During the “Does god Exist” debate in October, the best Dave Penrose, one of the Christian debaters had come up with was that he could not imagine the big bang without a creator who was outside of space and time (how could ANYONE know this?) and a personal god, which means he has feelings and made the universe just for us.  this is a perfect example of the argument from ignorance, and I’m surprised that he didn’t even know it.

Int he last debate in January, 2014, Doug Hamp, one of the Christian debaters and Biblical scholar, admitted that it was OK to kill babies during the Passover because it was God’s wish. There are so many things very wrong about his belief, including how his god “hardened the pharaoh’s heart”.  But in the end, he stuck with the divine command theory and believes in infanticide.    In the first debate in September of 2013, he said “sometimes people have to be killed”.  What a cruel and unnecessary evil behavior his religion believes in.

In the December debate on “Does Prayer Work”, the best example the Christians Dave and Deborah came up with was that a computer was returned to them after being lost, and that a cold miraculously was healed overnight.  Come on guys – can’t you do better than that? there have been 49 prayer studies the past 52 years (many by Christian groups) that resulted in no correlation between people praying and results being offset more than chance.

And here’s the big study, if conducted,  that would prove it conclusively: Take 5 major religions and see of they patients that entered a hospital did better aver the patients, their family and friends prayed for them.  Better yet, discount the prayer and just have a record of the patient’s religious beliefs.  If their god is the only true god (pick one religion) they would be healed faster (or had a better survival rate) than all the other religions, of course accounting for the hospital’s care level and medically technical abilities.  Just imagine if this study concluded that if you were a Hindu – or even a certain type of Christian sect, that you would get our of the hospital 30% faster than the all other patients who believed in another god or type of Christianity.  How many billions would be put into research to find out why these people who believed in X religion did better?  was it their food? Water?  Genealogy?  The culture habits?  Exercise?

And here’s the real kicker: If they did find a natural solution, would it be a natural one that would be given too everyone to improve their quality of life?   Could you imagine if the scientists can with that conclusion to the head(s) of that one ‘true’ religion and asked if they wanted to share this life-giving answer to the world?  if they did, they would have to admit that it was NOT their religion which cured their people, but a natural one.  Would they be selfish and, in wanted to prove that their were the true religion, keep it a secret to prove to the world that they were the only religion that has proof that it’s true?  I wonder.

So far, I have not found and research on such a study.  Sure would be nice to know what the results would be.  it might indeed prove that there is a god, but I doubt it.

Not only this demeans one of the main precepts of Christianity, but it is a category error and a non-sequitur argument.  Raising a person from the dead is a supernatural event. Winning the lottery is not.  Plus the lottery is a man-made event. Plus if it was a rare event, people would not be winning it every week!  A

Generally, I see Craig’s arguments easily arguable with just a few critical thinking skills.  Atheists should not be afraid to debate Christina apologists even of the highest order.

Bruce

I went to see a controversial documentary about alternative cancer treatments last week at the Newport Beach Film Festival in southern California.  The title of the film was Burzynski: Cancer is Big Business, Part II. The invite was from David Ggorski, oncologist and editor from  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, which is a very reliable skeptics page.  (see below)

The film was a bit long at 1:45, but both my wife and I we convinced that after seeing the documentary, we we ‘converted’ to believers,  There was a Q&A afterward with the director and several surviving cancer patients, along with the long-winded…… hold on now…. FABIO!  and he looks just as good as he did in the 80’s.

We expected to see a film that showed how Dr Burzynski, who operates a cancer clinic in Texas, was a ‘quack’. (http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/)  But the film was overwhelmingly in support of Burzynski, and was critical of the FDA “refusing” to allow his work to continue with is antineoplastons in conjunction with ‘personal’ therapies after decoding a patients DNA.

The film, directed by Eric Merola, was very well done, with numerous testimonials and the problems of the NHS (Briton’s National Health Service) withdrawing financial support and health care if a cancer patient goes to see Burzynski’s clinic, and how the FDA has refused to let Burzynki continue with phase II studies, and how the FDA had ‘raided’ his clinic, only to find valid testing protocols.  The film even had a very convincing doctor from Japan, Dr.  Tsuda, who spoke of a 27 year study of Burzynski’s treatments done in Japan under strict supervision.  Especially convincing was Tsuda’s common pro-skeptic phrases like “we should always have doubt” and “until we see scientific evidence”. The movie also had several very negative comment about those horrible ‘skeptics” who ‘threatened the clinic” and have “locked up Burzynski’s Wikipedia page” as well as mean and very rough language about Burzynci’s unscientific and untested methods on several blogs. This was not the type of skeptical behavior I see from  those in the skeptical movement, but there is was on the big screen.   Those skeptics were mean and evil people.  How can those skeptics say that after so many people were cured?  The documentary showed MRI scan of cancerous  growths decreasing and even being eliminated. This for sure was evidence that is treatments worked….right??

By the end of the movie I was a convert.  I even stood up at the beginning of the Q&A and said the malevolent skeptics in the movie were not part of the general skeptical movement,   were probably on the fridge area and a minority of how the movement behaves. I even said I will recommend the movie to my 1000 Backyard Skeptic members (the largest skeptics/atheist group in southern California).  I spoke too soon……

Actually I do recommend the movie now, not because I think the doctors methods are proven, but to show how even an avid and passionate skeptic can be converted if the skeptic doesn’t use those tried and true methods of critical thinking, not believing everything one sees and hers no matter how convincing it is, and researching the other side before opening one’s big mouth in from of a majority crowd of ‘believers’. One mad who was on the Q&A panel applauded me, as did the audience, and wanted to talk after the panel was finished (I had to leave before it finished).

Word quickly got around the Burzynski had a skeptic leader that was converted.  Soon I received several well written emails from two scientists, David Gorski from Science Based Medicine, who is a cancer surgeon and researcher, molecular biologist, and has taken an interest in genomics and personalized, gene-targeted therapy, and from pshycolohgist  Keir Liddle of Scotland,  both who were polite and informative.  Both quoted many articles and websites concerning Burzynski’s methods.  I’ve included some correspondence below.

Lesson to be learned here:  Stick with the critical thinking skills we all promote. Always view both sides before rendering an opinion. find the scientific consensus of those in the specialized field. and be a ‘good’ skeptic.

 Here’s a well-written blog critical of Burzynski

Here is David’s correspondence with me with all the links concerning Burzynski

Bruce,

I am familiar with much of what is in the second movie from various sources, but I have not seen it yet, although I have seen the first Burzynski movie. There are at least five major misconceptions being promoted in the second movie, along with patient testimonials that seem convincing superficially but when dissected in more detail by someone knowledgeable like cancer (such as myself) are not:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/burzynski-cancer-is-a-serious-business-part-2-like-the-first-burzynski-movie-only-more-so

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/

(Please pay particular attention to my discussion of myth #3, where I talk about the clinical trial issue.) I discuss the Japanese studies in myth #4, but a better discussion can be found here:

http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=7644

In any case, it is a huge deal that Dr. Tsuda and his group have not published their results yet. Until they do, it is impossible to judge whether their methodology is sound. I do know that this is a trial testing intra-arterial infusion of 5-FU plus or minus antineoplastons. So it is a chemotherapy-based regimen. Without being able to look at the randomization, the statistics, how the trial was set up, etc., it’s impossible to tell whether this trial actually shows what Dr. Tsuda says it shows. As a scientist, I cannot comment one way or the other on it very much until it is actually published. I can, however, point out that it is highly dubious to tout results like this before they are published. The bottom line: I don’t believe it. My mind can be changed by data from a well-designed clinical trial, but right now it’s not particularly convincing evidence. Certainly nothing the Japanese group has published prior to now is particularly convincing, either.

There is also a lot of obvious conspiracy-mongering in both the movie and the Q&A. Now, I don’t know what was said in the Q&A this time (perhaps you could provide us with a report), but I do know what has been in the

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/dr-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories-part-2/

I assume that you recognized all of that for what it was, although you might not have had the background knowledge to realize why the patient stories presented are not nearly as compelling, from a scientific standpoint, as they seem. Many more such discussions can be found here:

http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com

Also, I’ve also done better than just watch the movie. I’ve actually read all the peer-reviewed literature that I can on antineoplastons and Burzynski. You are impressed by the phase 2 trials. If you’re a lay person, I don’t blame you. They certainly look impressive on the surface. However, what you don’t know is that Burzynski has registered over 60 phase 1 and 2 clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov:

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski

However, he has not published the completed results of any of them. Oh, sure, he’s published the odd case report or tiny case series, but he has not written up a single completed phase 2 clinical trial, and many of those trials date back to the 1990s, which would be more than enough time to have published multiple studies, given the expected short survival times of the cancers involved. Why is that? The reason is simple. Back in the 1990s, when the Texas Medical Board investigated him, Burzynski ended up entering into a consent agreement:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/burzynski.html

Specifically, the agreement stipulated that Burzynski:

• Cannot distribute unapproved drugs in Texas

• Can distribute “antineoplastons” only to patients enrolled in FDA approved clinical trials, unless or until FDA approves his drugs for sale

• Cannot advertise “antineoplastons” for the treatment of cancer

• Must place a disclaimer to his website, promotional material and ads stating that the safety and effectiveness of “antineoplastons” have not been established

Burzynski’s solution to get around this was to set up dozens of phase 2 clinical trials and treat patients on them. He then charges thousands of dollars of “case management fees” that can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 What might be most useful are these three articles I wrote about Burzynski that review the first movie and delve into his claims:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-bad-medicine-a-bad-movie

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynskis-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/ (this analyzes Burzynski’s “personalized gene-targeted therapy” claims)

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-antineoplastons-and-the-orphan-drug-sodium-phenyl-butyrate

Merola has produced superficially convincing-sounding conspiracy theories and spun the science in a deceptive fashion, and I hope you can realize that you’ve made a mistake. That’s true skepticism. And don’t think that I don’t ask myself frequently whether Burzynski might actually be on to something? I do. That’s skepticism too. Unfortunately, Burzynski has never produced evidence that has been enough to lead me to reconsider my opinion.

David

http://twentyfirstfloormirror.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/burzynski-the-japanese-research/

And here is Keif’s correspondence:

Just read the mentioned blog – Looks like the visuals and testimony in the movie had one over me temporarily, and it shows how effective documentaries can be (I am a director/producer of corporate and performance based (dance and theater) productions myself.  My work webpage isthumbsupvideo.com.

I haven’t read the other links you emailed, but my faith in Burzyinsky is fading fast.

One question though – after several patients in England showed no decrease with traditional therapy, why did the cancer growths  decrease to undetectible levels after Burzynsky’s treatments?

Thanks for the info.

Bruce Gleason

Backyard Skeptics

From Keir

Yeah here is the blog on the Japanese research (it comes after a lot of blogs on the subject and a lot of personal abuse so the tone might be off at some points – can’t really tell myself having written it) http://twentyfirstfloormirror.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/burzynski-the-japanese-research/I think I had another post on another paper but can’t seem to find that. Unless it was related to Chinese research on a similar chemical that was purported to be ANP derived and my wires are crossed.

Keir

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Keir Liddle

Funny you should mention the Japanese study. I have a blog on that somewhere. I’ll have to see if it survived the site move.

One thing worthy of note is that the Japanese studies explored ANP use as an adjunct to chemotherapy. So they weren’t really testing it as any sort of treatment on it’s own. There are some other issues (not least of all the dubious practice of naming all the patients who died in the trial in an appendix table) but I can’t recall the ins and outs right at the minute.

On balance, having looked through the publications, all the warning letters and patients blogs reporting dubious research practices and the overwhelming lack of any serious published peer reviewed research from something like 60+ trials I would say I am against his methods.

Keir

 

After witnessing Dave Silverman’s lecture at the February Backyard Skeptics meeting, (see the Streaming Link at backyardskeptics.com for a free viewing) I decided to do a test at his suggestion.  I have a T-shirt with the word “Atheist” in large letters with the caption “Come out – Reality is fine”. The ‘test’ was to wear this at a very popular travel show convention at the Los Angeles Convention Center several weeks ago.

Dave mentioned in his lecture that a shirt similar to mine, worn by him 20 years ago, brought a plethora of negative comments when worn in public (Dave did a lot of flying and wore the shirt in airports all over the country).  Now, all the comments are positive, showing anecdotal evidence about how perception of the non-believer has changed in just two decades.

So how did people react in a very populated and public setting such as a travel show?  As soon as the first person said ‘I like your shirt”, my wife said “start counting!”  So I did. Comment after comment was positive.  Not one negative comment, although I did get a negative head shake by one travel company employee there which I counted as a negative ‘hit’ in my informal count.

Five positive comments were heard in total, some from the vendors at the show (I wonder what their basses would think if they overheard the complement  – would they be punished for a positive comment against the superior’s religious views?). One loud comment was from the Starbucks employee, which had some heads turning from the people in line. I had a Mocha without whip cream.

The next test was in the airport going to Chicago for work at a swing dance convention.  (I’m in the video business and record these convention over a three-day period).  No comments at LAX, but in Chicago coming back, one traveler, a professional trombone player, said ‘nice shirt’.  We struck up a pleasant conversation that passed the time as we waited for our delayed flight to leave.  And while boarding in the jetway, a suited man turned around and said “nice shirt – you must get a lot of flak for that!”   I responded that just the opposite happens, that I receive nearly all positive comments.  (I find the looks of passengers most interesting while walking down the aisle during flight)

When I first became an advocate of atheism 7 years ago, I was worried of what people would think of such a bold statement of ‘non-faith’ Now I know that the result of wearing such an outted symbol not only lets others know that is OK to sport such a shirt (no stab wounds yet) but that atheism is becoming more accepted in our culture, and that discussion and discourse is more open than even on the subject.

Try it yourself.  Start with an ‘A’ pin fro Richard Dawkins foundation, move up to a shirt with a axiom or quote, then graduate to a bright shirt with an obvious “I am a proud atheist”.

This was our second trip to the HB Pier this year, and our annual Bible-tearing event.  Well, we don’t actually tear Bible, we tear the worst verses which have been either photocopied or  type up on paper with their verses and chapters clearly visible. The object to to show Christians (who BTW are usually shocked that these verses are in their holey book) that 1. they haven’t read their Bible and 2. that they take morality and moral decision-making into their own hands when deciding if verses like these, which would normally place anyone in jail if acted upon, are worth abiding by.  Here’s where the main point of the Bible-tearing comes to light.  If the Christian decide not to take these immoral verses seriously, they can toss out the entire book, because if these verses are unholy, all verses come into question.  Christians, unlike God’s commandments of keeping the entire book sacred, pick and choose their own morality from only the verses that suit the lifestyle that they are in.  They might say – “That was then”  and I’m glad they do this, because it point to another contradiction that God was wrong!  If the Bible would have said “This verse will be good until society of each country in the world has a better law, and at the time this verse should no longer be obeyed” then Christians could say “that was then”.   When push comes to shove, Christians have to admit that they are “Cafeteria Christians” and only select those laws they they agree with.  And if they take morality into their own hands, why consider a bronzed-aged text to to they bidding?

My wife and I were fortunate to attend, with 20,000 other secularists, the Reason Rally in Washington DC.  What a wonderful experience being among those who feel it is important to be part of such a ‘coming out’ party.  It wasn’t just a personal ‘coming out’ for individuals, but one for the entire nation.  Who would have thought that such a event was even possible just a few short decades ago.  But the intrusion of pious politicians has pushed those who want – as the sign says – to keep religion out of our private lives.

The most popular secular speakers of our time were there as well as several musical acts, Tim Minchin being my favorite.  There were booths, creative T-shirts, signs and even a 10 foot high Jesus.  Yes it was cold and rainy – but the sun did come close to coming out – oops I said that phrase again!  It was well worth attending such a large gathering of individuals who felt strongly that the act of simply standing to support others who think the same would be worth the trip, notwithstanding the weather and length of it (over 9 hours).

I’ve never been to a rally before and didn’t know what to expect. But there’s a sense of pride that overcomes oneself when feeling like their presence makes a difference.  That price, I’m sure, was felt by 20,000 people that day.  I heard that Glen Beck had less people attending his rally – and that was on a sunny day!

I’m going to refer you to a wonderful video edited by The Thinking Atheist who gives the true taste of what this rally was about.  See the video here:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d11tcjO–70

If there is another rally in the future I beseech you to attend it.  You will not be disappointed.

I recently went to a Meetup group in Long Beach, CA and were surprised to see 18 agnostics and atheists there, when just last year there were consistently only 3 or 4 attending.   This is a growing trend across the nation.  Instead of new ‘churches’ (if you can even call them that) there are new Meetups and other socially organized groups which are flexing their irreverent muscle, and supplying that much-needed social bond which us most of us humans need and want.  The secular community is growing and it’s inevitable that America is seeing a more polarized shift in the believers and non-believers.  The Religious Right is pulling up their flag, and across the street the secular banner is on the wall.

Although we, (and by we I mean all those who are the ‘nones’ – those of no religious affiliation) are expanding the idea that religion has a dark and evil side which few religionisis can admit to, there are those which include myself that see the writing on the wall.  That telltale message is that we have to protect our rights of conscious – our right to NOT to believe in woo-woo, superstitions and pious traditions, and more importantly not to have those beliefs infiltrate our private domain.

It’s a dash of liberalism, social awareness of the trends of our government leaders and the acknowledgement of the harms which social conservatism cause to a pluralistic society to finally submit to the advocacy of non-belief. Once one reaches that point of no-return, action to the only option to make the changes needed to reel in the runaway, cross-bearing bandits of freedom  called the Religious Right.

And what actions do the ‘nones’ take? They search the internet for skeptic and atheist groups.  They start questioning the odd and misleading traditions and superstitions of different religions.  Youths are asking their friends more questions and starting to use their critical thinking skills.  The result?  Over 25% non-believers in several states, and the average number of ‘nones’ have grown by over 50% in the past 5 years.  If this trend continues, the churches will soon be barren, but what will take its place? Groups like the one I visited in Long Beach.  Groups like the Backyard Skeptics.  Groups like the next Meetup in your local town.  Maybe if there are secular Meetups in your area, you could startone.

My wife and I were casually getting out of bed this morning when the subject of euthanasia came up.  A neighbor and friend’s wife died several years ago of pancreatic cancer – a horrible disease.  She was healthy, was a yoga instructor and  vegetarian.  She suffered greatly and her family suffered before and for many years after she died.

What would each of us do for the other if we know we had such a disease with a terminal illness?  Is life to be sacred under all circumstances?  No.  The life  of a baby born without a brain – anencephaly is of no value to the family or the mother.  A tragedy yes.

I told my wife that if I was diagnosed with a terminal disease to start hoarding those drugs that would put me away when the time comes.  We talked about the suffering of our family and how it could be reduced if they know I took my own life, not to mention how the last few weeks of my life would be absolute hell (no pun intended) if I were to continue to survive.  I surely would be happier to know if the tables were turned, that my wife would be happier in her last days and our family would suffer less knowing her choice of when to take her own life.

Religion generally has the opinion that the value of live is absolute – that life, from the impregnated human cell to the cancer-stricen patient has to be spared because of what?  A supernatural belief that a soul should like under all circumstances, even in the midst  suffering.  Why does religion induce such pain and suffering in the world?  It’s because they have an absolutistic attitude toward the value of life.

Save the drugs honey!

Bruce Gleason