UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 11

Re: Stupidity In The New Age Of Anti-Science -

From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:07:35 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:19:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Stupidity In The New Age Of Anti-Science -


>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:48:54 -0800
>Subject: Stupidity In The New Age Of Anti-Science


Frank,

Thanks for posting this. Please be assured that all the negative
comments below are not aimed at you, the messenger, but at the
journalist

What a nasty, hysterical appalling piece of work. And that's
just the writer.


>Source: The Scotsman

>http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=3D160812004

>10 February 2004


>Stupidity in the new age of anti-science

>Gillian Bowditich

>SOME 3.7 million people claim to have been abducted by aliens.
>Only 11 per cent of Americans believe in evolution. Type "Flat
>Earth Society" into the Google search engine on the internet and
>you will have a choice of 466,000 sites. How did we get this
>stupid?

There is a strutting insensitive arrogance about the manner of
this writing which is so negative that it deflects from what
she's written. Only 11 per cent of Americans believe in
evolution?  May I congratulate the other 89 per cent then. They
appear to be more up to date about the shortcomings in Darwins
theories than this amateur seems to be.

>One explanation is that the aliens doing all that abducting have
>been removing people's brains. Perhaps there is a UFO pathology
>laboratory hovering somewhere over Bonnybridge with the sum of
>our collective senses pickled in jars.

There is only one reply I can posibly think of in response to
this.....

>How else are we to explain the phenomenon of what the
>philosopher Roger Scruton describes as "reason on the retreat,
>both as an ideal and a reality"? It's not just that we have
>become a nation of gullible, emotionally incontinent, deeply
>irrational sentimentalists. Nor that, where once we would have
>hidden our credulousness, we now proudly wear it on our
>distressed linen sleeves. It is the fact that this stupidity is
>officially sanctioned, pandered to and incorporated into our
>laws.

>The latest example of this is the Human Tissues Bill currently
>going through Parliament. This bill is the government's response
>to the organ retention outcry at Royal Liverpool Children's
>Hospital in Alder Hey five years ago. If it becomes law, the use
>for research purposes of tissue samples, blood and even urine
>specimens, without specific patient consent, will be illegal.
>The penalty for a doctor flouting that law will be up to three
>years in jail.

And rightly so. This woman's complete lack of compassion is
amazing. Whatever follows on legislation wise in relation to
this matter has been brought upon the heads of the medical
establishment by their own gross insensitvity and greed. Picture
this. Imagine you have suffered the worst kind of tragedy that
any parent can experience - the loss of a child. A funeral
service is held, the child buried, and some time later you
discover that your child was buried without it's heart, liver,
etc. etc., and that nobody asked permission from you before
removing these organs. I would be quite happy to call anyone who
says otherwise, to their face, a liar if they reply that they
don't mind as it's all in the interests of medical progress.

And this is what was going on for years at Liverpool and I also
believe, in Bristol as well. If there is now an over reaction,
then it is regretable but more than understandable.

>According to Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust, two of
>the biggest and best respected medical research organisations in
>the world, this bill could stifle advances in childhood
>leukaemia, cancer, SARS and AIDS. Already ten research projects
>on rare tumours in children have either folded or failed to
>start because of the difficulties in carrying out this kind of
>scientific research in the current hysterical climate. Mark
>Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, believes that if this
>bill were effective now, the work that led to the discovery of
>genes responsible for the most common inherited form of breast
>cancer might not be possible. It could even be a criminal
>offence to try. The Royal College of Pathologists is extremely
>concerned about the situation and even the Medical Research
>Council, the government-funded organisation, has serious doubts
>about the bill.

While some of what she writes above may or may not be true, one
need also to be wary of the counter attack from the medical
profession, who probably object to having their butchering
monitored as opposed to the free reign they were given
beforehand. There is a smell of a campaign here, where
everything is hyped up and over exagerated, as in the case of
any PR exercise. The hysteria she mentions seems to be rather
one sided at the moment.

>So the government is rethinking this shoddily drafted piece of
>legislation which is likely to clog the system with yet more
>bureaucracy, restrict vital research and unwittingly criminalise
>doctors? Wrong. The government is pressing ahead. It is doing so
>because it is more worried about determined pressure groups
>which will resort to emotional blackmail than it is about
>stifling vital medical research.

Perhaps she should wait until the legislation is passed before
making judgements. This government are many things, but the one
thing they are definitely not are stupid.

>There is no question that the guidelines surrounding organ
>retention needed to be overhauled after it became clear that the
>practice was widespread. Nor is there any doubt that a group of
>people who had already suffered the appalling tragedy of losing
>a child, were further upset when they discovered that some of
>their loved one's organs had been retained without their
>knowledge. But the emotive language which has been used in
>relation to these cases is a scandal in itself. "We will never
>know how many were butchered for their organs," ran one tabloid
>headline. The children were referred to as "torn souls". An
>alien, reading the Daily Record while waiting for a passing
>human to abduct, could have been forgiven for believing Burke
>and Hare were on the loose.

>The dangerous and insulting premise of the new legislation is
>that doctors, if not legislated against, will do unspeakable
>things to the rest of us.

Well, there are no figures for the number of people who have
died on the operating theatre as a result of a drunken surgeon
but I believe the numbers, as indicated to me by a doctor, are
quite high. Furthemore, our newspapers are filled on a daily
basis with stories of doctors who have neglected, sexually
mollested, or actually abused patients. While relatively
speaking the numbers are low, can you blame the public for
cynicism?

>But even the one rogue pathologist who
>caused so much upset at Alder Hey was not killing people. He was
>saving lives.

Yes, but in so doing managed to destroy the lives of many
hundreds of others.

>Some of the bereaved have now formed themselves into the
>Nationwide Organ Retention Group. They have received apologies,
>explanations, a change in clinical practice, an ex-gratia offer
>of damages and will soon have a new law. But this is not enough.
>They now want compensation, despite the fact that this will
>haemorrhage vital funds from an already indebted NHS.

The NHS insurers (if such a thing exists) should have ensured
their clients observed best practices and standards.

>Their lawyer, the deliciously named Mervyn Fudge, says some of
>his clients have been unable to work because of the trauma they
>have suffered in discovering that body parts had been taken from
>relatives without permission. They will need compensation for
>loss of earnings as well as compensation for suffering.

>Why is nobody prepared to stand up to these chancers?

This is too much. She is disgusting.

>The reason
>is that the ultimate crime in these touchy-feely times is not
>ignorance or irrationality but lack of empathy. Politicians lack
>the courage to condemn this madness even when it means the
>potential for real harm to be done to those dependent on medical
>research for their health.

>This cowardliness on the part of the authorities is being
>exploited by extreme groups opposed to all kinds of scientific
>progress, be it genetic modification, therapeutic cloning or
>animal testing.

This individual, I refuse to call her a human being, would no
doubt have fared very well under the Third Reich. This is Nazi
Party Tract.

>In the last few months they have scored several
>victories. Cambridge University has dropped its plans for a =A332
>million primate-research centre for the study of diseases such
>as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's because of security fears.

Then perhaps she can volunteer. After all, her DNA is 99 per
cent identical to the primates concerned. Does anybody else see
similarities here between this and abductions?

>Colin
>Blakemore, head of the Medical Research Council was dropped as a
>potential candidate for an honour because of New Labour's
>squeamishness about animal testing. Hunting and fur-farming have
>been banned by New Labour. The ease with which these lobby
>groups are able to infiltrate and influence government is
>alarming.

Did you watch the "Countryside" documentary a few years ago,
dearest Gillian, the one about Huntingdon Labs and the beagles?
No, I definitely wasn't in favour of the activists' campaign
that followed afterwards, but if you saw that and can still
write the crap above, then you are, gee, I've run out of
adjectives.

>The rest of us may not be firebombing the homes of scientists,
>but we happily swallow all manner of genetically modified
>bunkum, be it "molecularly restructured" designer water at =A33 a
>bottle, or the latest scare story.

Actually, no we don't. At least not in the UK. GM food anyone?

>Previous generations had their superstitions, but they had a
>fundamental belief in the ability of science to improve their
>quality of life. They were proved right. Within three
>generations, life expectancy in Britain rose by 30 years. In the
>half century after the Second World War, infant mortality fell
>from 50 deaths per 1,000 births to fewer than six. For good
>measure, science threw in the internet, talking pictures and the
>self-cleaning oven.

And the nuclear bomb, biological weapons, viruses, and one or two ther
little things. Thank you science.

>Science equalled progress and was seen as an almost universally
>good thing. Our grandparents may have balked at seating 13 at
>the dinner table, but they would never have argued that teaching
>children about feng shui was as important as teaching them the
>second law of thermodynamics.

One sweep of the arm and that's you New Age lot down the john.
Oh OK, she's not got it all wrong then!

>Now, in our age of unreason and anti-science, life expectancy is
>set to fall for the first time, the fate of tissue samples and
>diseased organs has become more important than the welfare of
>the living, and the government has announced that alternative
>treatments such as Indian ayurvedic medicine could be granted
>the same status as conventional medicine on the NHS. According
>to Francis Wheen's brilliant new book, How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered
>The World, the 36,000 general practitioners in this country are
>now outnumbered by the 50,000 purveyors of complementary and
>alternative medicine.

I now add "stupidity" to my description of this writing. This
isn't a fad, it's a statement of a lack of support and belief in
the medical profession. Oh what heresey! Not all bow down to the
Great God of Science. This is blasphemy surely.

>If that's what you want, fine. Just remember, while you are
>sitting under your pyramid reordering your charkas and
>rebalancing your energy flow, not to get cancer. And be careful
>not to venture too close to the edge of the world. You wouldn't
>want to fall off now, would you?

Spoilt child temper tantrum time.

The only valid point to come out of all this drivel are the
concerns of those who either have, or have relatives who have
diseases or illnesses for which at the moment science can offer
no remedies. I think actually that's her point but its difficult
to make out amongst the cacophony of wailing. And amid all that,
she has dishonestly failed to make one point clear. The only
thing that is fundamentally changing is that people need to be
asked first if its OK to remove certain organs from deceased
relatives. Errr just like they need to be asked now in relation
to organ donations for transplant. At the root of all this is a
fear that "permissions" will dry up as a result of what's
happened. And perhaps they might for a while.

But unlike her, I have much more faith in people than she
apparently has. It is possible that some people might die in the
short term as a result and one can't ignore that. I wouldn't
want to be one of those people nor would I want it to happen to
anyone else. It is the price to be paid for the gross abuse of
trust that the medics have laid upon us. But as often, science
has persued it's own selfish course, indifferent to the
sensitivities of those it claims to be serving.

Frank. The letters page in The Scotsman following this article
might make interesting reading.


Stuart Miller




[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com