Subluxation

Not sure what to think about this 1994 study on the philosophy of Canadian chiropractors. A few stats:

• 68% agree that “most diseases are caused by spinal malalignment”
• 74% disagree that “controlled clinical trials are the best way to validate chiropractic methods”
• 75% disagree that “the scope of chiropractic practice should be limited to musculoskeletal conditions”
• 94% see themselves as an integral part of the health care system

I've never been to a chiropractor so I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. But I'll talk anyway. My blog — Mine!

I'd heard before that chiropractic had mystical origins (all diseases exist because spinal cord problems interfere with some mind/body spirit entity, or something like that). None of that history necessarily has any bearing on the merits of what modern chiropractors do but, from the study, about half of modern chiropractics lean towards the beliefs of D.D. Palmer, the spooky founder of chiropractic methods. From the Wikipedia article on him:

DD Palmer's effort to find a single cause for all disease led him to say:

A subluxated vertebra ... is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases ... The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column.

He said he "received chiropractic from the other world" during a séance, from a deceased physician named Dr. Jim Atkinson.

Even though chiropractic treatment on non-spine related conditions has received mixed reviews in scientific studies, until now I've always assumed that modern chiropractic thought had more in common with physiotherapy than with bloodletting. Now I'm going to be a little irritated when I see many hundreds of dollars in chiropractic treatments being subsidised by a benefits plan! My hats off to those chiropractors that keep-it-real and don't try to cure brain tumours (or even asthma) with their training.

Update: Coincidentally, I just encountered this post at the JREF Archives that contains a statement by the Society of Homeopaths defending their practice:

It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy.

How dense do you have to be to make a statement like that? I guess 74% of chiropractors (in 1994) would agree.

Meadow Muffin!

The episode list for season 4 of Bullshit! just came out:

1. "The Boy Scouts" (against their discrimination of gays and atheists)
2. "Prostitution" (pro-legalization)
3. "The Death Penalty" (against)
4. "Cryptozoology"
5. "Ground Zero" and what has come from it. (Penn called it a debacle)
6. "Pet Love" (concerns people spoiling pets with diamond dog collars, expensive food, et cetera)
7. "Reparations" (against)
8. "Manners"
9. "Numbers"
10. "Astrology"
11. "Abstinence-only Sex Education" (against)

Purity Balls

Focus on the Family is promoting a pretty interesting phenomenon called a Purity Ball, where fathers take their young daughters to a dance and then recite The Pledge: a commitment by the father to be manly and to guard his daughter's chastity.

“We want to help them enter marriage as pure, whole persons,” she said. “But it’s not just physical. It’s moral and emotional purity.”

So that means I'm not pure (I'll buy that), but I'm not a whole person either? I guess they're right w.r.t. the Bible. I think abstinence is a choice that deserves a lot of respect. I don't think I can ever understand what the idea of “physical and moral purity” truly means to the faithful though—I feel left out!

Googling Purity Ball returned this really great post on the subject, and I totally agree with this guy that the best way to protect kids is to inform them instead of instilling some abstract sense of guilt and dirtiness. I like his point on pre-marital sex, too, assuming it doesn't cause you to go to hell:

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, I think not having pre-marital sex is pretty idiotic. This is a separate issue from promiscuity -- I'm not a big fan of totally indiscriminate appendage insertion or acceptance -- but if you're serious enough about someone that you're contemplating marriage, you damn well better know what your own sexual playing field is, and you damn well better know if you're sexually compatible with your presumed marital partner.

I wouldn't call it 'idiotic' though.

Hmm, Toothpick or Electrical Cables

Nothin' says lovin' like a “light” beating. Just don't leave a mark, since then other people might see it. There's something surreal about seeing this kind of dark-ages debate happening in modern TV studios. Is it okay to think that Mohammed's relationship advice might be a little quaint?
No? Too soon? Click an image to watch the full video.

Him: Light beatings are not excessive. They don't leave a mark, don't break bones, and don't cause bleeding. These are light beatings. With some women - nothing helps except beatings. Her: And with some men - nothing helps except beatings. Him: With some women - nothing helps except beatings! Her: And with some men - nothing helps except beatings!
God is aware of men's needs. He knows that a man may have just come home, and maybe he desires something or maybe he saw something. He knows what this need is, and this why he ordered the wife to consent to her husband.

If you thought these videos were interesting, check out this and this.

This last interview with a convicted Egyptian rapist is really bizarre. The whole thing seems manipulated to teach the “sluts deserve to be raped” mentality but with a weird God twist.

Her: How old are you, Ayman? Him: 26 years old. Her: What were you sentenced for? Him: Kidnapping and rape. Her: What was she wearing? Him: She wore a short dress, which didn't have enough material for a sleeve.

Cowboy Leg Beautiful Pole

This menu is the most awesomest Engrish I've seen in ages. The guy who bought and scanned the menu posts his own reaction to each menu item; here's my favourite:

Do I order this or agree with it?

How to Save an Atheist

Hilariously simple minded. Flawed analogies. Classic misrepresentation of evolution. They're right about atheists having to be technically agnostic, but that misses the point entirely. I absolutely love the bananas-were-designed-for-people argument.


Someone must've explained to them the flaws in their arguments by now, but I bet they keep using them anyway because they're effective at stumping someone on the street who's not ready for it. I'm a bit disappointed that the presumably "average" atheists they interview aren't better at trouncing all over these bogus arguments. Likewise I'm sure it makes a lot of religious people wince when they hear some yokel defending their faith with particularly lame arguments.

I guess the point of what Ray Comfort is doing is to convert (er, save) people, not to have a real debate—hence the bait and hook analogy that he himself uses to describe what he does. In that respect he kind of reminds me of Ken Ham.

You can read more about this group, The Way of the Master, at Wikipedia; don't forget to check out the Criticism section.

Happiness

"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about."

-- Albert Einstein

I've never heard truer words. Thanks for the quote, Dan.