I get email

It’s true — the cracker incident is still dribbling on in my mailbox. The email is down in volume considerably — only a few dozen angry letters a day. I’m still getting a handful of actual letters every day, and those are both comical and pathetic. Usually, they’re an announcement of some ceremony that was carried out to rescue me from evil. I’ve also got lots of pamphlets and even a couple of books about ‘eucharistic miracles’, which aren’t having the effect the senders intend, I’m sure — all they do is demonstrate a greater depth of insanity than I had previously imagined.

I’ve tossed a few of the recent letters below the fold for your amusement.

[Read more…]

I get email

It’s true — the cracker incident is still dribbling on in my mailbox. The email is down in volume considerably — only a few dozen angry letters a day. I’m still getting a handful of actual letters every day, and those are both comical and pathetic. Usually, they’re an announcement of some ceremony that was carried out to rescue me from evil. I’ve also got lots of pamphlets and even a couple of books about ‘eucharistic miracles’, which aren’t having the effect the senders intend, I’m sure — all they do is demonstrate a greater depth of insanity than I had previously imagined.

I’ve tossed a few of the recent letters below the fold for your amusement.

[Read more…]

Usher syndrome part IV: Clinical management and research directions

Guest Blogger Danio, one last time:

Part I
Part II
Part III

The current standard of pediatric care mandating that all newborns undergo hearing screenings has been applied successfully throughout much of the industrialized world. Early identification of hearing impairments gives valuable lead-time to parents and health care providers during which they can plan medical and educational interventions to improve the child’s development, acquisition of language skills, and general quality of life.

Up to 12% of children born with hearing loss have Usher syndrome. However, diagnosing Usher syndrome as distinct from various forms of congenital hearing impairment is often impossible until the onset of retinal degeneration years later. The considerable number and size of the genes involved makes genetic screening impractical with the current methods, unless there is a family or community history that can shorten the list of targets by implicating a particular Usher gene or subtype.

The educational and medical interventions undertaken to improve a deaf or hearing-impaired child’s cognitive and social development can vary extensively, based in part on whether the child in question is expected to lose his or her vision later in life. Thus an earlier diagnosis of Usher syndrome is an immediate and critical research goal. The most imminent hope for such a diagnostic advance lies in gene chip screening. With this technology, the patient’s DNA can be screened against a microarray of human genes known to cause deafness (and/or Usher syndrome) when mutated, and variances in the DNA sequence of any screened gene would be detected and analyzed. One such chip is already available for commercial use, and another appears to be approaching clinical availability. The rapid and affordable analysis these microarrays offer will be of tremendous benefit in the early diagnosis and management of Usher syndrome.
[Read more…]

Usher syndrome part IV: Clinical management and research directions

Guest Blogger Danio, one last time:

Part I
Part II
Part III

The current standard of pediatric care mandating that all newborns undergo hearing screenings has been applied successfully throughout much of the industrialized world. Early identification of hearing impairments gives valuable lead-time to parents and health care providers during which they can plan medical and educational interventions to improve the child’s development, acquisition of language skills, and general quality of life.

Up to 12% of children born with hearing loss have Usher syndrome. However, diagnosing Usher syndrome as distinct from various forms of congenital hearing impairment is often impossible until the onset of retinal degeneration years later. The considerable number and size of the genes involved makes genetic screening impractical with the current methods, unless there is a family or community history that can shorten the list of targets by implicating a particular Usher gene or subtype.

The educational and medical interventions undertaken to improve a deaf or hearing-impaired child’s cognitive and social development can vary extensively, based in part on whether the child in question is expected to lose his or her vision later in life. Thus an earlier diagnosis of Usher syndrome is an immediate and critical research goal. The most imminent hope for such a diagnostic advance lies in gene chip screening. With this technology, the patient’s DNA can be screened against a microarray of human genes known to cause deafness (and/or Usher syndrome) when mutated, and variances in the DNA sequence of any screened gene would be detected and analyzed. One such chip is already available for commercial use, and another appears to be approaching clinical availability. The rapid and affordable analysis these microarrays offer will be of tremendous benefit in the early diagnosis and management of Usher syndrome.
[Read more…]

Protecting the Right of Conscience?

Guest Blogger Danio, sneaking a few more posts in:

Remember that execrable HHS policy document that proposes an extension of the current protections for health care workers who refuse to provide or assist in treatments that they personally find morally objectionable? I did a little back-tracking on this issue, and followed the trail of HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, who requested this regulation after a “disappointing” interaction with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. He has since been unwavering in his support of the proposal–which he claims is not about abortion OR contraception, but about conscience rights–and has a recent blog post responding to the feedback he’s received from pro-choice activists as a result of the leaked document.

Here’s the money quote:

Is the fear here that so many doctors will refuse that it will somehow make it difficult for a woman to get an abortion? That hasn’t happened, but what if it did? Wouldn’t that be an important and legitimate social statement?

“Social statement?” I can scarcely get my mind around the fact that he is so openly, unapologetically endorsing a policy in which pious opinion would trump secular law. Once again, though, it shouldn’t be a surprise. After all, he himself states that “The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn”. Ah yes, even as they indiscriminately leech the quality of life (if not the life itself) from countless other self-aware, functioning humans on the planet, each and every blastocyst they encounter is ceremoniously wrapped in a mantle of sanctimonious protection.

Somehow even more disheartening are the numerous fawning, unctuous comments on Leavitt’s recent blog entry. One wrote:

Secretary Leavitt,

It is beyond my comprehension that anyone would be offended by a health care professional who valued human life. But the tragedy is our culture has regressed to a form of barbarism unseen in centuries where progress in technology and science has poisoned our minds, hearts and souls where the intentional destruction of innocent and vulnerable human life has become more important than saving it.

Those of us living and working in a society where human life is expendable by government dictate but fail to stand up to protect and cherish life at any and all costs will live to regret it.

You are doing the right thing Secretary by allowing those of us in the health care profession live our moral and ethical consciences rather than forcing us to choose another profession.

Choose another profession like….a PETA supporter working in a meat packing plant?An auto mechanic who doesn’t support the use of fossil fuels?

Keep your eyes on this one. It has ‘lame duck’s parting shot’ written all over it.
______________________________________________________________________________
UPDATE: Leavitt has a new blog entry up today announcing that the proposed rule is being filed in the Federal Register. Although the final draft no longer contains the specific language broadening the definition of “abortion” to include anything from “conception” onward, it still threatens to withhold Federal money if health care organizations don’t allow their employees to exercise their rights of conscience.

Protecting the Right of Conscience?

Guest Blogger Danio, sneaking a few more posts in:

Remember that execrable HHS policy document that proposes an extension of the current protections for health care workers who refuse to provide or assist in treatments that they personally find morally objectionable? I did a little back-tracking on this issue, and followed the trail of HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, who requested this regulation after a “disappointing” interaction with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. He has since been unwavering in his support of the proposal–which he claims is not about abortion OR contraception, but about conscience rights–and has a recent blog post responding to the feedback he’s received from pro-choice activists as a result of the leaked document.

Here’s the money quote:

Is the fear here that so many doctors will refuse that it will somehow make it difficult for a woman to get an abortion? That hasn’t happened, but what if it did? Wouldn’t that be an important and legitimate social statement?

“Social statement?” I can scarcely get my mind around the fact that he is so openly, unapologetically endorsing a policy in which pious opinion would trump secular law. Once again, though, it shouldn’t be a surprise. After all, he himself states that “The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn”. Ah yes, even as they indiscriminately leech the quality of life (if not the life itself) from countless other self-aware, functioning humans on the planet, each and every blastocyst they encounter is ceremoniously wrapped in a mantle of sanctimonious protection.

Somehow even more disheartening are the numerous fawning, unctuous comments on Leavitt’s recent blog entry. One wrote:

Secretary Leavitt,

It is beyond my comprehension that anyone would be offended by a health care professional who valued human life. But the tragedy is our culture has regressed to a form of barbarism unseen in centuries where progress in technology and science has poisoned our minds, hearts and souls where the intentional destruction of innocent and vulnerable human life has become more important than saving it.

Those of us living and working in a society where human life is expendable by government dictate but fail to stand up to protect and cherish life at any and all costs will live to regret it.

You are doing the right thing Secretary by allowing those of us in the health care profession live our moral and ethical consciences rather than forcing us to choose another profession.

Choose another profession like….a PETA supporter working in a meat packing plant?An auto mechanic who doesn’t support the use of fossil fuels?

Keep your eyes on this one. It has ‘lame duck’s parting shot’ written all over it.
______________________________________________________________________________
UPDATE: Leavitt has a new blog entry up today announcing that the proposed rule is being filed in the Federal Register. Although the final draft no longer contains the specific language broadening the definition of “abortion” to include anything from “conception” onward, it still threatens to withhold Federal money if health care organizations don’t allow their employees to exercise their rights of conscience.

“Brainwashed” by god into killing her child

LisaJ here again.

Wow. Now here’s a story that just disturbed me to no end. Little Javon Thompson’s mother, 21 year old Ria Ramkissoon, became a Christian at a young age, but when her local pastor disappointed her by pleading guilty to molesting young boys, she left her church and was taken in instead by what is now being described as a dangerous religious cult (I’d like to make the point that even plain ‘ole regular Christianity is a dangerous cult, but that’s beside the point). This cult, called 1 Mind Ministries, is headed by a 40 year old, I’m assuming woman, who calls herself Queen Antoinette, and it appears that the relatively small group lives together and operates under the extremely god-driven Queen’s direction.

What happened to Javon, Ms. Ramkissoon’s little boy, in 2005 is what has me so disturbed. The ONE year old child was denied food and water for two days because he wouldn’t say “Amen” after finishing his meals. This outrageous punishment killed him, and none of his caretakers intervened to save him. Police say that the group viewed this child as a demon, and that they left his lifeless body in a backroom of their apartment for more than a week while they simply prayed to god to raise Javon from the dead. Instead, the boy’s body began to decompose and no resurrection occurred, obviously.

Reportedly, after the cult members accepted that Javon would not be resurrected they stuffed his body in a suitcase. His mother lovingly added mothballs and fabric softener to the contents of the suitcase, and occasionally sprayed some disinfectant inside. The case, with the child’s body still inside, was found earlier this year, after it had been stored behind a home in Philadelphia when the cult relocated to New York City, over a year earlier.

Javon’s mother Ria and four other cult members face first degree murder charges in this case. Ria’s mother, however, contests that her daughter was brainwashed by the cult. Her attorney has recently declared that “the members of this cult, who were more than twice her age, were calling the shots,” and that “she bought the program hook, line and sinker.” So because this young woman was reportedly brainwashed, does this then mean that she should not be prosecuted with her child’s murder? To put this into perspective for myself, I was raised catholic, and there are certainly many faulty decisions I made while growing up that I consider to largely be the fault of my indoctrinated mindset. But murder? I have a really hard time swallowing the brainwashing excuse as justifying your active involvement in your child’s murder. And besides, even if her supposed brainwashing is really at fault here, someone this stupid to allow someone to talk her into effectively killing her child, under the guise of god, should be put away where she is no longer a danger to herself or anyone else.

This disturbing story highlights perfectly the dangers that society faces for teaching people to believe in whatever god they’re confronted with, instead of thinking for themselves.

“Brainwashed” by god into killing her child

LisaJ here again.

Wow. Now here’s a story that just disturbed me to no end. Little Javon Thompson’s mother, 21 year old Ria Ramkissoon, became a Christian at a young age, but when her local pastor disappointed her by pleading guilty to molesting young boys, she left her church and was taken in instead by what is now being described as a dangerous religious cult (I’d like to make the point that even plain ‘ole regular Christianity is a dangerous cult, but that’s beside the point). This cult, called 1 Mind Ministries, is headed by a 40 year old, I’m assuming woman, who calls herself Queen Antoinette, and it appears that the relatively small group lives together and operates under the extremely god-driven Queen’s direction.

What happened to Javon, Ms. Ramkissoon’s little boy, in 2005 is what has me so disturbed. The ONE year old child was denied food and water for two days because he wouldn’t say “Amen” after finishing his meals. This outrageous punishment killed him, and none of his caretakers intervened to save him. Police say that the group viewed this child as a demon, and that they left his lifeless body in a backroom of their apartment for more than a week while they simply prayed to god to raise Javon from the dead. Instead, the boy’s body began to decompose and no resurrection occurred, obviously.

Reportedly, after the cult members accepted that Javon would not be resurrected they stuffed his body in a suitcase. His mother lovingly added mothballs and fabric softener to the contents of the suitcase, and occasionally sprayed some disinfectant inside. The case, with the child’s body still inside, was found earlier this year, after it had been stored behind a home in Philadelphia when the cult relocated to New York City, over a year earlier.

Javon’s mother Ria and four other cult members face first degree murder charges in this case. Ria’s mother, however, contests that her daughter was brainwashed by the cult. Her attorney has recently declared that “the members of this cult, who were more than twice her age, were calling the shots,” and that “she bought the program hook, line and sinker.” So because this young woman was reportedly brainwashed, does this then mean that she should not be prosecuted with her child’s murder? To put this into perspective for myself, I was raised catholic, and there are certainly many faulty decisions I made while growing up that I consider to largely be the fault of my indoctrinated mindset. But murder? I have a really hard time swallowing the brainwashing excuse as justifying your active involvement in your child’s murder. And besides, even if her supposed brainwashing is really at fault here, someone this stupid to allow someone to talk her into effectively killing her child, under the guise of god, should be put away where she is no longer a danger to herself or anyone else.

This disturbing story highlights perfectly the dangers that society faces for teaching people to believe in whatever god they’re confronted with, instead of thinking for themselves.

Food fads

I find it a little odd the fascination that many people have with food.

I know people who watch the cooking shows on TV with almost a religious fervor. Diet books abound. People eagerly seize on the latest ideas about what may be good for your health and what may be bad and make wholesale changes in their diets based on news reports.

Ben Goldacre, writing in London’s The Guardian jokes that there seems to be a drive to divide everything in the world into two classes: those that cause cancer and those that cure cancer.

In pursuit of this goal, the ‘science’ reporters in newspapers and magazines seize on the most tenuous and dubious links coming out of research laboratories and draw sweeping conclusions that may actually harm people. We have become prey to all manner of pseudo-experts on food.
[Read more…]

Science and human rights

Guestblogger Sastra checking in:

A few years back the little Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in my area asked me to give a brief talk (!) on the topic of my choice. Seems they were looking for speakers, any speaker, and had noticed that I tend to talk a lot. So I considered the sorts of things that appeal to me, and the sorts of things that might appeal to them, and decided to try to see if I could put together an interesting speech on “Science and Human Rights,” based on the idea “that concepts such as human rights, democracy, and science are historically linked together through similar foundations and assumptions.” I studied and filled myself with great arguments and quotations by such luminaries as Jacob Bronowski and John Dewey, shook it all together, and ended up, as I recall, driving through a blizzard to pour my impassioned argument out on a polite and appreciative crowd of about 6 people (I think (hope) the blizzard was more of a factor there, than it being me.)

Since PZ graciously gave me permission to write on “whatever floats my boat” (unless it be kiddie porn), I’m going to drag out my old notes and give a quick condensed version of my basic theme. It’s ambitious, but I think it might be relevant to Pharyngula. One of the popular stances taken by some religious apologists recently is that the methods of science grew directly from the underlying theology of the Catholic church. You also frequently hear the popular claim that the very concept of people having rights “makes no sense” without a theistic, not to say Biblical, foundation.

I’ll try then to make the secular case: that the human-centered values and rights which we see today as universal, eternal, and even self-evident have actually grown out of our recent past – and were influenced by how we did science.
[Read more…]