heart of the work.

You'll notice the elipses (...) in these quote to suggest one continuations. This is a way of pulling a small section from a piece of copyrighted material (Ben's writings are similarly copyright) while not falling foul of Fair Use laws.

Like Ben, I get enormously pissed when (even well-meaning) Celebs get involved in issues that they know less than fuck all about and then spread a liberal amount of bullshit: which people then believe.

Christine Maggiore was an AIDS denier. She is now dead. Killed by an HIV-related illness.

The ludicrous MMR story, originated by Dr Andrew Wakefield (and others now distanced from the case) has rattled on and on and on: yet there simply isn't any evidence for the assertion it causes autism or IBS.

Not, so says Barnett, "Injecting tiny babies with substances that may compromise their immune system needs to be looked at not shouted down."

This might amaze you Jeni, but we've been doing precisely that for decades! Of course, you're a radio presenter: not a scientist, not a doctor and not qualified to talk about medicine.

By way of coincidence, the BBC reports that measles cases are UP again - 27% increase from 2007 to 2008... this is directly related to the sort of bullshit that Jeni and her ilk in the media are so good at spreading.

I don't think that we need a change in the copyright law, but this does raise an issue with free speech laws - and the responsibility that is required from broadcasters.

Bizarrely, in a world where the BBC has bent over backwards to apologise for allowing the unedited version of Batman star, Christian Bale swearing more than I do on air; and the Pope is embarrassed because one of his Bishops is a Holocaust denier (a criminal offence in some countries), we allow dangerous ignorance of this type openly onto the airways.

YES IT MATTERS.

It matters because measles blinds; measles deafens; measles kills children.

Jeni suggests we need an open debate: I'd agree that we need to discuss why she has not been sacked and this sort of dangerous advice is allowed on the air.

Give A Dog A Bad Name

There's a (slightly tongue-in-cheek) theory called nominative determinacy that suggests at least some people's names are connected with their jobs: so Mr Baker may own a cake shop, Mr Pope studies biblical writings, Mr Payne is a dentist and so on. Historically, things were the other way around because until comparatively recent times, people didn't have surnames at all: largely because we just didn't need them in the tiny, disparate settlements that we inhabited. Even if two people in the same village shared the same Christian name, say, "Joe" they could be easily identified by their occupation (even the village idiot).

Many of these survive today - a Cooper for example, made barrels; a Smith would have worked in a forge; a Baker would be the village's, er, baker, etc.

But what of Christian names? It's a popular myth that native Americans name their children after the first thing the mother saw after giving birth - flying bird, hunting bear, two dogs shagging... but a more cogent explanation is that the tribal elder is actually the one to determine name. He will see a name in a vision or dream or perhaps from some specific feature special to the person or family.

So can your Christian name influence how you're likely to behave in future?

Researchers David E. Kalist and Daniel Y. Lee of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania think they have found a link, reported here. According to the limited report, boys with unpopular names such as Ernest and Ivan are more likely to engage in crime than are children with David or Michael.

On the surface this appears to be statistical confusion where the correlation (the match) is confused with the causation (the cause of the observed effect). Such confusion crops up all the time in statistics and it's often difficult to assess. This sort of statistical cluster is often cited to "prove" that power lines and mobile phone masts cause cancer; particularly in tabloid newspapers.

A deeper look at the results suggests that there may well be some causative link although it's as much to do with social class as it is with the name per se. Nontheless the authors also suggest that children with unusual names find it difficult to become accepted among their peers.

The knee-jerk reaction to this study is predictable: early comments on the story call it BS and demand to know what the statistical relevance and margins of error are. Yet in reality, we can see that there's a definite connection - analysing the figures just confirms what we already suspect.

Many names are common to social and ethnic groups. You won't meet many white boys called Leroy or Mohammed for instance; and girls with names such as Eugene or Beatrice are not likely to be standing on street corners plying their trade.

Crime - particularly juvenile delinquency - tends to run in certain social groups; and while it's not exclusive to them, it's certainly more prevalent there. Certain groups of Christian names are also common in specific societal groups - this is natural because, on the whole parents, even poor ones, want their children to fit in.

Therefore we have a direct link - the correlation. It's not the name - but the social group that uses that name.

Henceforth, I'm going to call myself Charles Nigel Draco in the hope that I can enter a better social class. Or not.

Alternative Therapy II: The Crackdown!

You have to love the English language - take words like compliment and complement, for example sound alike but have entirely different meanings.

To complement, from the Latin, complementum means to add to something. Whereas to compliment, also from complementum but via the Italian complimento means 'the fulfilment of the requirements of courtesy'.

If a man appreciates a woman's attire he may be paying her a compliment, but not a complement (and these days, thanks to fucking PC, he may even be accused of sexual harassment).

It is to this end that I may me introduce you to the "Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council" - which is one of those QUANGOs that has self-assumed the roll of overseeing the behaviour of alternative practitioners - quacks, in layman's speak. The website proudly (and predictably announces that):

"The CNHC has been developed with the help of complementary healthcare practitioners and with support from the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health. The Department of Health has consistently supported the CNHC throughout its start-up period and is committed to establishing the CNHC as the national voluntary regulator in the complementary healthcare field."

That would be this guy, HRH Prince Charles Windsor - the future monarch of England who desperately needs a proper job and whose no-expense spared education has failed to provide him with a modicum of cynicism or the power of critical thinking. Charles is dangerous - not like a terrorist is dangerous, but like an idiot with unlimited money, power and a cause is dangerous. Dubya was dangerous.

Charles lives in a protected environment where everything is done for him and he has access to the best medicines that science can produce and money can buy. Yet still he staunchly believes in and promotes some of the worst quackery imaginable.

So here we have an organisation (CNHC) funded and encouraged by a specialist in weird medicine which is going to regulate weirder "complementary" medicine.

Quack Complementary medicine should, by definition add something to a conventional treatment yet more often that not, practitioners give the impression or worse, advice, that theirs is an alternative of equal or better efficacy.

Many of these "remedies" have been around for thousands of years and have their bands of enthusiastic followers, yet they comprehensively fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Homoeopathy, reflexology, acupuncture, herbalism - the list is long but every single one has been examined at some point and found lacking.

There's some evidence that some traditional remedies have had active ingredients that might have treated disease (gout, for instance) and plants such as Deadly Nightshade (atropa belladonna) gives us atropine which is one of the most basic medicines (of its type) we posses. Evidence is the key here: and there's no evidence whatsoever that any of the quack treatments are any more effective than a good doctor and a large dose of a powerful placebo.

CNHC co-chairman Maggie Dunn doesn't understand irony of this statement appearing on the BBC:

"If that means that people who are not up to scratch are driven out of business, I will not cry for them "

Up to scratch? By whose measure? Are the CNHC going to introduce some system of exams to make sure these people can cure the ailments they claim to?

Well, errrr, No. This rather toothless organisation, says BBC Health Reporter, Nick Triggle, will:

"...not judge clinics on whether therapies are effective, but rather on whether they operate a professional and safe business."

So this government-sanctioned, voluntary register (it's £45 per annum to join) is going to ensure that quacks behave in a professional manner and somehow that's acceptable.

If anything, this lends some credence to these fuckwits and failed wannabe doctors - ensuring they carry insurance and pay membership to a toothless QUANGO? What fucking genius!

Health Minster, Ben Bradshaw MP, spoke warmly of the idea saying that member practitioners will offer the public:

"...the reassurance of knowing that they have had to meet minimum standards of qualification and that they have signed up to a rigorous code of conduct."

Of course, a doctorate in quackery is still in quackery! Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter's, Peninsula Medical School had reservations, telling the BBC:

"I have concerns that the regulator does not have mandatory powers and is not looking at the efficacy of these therapies."

As do I. As will proper medically trained doctors. My dictionary defines medicine thus:

"the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease"

If complementary "treatments" do not diagnose or can be shown scientifically to treat or prevent disease, then they are not fucking medicines and do not deserve that title!

Quack! Over and out.

I've Seen Flying Saucers!

It's true! The last time I saw a flying saucer it was coming toward me at breakneck speed just after the cup of tea and slightly before the spoon following. That was the last time I called the vicar a corpse-worshipper.

But UFO sightings are in the news again (or is that still) as the paper which claims to have broken this latest tomfoolery has now solved another mystery. The Scunthorpe Telegraph reports this morning that the curios orange lights seen in the Lincolnshire skies around Christmas were ---- wait for this ---- Chinese lanterns!

Local resident, Christine Harriman explained:

"We lit some Christmas day about 5ish as you light them and let the hot air raise them into the sky. Traditionally you make a wish, but we did them for our departed family members and our dog, which was a lovely way to remember them."

I'll agree with that.

Chinese lanterns are, in effect, miniature hot-air balloons. You light a lightweight candle inside and the less-dense hot air inside causes them to rise into the sky. On a still night they are quite beautiful and a great way to introduce young children to basic science.

See Nick (Pope) - doesn't matter how much you stir people up with your idiotic other worldly explanations, the truth comes out in the end. Now go back in your hole and feel ashamed - you ought to.

Peter Hitchens' Schoolboy Logic

A couple of days ago Peter Hitchens ranted about wind farms. No, not about the silly events at Conisholme, but about the fact that when (as Hitchens put it) they are needed most during a cold snap, they stand dormant.

In his opening salvo, he demonstrates his skill with words in equal measure with his confounded ignorance:

"The swivel-eyed, intolerant cult, which endlessly shrieks – without proof – that global warming is man-made, has produced many sad effects. The collapse of proper education has made two whole generations vulnerable to rubbishy fads."

Let's not forget that this is a man who believes Darwin was wrong about evolution: so if anyone needs to do some soul-searching about education he needs to look in a mirror. There is any amount of proof that global warming is a man-made - but to understand it you have to open your mind to the frightening possibility that we're fucking with our environment.

Hitchens ignorant and intolerant naval gazing makes him popular with his followers, who take his word for it because that's what they want to hear, but leaves scientists in a frenzy of despair. Hitchen's needs to keep his job and the best way to do that is to raise a cheer from middle England's dullards .

Hitchens goes on:

"But the disfiguring of the country with useless windmills, and the insane plan to ban proper light bulbs, are supreme triumphs of this dimwit pseudo-religion.

"Both schemes override facts and logic. During the current cold spell, observant persons will have noticed that there has been very little wind, a rather common combination. Thus, at a time of great need for power, wind turbines would be almost entirely useless for producing electricity."

But as is usual with Hitchen's schoolboy approach, he's completely missed (or deliberately ignored) the very point, which is this: if wind farms generate electricity when the wind is blowing then conventional - precious - resources such as coal, oil and gas are preserved for the times when it isn't.

I can't say I'm terribly fond of wind farms and hope that new developments will improve and even remove the need for them. But we have to put the future first - because we only own the here and now; the future belongs to our children.

The Americans Are Dafter Than We Are!

[bpsdb]
You have to hand it to the Americans. Whatever dumb idea we come up with, they can make it sound intelligent by comparison.

I've been blogging about the silly antics at Conisholme for a couple of days now as the story rapidly spread around the globe, seemingly unchallenged by rhyme or reason.

You can see my original posts here, here and here.

In which I've (a) dismissed and demonstrated the idea of a UFO as compete fantasy, (b) pointed out the alleged missing blade was never missing in the first place, (c) pointed out the terrestrial evidence (fireworks) for the lightshow and (d) had a bloody good laugh at their expense.

But I wasn't prepared for the lunacy appearing here !

The "tentacle" appearance of an unidentified flying object (UFO), such as reported over a wind turbine farm near Conisholme, England, on Jan. 4, 2009, may have been "constantly changing, torque-generating plasma beams" related to an exotic propulsion system.

An experienced American scientific researcher has proposed that the "jellyfish" or "octopus" visual effect that some witnesses have reported in the UK and United States could actually be what is called a "magnetoplasmadynamic" or "magnetohydrodynamic (MHD)" field.

Holy magnetominimetrohydrodynamic force fields Batman! (Grasps clenched fist in other hand).

This guy is a scientist! No?!

Magnetic motion-producing water?

Now that's too much, now I'm convinced I've been abducted by weird aliens and transported to another, parallel universe where stupid people walk the Earth. Only everything else is the same.

Writing for the American Chronicle, Steve Hammons quotes Ray Stanford (a pioneer in UFO detection systems), as saying the tentacle-like [fireworks, folks, fireworks] effect is:

"most often and readily visible when a craft is either slowing down or moving very slowly over an uneven surface."

[bullshit]

"Although some UFO-generated physical phenomena may, through human mind's ever-interpreting 'lens,' look 'organic' (as though what was observed is something alive), that absolutely is not the case."

[even stinkier bullshit]

Now clearly, he's got a point that the phenomena we're seeing (fireworks in this case) aren't actually organic or alive - but that only lends credence to a completely idiotic thesis.

Standford apparently prefers the term, anomalous aerial objects (AAOs) to UFO.

I on the other hand prefer the term "complete fucking lunatic" to "scientist" when applied to these crackpots. Writer Steve Hammons deserves some credit for this drivel as he appears to be another UFOlogist - but hey maybe I'm wrong.

In another priceless quote from the same piece, Hammons reports:

Stanford added, "It looks as though a craft is breathing, but that is only an interpretation the human mind makes in searching for analogs. In such case, it is a big misinterpretation. Likewise for the 'tentacles,´ which are really only constantly-changing, torque-generating plasma beams. But, they can bend under the 'Lorentz force' and other forces which are most often and readily visible when a craft is either slowing down or moving very slowly over an uneven surface."

Sure, a string of ionized gas (plasma) is very pretty - I got a lamp that does it from the pound shop just a few weeks back - but as for generating torque?

Torque derives from the the latin torquere meaning to twist is a measurement of turning force. It's useful for measuring the power from a reciprocating engine; but hardly much use for repelling gravity!

Sorry folks, the smell of bullshit is too much to bear. I gotta go wash.

Dail Mail is Confused by Snow

Must be a slow day at The Mail as a Canadian woman makes headlines after surviving for three days in snow. In what it calls a Christmas 'Miracle', the second one today, the Mail extols:

"Donna Molnar, who disappeared during a heavy blizzard, was discovered under two feet of snow wearing only ordinary clothing. Rescuers were stunned to find the 55-year-old Canadian still breathing after enduring temperatures as low as -15C."

It's great that she was found alive, maybe a little surprising but not really a miracle and not at all unheard of.

Mrs Molar, who is reported to be suffering from depression had lost family members over the festive period. When she went missing in the middle of snowstorm, friends feared the worst. Her abandoned car was discovered over the weekend - it's not clear at this stage how long she was out in the open or when she was buried by a snowdrift.

The Mail continues:

"...almost three full days after Molnar went missing, volunteer Ray Lau’s dog, Ace, became excited by a scent he had picked up in a field. Under heavy snow and high winds, the animal would normally be unlikely to smell a human presence."

So the Mail is almost implying that Mrs Molnar has been under the snow for three days - we already know that for at least some of that time she had been in her van. We can take it as read that she was in dire straits, but what of the dog and this heavy snow?

The canine sense of smell is many times more sensitive than our own and the Mail's assertion "the animal would normally be unlikely to smell a human presence" is bullshit either through ignorance or the the fact it weakens the story. Trained dogs routinely find skiers trapped under feet of snow after avalanches and by the story's own tacit admission, Mrs Molnar wasn't deeply covered.

"He [Ace] began nuzzling something hidden there, barking furiously and Mr Lau, who followed on his tail, then saw a gloveless hand and a woman’s face half-obscured by a black hood."

So in fact, at least some of Mrs Molnar was only covered by a thin blanket (making Ace's job a bit simpler): and what about that black hood - that sounds like outdoor clothing?

But the officer in charge, Mark Cox appears to have the key, telling the Canadian Globe and Mail, reportedly saying:

"Never even come close to something that was this unlikely. It really is incredible how she survived it. I’m shocked."

Which leaves me wondering how much experience he has at this - if he actually used those words - journos have nasty habit of, well, frankly putting words into people's mouths. The Mail is on a roll now:

"Bizarrely, police believe Mrs Molnar, who works in the nearby city of Hamilton, might have been kept alive by the snow acting as an insulating blanket."

BIZARRELY?! Dear god, doesn't anyone at the mail understand basic thermodynamics... oh wait. I take that back, of course they don't.

We know from the report that Mrs Molnar suffered frostbite to several fingers and hypothermia, which isn't that surprising, but the mail reports that she endured temperatures of -15c. Did she?

There's a couple of things at work here and the police report is right on the money. It's perhaps paradoxical that the best way to survive a blizzard is to bury yourself in snow. It's not so much the snow that kills you - it's the exposure to wind chill as the driving wind carries your body temperature away.

By actually covering yourself in fluffy white stuff (which is also full of stagnant air) you insulate your body from the effects of the wind and therefore receive some degree of protection. In fact, the insulating nature of snow means you can stay comparatively warm. Suffocation is a more likely consequence, but as the temperature drops our respiration slows so we use less of the precious air in our icy tomb.

Moreover, did anyone actually have a thermometer against Mrs Molnar's body? Of course not, those -15c temperatures (which are not all that extreme) would have been at ground level - most likely at night and probably using wind chill for effect.

While I wish Mrs Molnar a speedy recovery, I wish the Mail would try a bit harder.

Touched by a (Camera) Angel

Among the usual suspects, the Daily Fail Mail carries this story of a child who made a remarkable recovery after being touched by an Angel. The Mail says:

"Colleen Banton, from Charlotte, North Carolina, was facing the agonising decision of taking her daughter off a life-support machine when the 'miracle' occurred."

At least the Mail has included the quotes suggesting that someone down there still commands a quantum of scepticism. It goes on to quote Mrs. Banton:

On the monitor, there was this bright light,' she said. 'And I looked at it and I said, "Oh my goodness! It looks like an angel!"'

Of course, that's the only explanation. The Mail continues:

"A first attempt at capturing the image with a digital camera was unsuccessful: 'The first picture wouldn't take,' she said. The second time she succeeded, and the mother-of-two sought solace in the image while her daughter's oxygen mask was removed."

Apparently, everyone was stunned as the oxygen mask was removed and the teenager continued to breath for herself. Some two weeks later, she was fit enough to be discharged in time for her 15th birthday on Christmas day.

The Mail goes on to quote the typically religious American lady:

'If they doubt it, that's fine... But I know what I saw, and the picture's untouched. I didn't make it up. That's just something that I believe. I believe that more people have changed since this happened. I know I have. I look at things differently than I used to – because I know God is in control.'

If God's in control why was this poor child born five weeks premature with hydrocephalus? Why is it she's suffered life-threatening illness throughout her short life and why is it that tangible medicine has continued to keep her alive?

Yes, I'm a cynical bastard. So let's take a closer look a the facts which are pretty short on the ground since we only have witness statements to go on.

Even the Mail is confused:

"The unusual light appeared while her daughter Chelsea was fighting for life on a ventilator"

How do we know this light just appeared mysteriously? Simple - we don't.

All we can see is a bright light on the monitor on a picture that's already distorted by the camera angle and the goldfish bowl CRT and wide-angle of the CCTV camera.



The green lines I've added here show the approximate true lines of perspective and the purple ones trace a corner that's fairly close to the camera. I don't know the dimensions involved, in particular the width of the corridors at this junction, but you can see how distorted everything is to begin with.

So to the light. Any decent photographer will tell you bright light - or glare - is a pain in the bum. There are several types of glare - lens flare is probably the most common, but by no means the only one: and it's not what we're seeing here. This is classic overexposure bleed typically associated with electronic recording.

By roughly tracing the edge of the bleed it's easy to see how it follows the lines of the doorway.




You can see from this that the glow appears to drop away when at the edge of the painting and also slightly along the bumper rail. It follows the metal bumper on the door too.

What we have here is a reflection from a bright source just outside of the camera's view - but you already guessed that, didn't you. This is further confirmed by the way the light reflected from the area also pools on the floor.

So could it be an angel after all then - just out of shot? There's certainly a light source, but since hospitals are full of bright light sources - this is a far more tangiable explanation than the sudden appearance of a supernatural construct. The glowing effect is simply caused by the way the overexposure flare falls off.

This next image is just for fun (but watch it pop up around the net!)



This bit of Photoshoppery is courtesy of a photographer friend, but you can see how convincing it is - it took about 30 seconds to complete the illusion: and it's deliberately slightly inaccurate.

Belief is a very powerful thing. Many of us need to believe in something greater than ourselves to give our lives purpose - or to blame when things go wrong. This lady's genuine belief has distorted a very simple trick of the light into something supernatural.

So what about her daughter's miraculous recovery? That's good and I'm genuinely pleased for the family, but I doubt the story's accuracy.

Witnesses are notoriously unreliable - even without the added confusion of strong emotions and beliefs. We only have the report's word that Chelsea was at death's door. Reporters often play around with the truth to make the mundane into the fantastical.

Mundane stories don't pay their wages and they have to eat.

Misquotation, distortion and exaggeration are orders of the day if you're a hungry journalist and a mother desperately seeking answers is paydirt.

Your mission, should you chose to accept it is to keep on questioning everything you read.

Mary Kenny Is a Christian: A Dumb One

Mary Kenny writes in the Irish edition of the Independent that atheists are miserable.

"I've never yet met an atheist with a sense of joie-de-vivre (unless, in the case of one well-known public atheist, a certain drunken cordiality) most of them seem to be miserable blighters."

And you Christian types have it all sewn up, don't you, you smug bastards...

Kenny is dumb. Her argument is fallacy and filled with weasel words and she has the temerity to include the story of Baby 'P' almost as if faith could've fixed it.

Fuck you Mary.

Atheists aren't miserable, we're pissed off at people like you looking down your enormous hooters at us. You think you carry the moral high ground yet you allow no one else to tred that same path if their views differ.

Wrong.

Belief does not lead to morals and more than lack of it does otherwise. That's called CHOICE and it's something you idiots would rather we didn't have.

Child Dies From MMR! Oh, wait, No It Didn't

I don't really have the medical know-how to cover this one in the detail that my respected colleague, Ben Goldacre can so I'll let him give you the gory details.

Bad Science

If you don't fancy reading Ben's post (which is detailed and excellent) I'll give you the skinny.

As ever, the usual suspects reported (wrongly) that a child had died after being given MMR as this report in Metro demonstrates.

MMR was safe before Andrew Wankfield suggested otherwise and it is safe now. Get over it.