Virology Journal retracts paper on Jesus curing possible case of influenza

Aug 16, 2010 by Lin Edwards weblog

The Virology Journal published a paper on July 21 speculating that a woman said in the Bible to have been cured by Jesus had influenza. Now, the journal has retracted the paper and apologized for publishing it online.

Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Robert F. Garry, publicly apologized for publishing the article, saying it "clearly does not provide the type of robust supporting data required for a case report and does not meet the high standards expected of a peer-reviewed scientific journal." He also apologized for any "confusion or concern" the article may have created among readers.

Garry said the paper, entitled " or not influenza: Analysis of a case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time," was only intended to be an opinion piece and a "bit of relief from the 'normal' business of the journal," but the speculations in the paper did not belong in a peer-reviewed journal, and its contents did not represent the views of BioMed Central journals.

The retraction came after criticisms, including those made via blogs and a comment posted on the paper by Paul Gray of the Washington University School of Medicine, expressing the view that it was unclear how the paper met any of the normal standards of such a journal other than someone paid to have it published.

The paper was a "case study" of a woman described in the gospels of Mark (1:29 to 33), Luke (4:38-39), and Matthew (8:14-15). The woman was said to have had a high fever and was "cured by our Lord Jesus Christ." Among the reasons given for the conclusion the woman must have had influenza was that she was unlikely to have had a severe acute bacterial infection because such a disease would not be resolved instantaneously. The paper concluded that if their postulation is correct the case is one of the earliest descriptions of human influenza.

One of the blogs that brought the paper to notice was This Scientific Life, by Bob O'Hara. O'Hara said the lead author of the paper, Kam L.E. Hon from the Department of Paediatrics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, had replied by email to his queries and confirmed he had agreed to the retraction and was "astonished" the article had produced such a negative response since it was only intended for thought provocation. He went on to apologize for the inconvenience caused to the Journal and anxiety caused to himself. He said he would never to write this kind of article again.

Explore further: Warming, decanting and swirling: do they make wine taste better?

More information: doi:10.1186/1743-422X-7-169

Related Stories

The Mars Journal Publishes Its First Papers

Dec 15, 2005

The Mars Journal, a new peer-reviewed online open-access scholarly journal, has published its first two papers. The first paper is a 4-page editorial entitled "The Mars Journal" by David A. Paige of the Dept. of Earth and ...

Journal: Research paper probably flawed

Jul 31, 2006

Editors of the journal Analytical Chemistry say a published research paper concerning breast implants contained "probably flawed" conclusions.

Recommended for you

How does your wine make you feel?

Aug 29, 2014

University of Adelaide researchers are investigating the links between wine, where it's consumed and emotion to help the Australian wine industry gain deeper consumer insights into their products.

User comments : 87

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

yyz
4.3 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2010
From the paper:

"One final consideration that one might have is whether the illness was inflicted by a demon or devil. The Bible always tells if an illness is caused by a demon or devil (Matthew 9:18-25, 12:22, 9:32-33; Mark 1:23-26, 5:1-15, 9:17-29; Luke 4:33-35, 8:27-35, 9:38-43, 11:14). The victims often had what sounded like a convulsion when the demon was cast out. In our index case, demonic influence is not stated, and the woman had no apparent convulsion or residual symptomatology."

I'm not familiar with this disease vector. Is the CDC looking into this? What about ETI? Was this considered, or swept under the rug? o_O
knikiy
4.6 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2010
I wonder if they tried burning some witches in a double blind situation?
ironjustice
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 16, 2010
The atheists seem to be having a field day with the retraction of this article. THAT is just coincidence though . WHAT are the odds that the word Jesus appears AND the **atheists** are all over it DUE TO the "lack of scientific rigor". Coincidence ? The coincidence of the word Jesus AND the paper being "poorly written" AND the atheists being all over it ? I believe the atheists MUST be **monitored** because their INFLUENCES as to targeting and attacking medical studies based ON merely the mention of religion is OVERBOARD. Poor excuses for scientists. Imho.
dtxx
4.5 / 5 (15) Aug 16, 2010
WRONG.

No one would bother to attack this article if it appeared in a proper channel. It does not belong in Virology or any other scientific publication. Nor does any other purely speculatory article, regardless of subject matter.
mjc
Aug 16, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ironjustice
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2010
Quote: Nor does any other purely speculatory article, regardless of subject matter
Answer: I'm sure your regard for Confucius and Shakespeare is MUCH higher due to the SHEER NUMBER of times they appear in Pubmed. I believe "the lady doth protest too much" .. about a debate article.
Donutz
4.7 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2010
I'm actually kind of relieved after reading this article. I assumed from the title that the journal had been stampeded into retracting an article by vociferous theists having a collective hissy fit. Turns out it's just scientific integrity. Well, OK then.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2010
Quote: ironjustice.....WHAT??
Answer:"One of the blogs that brought the paper to notice was This Scientific Life, by Bob O'Hara."
He sure cuddles up to atheists . If it looks like smells like and tastes like .. it probably is. Imho.
yyz
5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2010
"WHAT are the odds that the word Jesus appears..."

You seem to have some hangup with the word 'Jesus' here. Try replacing "our Lord Jesus Christ" (as it appears in the paper, twice) with "Confucius", "Shakespeare" or "Subject X". So this would now be an acceptable paper published in a peer-reviewed medical journal? No one would raise an eyebrow? Gimme a break.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2010
Quote": No one would raise an eyebrow? Gimme a break.
Answer: You got it. I'm not the only one who's noticed the fuss. This appears in another blog.
"An article submitted for debate purposes with no "right ot wrong answer"
"The fuss surrounding the article, which you've added to significantly goes, at the very least, against what's worth criticizing.

complexChemicals
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
"If the postulation is indeed correct, the woman with fever in the Bible is among one of the very early description of human influenza disease."

If you can trust that the bibles contents (and all its flaws and passions) are not just intentional support stories for its main plotline, then Yes, this may indeed be the earliest influenza description we've found.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2010
"Rakta Moksana: The last of the Panchakarma type of therapeutics is 'Rakta Mokshana', as the very name implies, removel of blood."
"Indication of Rakta Mokshana :"
"fever"

Which in my humble opinion FITS this 'case' due to its IMMEDIATE effects accomplished by one man.
THE treatment DUE TO the authors concluding it WAS influenza DUE TO the IMMEDIATE cure as opposed to one which would be IMPOSSIBLE to 'cure' in one sitting ?
nonknown101
4.3 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2010
The real question should be: what do fairy tales have to do with science?
science has nothing to do with belief, just as belief has nothing to with science
ironjustice
1 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2010
Quote: science has nothing to do with belief, just as belief has nothing to with science
Answer: As to BELIEF in Science ? Science is based on belief if one KNOWS their science. IF one substance works for a disease and another substances' efficacy SEEMS to be COMPARABLE to this substance and its' mode of operation is the same then one can BELIEVE the effect will be the same. That is belief based on scientific research.
The Bible is a book ABOUT a healer.
The Bible 'may' have been given poetic license. The book 'may' contain truth. We are TOLD it is truth handed down over the years. It has been taught and accepted BY the younger DUE TO the **respect** OF the elder. Whether or not YOU believe is whether or not you were TAUGHT to believe. You look at the book as an UNBELIEVABLE hodgepodge whereas OTHERS look for the truth.
The FACT one believes does NOT preclude one from debate based in science and BECAUSE one 'mentions' the Bible does not make "fairy tale" comments acceptable.
AndersonWard
5 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2010
"BECAUSE one 'mentions' the Bible does not make "fairy tale" comments acceptable."

Actually it does, since the bible is well recognised by those grounded in reality as pure and utter fairtales.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2010
Quote: Actually it does, since the bible is well recognised by those grounded in reality as pure and utter fairtales.
Answer: "The percentage of Christians in the U.S. are between 0.1 and 75% of the total population"
I suppose with that kind of OVERWHELMING majority the FACT you BELIEVE you can 'cry fire in a theatre' might make you one of the MINORITY. I don't see WHERE you are getting your "by those grounded in reality" RIGHTS from. IF the majority 'felt' like it then EVERYTIME an atheist were to SPEAK one 'could' given the same RIGHT you claim .. one could say "atheist freak" EVERYTIME you opened your mouth simply BECAUSE you ARE an atheist . Which wouldn't make for a civil discussion. You MUST remember you are a minority and therefore should use a bit of discretion when opening your gob. Imho.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2010
OVERWHELMING majorities ARE often PROVEN wrong. Do your eyebrows go up and down AS you TYPE?
otto1923
3.9 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2010
I would have thought ironjustice would have objected to the paper too because, as everyone knows, Jesus could CURE anything INSTANTLY, including DEATH. And certainly, god could have created the entire universe INSTANTLY instead of taking seven whole days to do so, but only CHOSE not to, for reasons unknown. Problems with the supply chain? Who knows.

And why did Jesus take 3 DAYS to resurrect when he could have popped back INSTANTLY? Timing? Pregnant pause? Dramatic effect?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2010
Poor excuses for scientists. Imho.

Ha,

Simply tell us what was used for evidence in the publication of this "study" and then you can tell us what a good scientist is.

The retracted paper was an utter joke as is your commentary.
The FACT one believes does NOT preclude one from debate based in science and BECAUSE one 'mentions' the Bible does not make "fairy tale" comments acceptable.

Yes it does, just as someone using Aesop's fables for evidence of morality is using fairy tales to exemplify their point.
Answer: "The percentage of Christians in the U.S. are between 0.1 and 75% of the total population"

The overwhelming majority of which also think the Bible is full of fairy tales.
rb1
5 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2010
I'm thinking that whether a majority believes in something or other doesn't necessarily mean it is fact.
bottomlesssoul
1 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010
The journal retracted the article, no harm no foul, yet the comments here seem really judgmental.

It seems the commentators here think 'scientists' are something other than people. We're not. Why the need to punish or feel superior?

Anyone can check their advertising history of the journal. At no point in their history was any attempt made by the journal to say they held any special place in human culture. The people with strong emotional investment seem to be doing that on their own.

Relax everybody, no harm, no foul.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2010
It seems the commentators here think 'scientists' are something other than people. We're not. Why the need to punish or feel superior?
No, we're saying these "scientists" aren't scientists.

Relax everybody, no harm, no foul.
Bullshit. It is precisely this type of publishing that throws all published research into question and creates human fallacy like the AGW debate and the vaccination scare. Disinformation from these two topics alone have resulting in the death or disabling of hundreds if not thousands of innocent children at the hands of their ignorant parents.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2010
Quote: And why did Jesus take 3 DAYS
Answer: The SAME 'reason' he got back a certain NUMBER of loaves and fishes.

PS 107 - Metaphysical Interpretation and Review of the Bible
(39 hours/13 weeks)
This class, based on Jack Addington's book, The Hidden Mystery of the
Bible," will introduce New Thought students to the hidden or esoteric
meanings of Biblical scriptures. Students will begin to understand
the
deeper meanings of names, places and numbers found in the Bible, and
will uncover an infinite source of illumination and wisdom.

Textbooks:
The Hidden Mystery of the Bible, Jack Addington; The Science of Mind,
Ernest Holmes; The Bible
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2010
-I could take the time to search out and post equally silly crank courses from sourses such as 'The Holy Order of Festus University Online' or somesuch, but I dont feel like it.
Quote: And why did Jesus take 3 DAYS
Answer: The SAME 'reason' he got back a certain NUMBER of loaves and fishes.
Uh, please note you didnt give a REASON. I think you should offer a real REASON instead of just parroting what I already SAID, which was godly perogative.

Of course my implication was also that god is a little less than omni-potent if he actually had to take TIME to create his works, and that there are LIMITS to the powers assigned to him by the People who actually wrote the bible of their own uninspired volition, intentional or accidental.

And I get to source the bible same as you, but I believe I probably know it better than you do.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2010
Students will begin to understand
the
deeper meanings of names, places and numbers found in the Bible, and
will uncover an infinite source of illumination and wisdom.

It's called numerology, and it was relegated to the dustbin around the same time that astrology was. Only the ignorant think 3 is a special number. Why is it special? Well because we said it was and our religion followed the "specialness" we ascribed to particular numerals.
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2010
Jesus the Divine Caterer fed 5000 using 5 loaves and 2 fishes, but he also fed 4000 using 7 loaves and a few small fishes. The math here seems inconsistant, but I guess we must consider the sizes of loaves and fishes, their type and species, the relative hunger of the people, and jesus' accuracy at dividing; after all, he WAS half MENSCH. Jesus was also good with wine.

Did you get numerology from his references? I didnt look. I was thinking Ironjustices source could have his own esoteric code algorithm or he could be referring to a variation of the bible code, popular with cabalists; but this seems to work equally well with such secular works as Gone With the Wind and phone books. Interesting though.
http://en.wikiped...ble_code
ironjustice
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2010
Sounds like to me this thread is becoming the personal sounding board for atheists ..
The thread is about Science and UNLESS you ask a SPECIFIC question ABOUT religion ON this thread your attempting denigration of religion is but a sign of your small .. dck.
Imho ..
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2010
Sounds like to me this thread is becoming the personal sounding board for atheists ..
Seems like you're upset over a few references to the ridiculousness of this study and decided to go all "Horney for Christ" on us. You seem rather upset that we began making fun of you for it.
The thread is about Science and UNLESS you ask a SPECIFIC question ABOUT religion ON this thread your attempting denigration of religion is but a sign of your small .. dck.
I'd further recommend you refrain from stating insults on the size of others' reproductive organs when you "cast the first stone" so to speak.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2010
Quote: when you "cast the first stone" so to speak
Answer: Did I insult atheists .. ? I don't think I insulted atheists . If I insulted you .. show me. Until then I wouldn't be trying to recommend ANYTHING to ME.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2010
creates human fallacy like the AGW debate and the vaccination scare.


Answer: Fallacy ? "After the number of children adversely affected by the Swine Vaccine -H1N1 Swine Vaccine in Australia the state government has stopped and suspended this vaccine for children."
otto1923
4 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2010
Answer: Did I insult atheists .. ? I don't think I insulted atheists . If I insulted you .. show me. Until then I wouldn't be trying to recommend ANYTHING to ME.
How about this:
He sure cuddles up to atheists . If it looks like smells like and tastes like .. it probably is.
That's pretty insulting. All your posts here are insulting to atheists and others who choose to use logic and reason to understand things. Your tone implies that disbelieving in your god is actually a BAD thing, which obviously it's not. Your views even insult other religionists whose views are different than yours.

I recommend you keep your particular unscientific, unsupportable and irrelevant religionist views to yourself. Like this one:
I believe the atheists MUST be **monitored** because their INFLUENCES as to targeting and attacking medical studies based ON merely the mention of religion is OVERBOARD.
Really, who needs it?
ironjustice
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2010
Quote: Did I insult atheists ?


Answer : I simply asked a statistical question as to 'the odds that Jesus is mentioned and atheists being closely involved in the removal of the article. You seem to WANT to take it to some level ?
Mr. Bob O'Hara purports to be married to one grrrlscientist a RABID atheist. Therefore the ODDS .. are .. quite high that atheists were involved in the removal of this article. Actually the queen of atheists is married to the man who seems to have caused an article to be removed from a journal in only two weeks. He must be a persuasive fella. Imho.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2010
I believe the atheists MUST be **monitored** because their INFLUENCES as to targeting and attacking medical studies based ON merely the mention of religion is OVERBOARD.

"One of the blogs that brought the paper to notice was This Scientific Life, by Bob O'Hara."
"Blag Hag: A large list of awesome female atheists
-5:24am 3 Jan 2010 ... Bob O'Hara said... Grrlscientist is also an atheist and blogger. I think she's awesome. But then I did marry her, so I might be biased."

" Kam L.E. Hon from the Department of Paediatrics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, was astonished" the article had produced such a negative response since it was only intended for thought provocation."
"He said he would never to write this kind of article again."

THAT smacks of cyberbullying.
In Scientific circles that might bring a few credentials up for scrutiny.
Mighten't it ..
otto1923
4 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2010
I believe the religionists MUST be **monitored** because their INFLUENCES as to targeting and attacking medical studies based ON merely the mention of science is OVERBOARD.

ironjustice
1 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2010
My little one man cult is having more success in the medical field than anyone in history.
Sooo one might say the religionists are AWWWESome. But that's just me.
thales
5 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2010
I've compiled ironjustice's capitalized words and added a little punctuation to make it readable. I have not altered their order. Talk about your hidden messages.
--------

That what and due to, and must influences, on overboard; much sheer number. What belief knows seems comparable. Believe about told by, due to of you taught unbelievable other fact, not because overwhelming fact believe minority. Where rights if everytime speak right everytime, because are must! Unless specific about on anything. Me want rabid odds.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2010
Answer: Did I insult atheists .. ? I don't think I insulted atheists. If I insulted you .. show me.
I'd argue that you don't think in general, but just to make it readily available to you here.
I believe the atheists MUST be **monitored** because their INFLUENCES as to targeting and attacking medical studies based ON merely the mention of religion is OVERBOARD. Poor excuses for scientists. Imho.
Remember that little gem?
Until then I wouldn't be trying to recommend ANYTHING to ME.
Seeing as I've now done so I can comfortably state I'd recommend you seek help for that case of rectal cranial inversion you suffer from.
THAT smacks of cyberbullying.
No it smacks of pseudoscience being called to the carpet.

Cyber bullying would be what you're engaging in here.
ironjustice
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2010
Quote: Cyber bullying would be what you're engaging in here.
Answer: I speculated "atheists are involved" and my speculation PROVED to be true. IF there WAS an "astonishing backlash against a medical speculation" and this astonishing backlash against a MEDICAL JOURNAL was PROMOTED by ANY of the atheist sites using the tactics they use in OTHER venues it becomes a matter to be INVESTIGATED by the PROPER authorities so that the journal the author and BOTH peer reviewers are EXHONERATED and given an apology. Period. BEFORE it escalates into a full blown atheist ROUTING. Imho.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2010
I speculated "atheists are involved" and my speculation PROVED to be true. IF there WAS an "astonishing backlash against a medical speculation" and this astonishing backlash against a MEDICAL JOURNAL was PROMOTED by ANY of the atheist sites using the tactics they use in OTHER venues it becomes a matter to be INVESTIGATED by the PROPER authorities so that the journal the author and BOTH peer reviewers are EXHONERATED and given an apology. Period. BEFORE it escalates into a full blown atheist ROUTING. Imho.
Your scope of the penetration of religion into biomedical study is laughable. I challenge you to name an accurate contemporary medical study that didn't involve atheists. Before you post it, get that keyboard fixed. Your intonation via text makes you appear to be fanatical and delusional.
Imho.
You'll want to use IMO, because it is a viewpoint that is certainly far from humble. It's rather far from honest as well. Perhaps the H is for horseshit.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2010
thales: You said: "I've compiled ironjustice's capitalized words and added a little punctuation to make it readable. I have not altered their order. Talk about your hidden messages."

If I could have given you a 10 stars instead of the maximum of 5 stars I would have. That is one of the best laughs I have had in months. Great job.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2010
Quote: I challenge you to name an accurate contemporary medical study that didn't involve atheists.

Answer: I suppose we could start with this guy. I'm pretty sure he steers well clear of your TYPE.
"Dr. Andrew Wakefield was named Dean of Campbell University Divinity School"
otto1923
4 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2010
That what and due to, and must influences, on overboard; much sheer number. What belief knows seems comparable. Believe about told by, due to of you taught unbelievable other fact, not because overwhelming fact believe minority. Where rights if everytime speak right everytime, because are must! Unless specific about on anything. Me want rabid odds.
And you know, it almost makes sense... It APPEARS as if it should make sense, in fact... It reads JUST like one of JIGGAS posts. I think Thales may have stumbled onto another phenomenon not unlike the Bible Code. Remarkable.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2010
Quote: I challenge you to name an accurate contemporary medical study that didn't involve atheists.

Answer: I suppose we could start with this guy. I'm pretty sure he steers well clear of your TYPE.
"Dr. Andrew Wakefield was named Dean of Campbell University Divinity School"

I think you should do a little investigation and determine for yourself why this former doctor is a non-starter.

Hint: it has to do with autism, Jenny McCarthy, and fraud.
If I could have given you a 10 stars instead of the maximum of 5 stars I would have. That is one of the best laughs I have had in months. Great job.
The only thing beating it in my mind is the mention of Dr. Wakefield.
otto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2010
Quote: I challenge you to name an accurate contemporary medical study that didn't involve atheists.

Answer: I suppose we could start with this guy. I'm pretty sure he steers well clear of your TYPE.
"Dr. Andrew Wakefield was named Dean of Campbell University Divinity School"
Is that St. Campbell of the Blessed Pea Soup? Mmmmmm good, I bet that study is worth reading. Uh, where is it now? Does it exist or is he still channeling it?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2010
SH: You are right about his naming Wakefield being even funnier (if the paper wasn't tragic).

You really can't script this stuff.

ironjustice - don't you even know that Wakefield has been discredited and is responsible for the deaths of children who's misguided parents listened to his (since retracted) incorrect paper on vaccines?

You can read about Wakefield here:

http://en.wikiped...akefield

To even think ironjustice would use him as an example of an "accurate paper" is amazing.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2010
To even think ironjustice would use him as an example of an "accurate paper" is amazing.

Ironjustice, you were half right. There were absolutely no atheists involved in that research. We have too many of those things called ethics.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2010
Quote: ironjustice - don't you even know that Wakefield has been discredited and is responsible for the deaths of children who's misguided parents listened to his (since retracted) incorrect paper on vaccines?
Answer: There are no coincidences. The atheists had a hand in the removal of Dr. Wakefields' license AND he is the Dean of a 'divinity' school. Coincidences abound.
Skeptic_Heretic
Aug 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2010
Quote: Yep, simple troll.
Answer: In case you might have failed to understand .. I read little of your tripe ..
MarkyMark
4 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2010
I think Jesus is cool!

Imagine it partying at a Nightclub and when its your turn to buy the drinks just order glasses of water and then do the coolest pub trick i can think off.

"What was it you wanted?

"A Blue sunrise".

"A Blue Sunrise coming up".

[Waves Hand].
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2010
Quote: Yep, simple troll.
Answer: In case you might have failed to understand .. I read little of your tripe ..

On the contrary, you've been quite attentive to my commentary. In fact your posting is so much more prolific I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have a great admiration for me.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2010
It has been speculated atheists were involved in this retraction and it was PROVEN. Nothing else really needs to be said directly TO me. Understand atheist ? In other words .. giiiiit.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2010
It has been speculated atheists were involved in this retraction and it was PROVEN. Nothing else really needs to be said directly TO me.

Then I'll talk around you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sure we can all see the effects of what I would call, "Junk media" as displayed by Mr. Ironjustice.

Junk media leads to junk science and in the case of the vaccination scare the preventable deaths of innocent children. This is why one must always source the topic and attempt to have as complete an understanding as possible. Pursuing a more complete understanding includes discarding your bias against someone when they deliver objective reasoning regardless of your bigoted inclinations.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2010
Atheist influences.
"Bob O'Hara (BobOH) wrote:
Yay! Feel the power of the blogosphere. I saw this story tweeted by @enniscath. So I blogged it (on This Scientific Life), and Tara Smith blogged it, and then PZed Myers linked back. So the whole thing exploded, and caused the retraction."

"August-12-10 4:48:06 PM
Cath Ennis (enniscath) on Twitter16 Aug 2010 ... British-Canadian scientist, blogger, grant wrangler, godless lefty."

"The Evolution Academic Freedom Act HF 183 introduced Feb. 3 by Rod Roberts (R-Carroll) has come under attack by the infamous gang of three, namely Hector Avalos, of Iowa State University; and James W. Demostes and Tara C. Smith, of the University of Iowa.
HF 183 states that college and high school teachers often suffer discrimination or punishment for questioning evolution. The gang of three, who are godless atheists, want to push their agenda on the teachers and students at our schools and universities."

PZed Myers - "godless liberal"

otto1923
4 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2010
Good for them. Creationism originates in a book full of obvious lies. And the people who promote it are thus deceptive, deluded, and evil for wanting to teach it to children.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2010
I was on the school department in my town for a short time and someone brought up the whole "equal time" ideal. I didn't object, but I put conditions on it before they decided. I told them we'd have to do the top 10, and produced the list of the top ten held beliefs at the time.
These included, aliens seeding the planet, evolution, holographic theory, creationism, the blood rites common in Africa and south america, etc.

I was told that it was ridiculous and we should only do the top 5.

So I told them the top 5, and creationism wasn't on the list. The idea was scrapped and reality won the day. Proponents of equal time don't really want equal time. They want equal time for themselves only, that shows you how valid their viewpoint is.
Xaero
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2010
90% Of Physicians’ medical knowledge is plainly wrong.

http://www.time.c...,00.html

I don't think, one article censored will improve this number significantly. Freedom of information spreading is more important, then the speculative character of article.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2010
Xaero: I hate to rain on your parade, but this just shows that even Time magazine can publish articles that have no basis. Your reference does not pass the laugh test. I go to my doctor and she is relatively quick to diagnose my problems and come up with solutions. This is saying that she would be wrong 9 out of ten times and probably kill me in the process. That is just nonsense. Using this to rationalize the article that was shown to be fradulent, not "censored" is just ridiculous. The article by Wakefield was dangerous and was shown to be faked. This example of "Freedom of information spreading..." (as you put it) cost the lives of children and was not "censored." It was fraudulent, and made a lot of money for Wakefield. The article we are commenting on about Jesus curing a virus is similar nonsense. I recall my mother-in-law flying to Rome to buy a relic to cure her son of cancer - costing most of her savings and doing nothing for her son.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2010

The gang of three, who are godless atheists, want to push their agenda on the teachers and students at our schools and universities."

PZed Myers - "godless liberal"



And sadly Texas still dictates what goes into our public school books... Look even he pope has said Creationism isn't "Science" and should not be regarded as Science, therefore it shouldn't be in a High School Science Book.

Thats why you go to church/Synagogues/Mosque on Sunday(possibility Wednesday.. or every day) and/or become a religious studies major in college... NOT public school paid for by MY tax money. Plus it is a Free country you can ALWAYS choose private school and home school.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2010
ironjustice: I just want to clarify your point. You are of the opinion that the paper by Andrew Wakefield that addressed autism and bowel disease that appeared to be related to MMR vaccine was withdrawn because he is a devout Christian who was purged by atheists. Is that correct?

Your reasoning for that was that atheists attacked the paper and Wakefield has been vindicated because he is now dean of a divinity school. Is that correct?

I just want to understand your reasoning. You consider Wakefield's paper to be an example of a good Christian who produced a good medical paper. Is that correct?
Yes
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2010
There is absolutely no scientifically known case of anybody who ever cured a viral infection.
Surgeons can stimulate the immune system somewhat or prevent somebody from dying by draining the lungs.
Maybe they can inject some antibodies into the patient so the immune system can recognize the virus.
But the antibodies had been produced by another immune system in the first place.

All medicine can do is gain some time so the patient does not die, and then we give the immune system some time to do what it needs to do.

Last but not least you can rebuke the virus. It helps:)
otto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2010
And sadly Texas still dictates what goes into our public school books... Look even he pope has said Creationism isn't "Science" and should not be regarded as Science, therefore it shouldn't be in a High School Science Book.
Careful- people like ironjustice might tell you the pope is the Antichrist-
ironjustice
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2010
ironjustice: You consider Wakefield's paper to be an example of a good Christian who produced a good medical paper. Is that correct?


I know very little about the Wakefield controversy but have wondered WHY the atheists seem to be sooo 'involved' in the work of some researcher with so many papers published. With a cursary search I came up with the wrong Wakefield. The 'drive' behind the atheists against Wakefield may well come down to the 'groups' promoting anti-vaccination and THEIR stance on homosexuals and abortion. Since Wakefield seems not to be a 'dean of a divinity school' it may be something OTHER than his Christian leanings that have brought out the atheists. WHAT that IS will be discovered with a little more data-mining. Whether I do the data-mining that is required is to be decided in the future because frankly just interacting with atheists leaves kind of a foul taste due to their lack of class morals and bravado. Which in my world are ALL that MAKE a man.
xstos
5 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2010
next they'll publish an article that santa claus spreads the common cold thru delivering presents. at least santa claus is more real than jesus.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2010
ironjustice: You consider Wakefield's paper to be an example of a good Christian who produced a good medical paper. Is that correct?


I know very little about the Wakefield controversy but have wondered WHY the atheists seem to be sooo 'involved' in the work of some researcher with so many papers published. With a cursary search I came up with the wrong Wakefield. The 'drive' behind the atheists against Wakefield may well come down to the 'groups' promoting anti-vaccination and THEIR stance on homosexuals and abortion. Since Wakefield seems not to be a 'dean of a divinity school' it may be something OTHER than his Christian leanings that have brought out the atheists. WHAT that IS will be discovered with a little more data-mining. Whether I do the data-mining that is required is to be decided in the future because frankly just interacting with atheists leaves kind of a foul taste due to their lack of class morals and bravado. Which in my world are ALL that MAKE a man.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2010
I know very little about the Wakefield controversy but have wondered WHY the atheists seem to be sooo 'involved' in the work of some researcher with so many papers published.
Not sure why you're seeing some sort of atheist conspiracy here. Wakefield took money to forge data on vaccinations and autism. The man lied in order to make money putting children at risk of death and paralysis.

Almost everyone's moral code is against that.
Whether I do the data-mining that is required is to be decided in the future because frankly just interacting with atheists leaves kind of a foul taste due to their lack of class morals and bravado. Which in my world are ALL that MAKE a man.
So how about that "screw the kids I want some cash" moral code that Wakefield runs around with? Where does that rank on your scale?
otto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2010
frankly just interacting with atheists leaves kind of a foul taste due to their lack of class morals and bravado. Which in my world are ALL that MAKE a man.
This guys a real piece of work isn't he? I picture some fat old guy sitting in front of his computer with his pecker in his hand. Which makes ME uncomfortable. Nevertheless-

You did not address my assumption as to whether or not you think the pope is the Antichrist sir. And if you are catholic, do you feel that either bin laden or Benny hinn are the Antichrist? Could it be a cabal involving 2 or more of the three?

How do you feel about ecumenicism? Do you think god tolerates compromise? Could the one true and righteous apple save a barrel full of rotten lemons? Are ecumenicals hedging their bets or are they merely diluting gods grace and condemning all believers to hell (leaving meek atheists to inherit the earth)?
otto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2010
Have you THOUGHT about these things and the impact they could have on your bid for Salvation? Have you considered that maybe your chosen faith is not the one god prefers, and that they may not let the Protestants into purgatory... if you are a Protestant.

Or if you are catholic, perhaps the Protestant canon is the true and only complete Word of God, and that your soul has been irrevocably polluted with Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus?

Are you SURE you use the right words when you pray to god every night; not knowing that you're in fact insulting him with sacrilege??

And what- WHAT- about Islam??!?

As the bible says, ignorance of the Law is no excuse.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2010
ironjustice:

Let me show you two of your quotes in the order you posted them:

"Answer: There are no coincidences. The atheists had a hand in the removal of Dr. Wakefields' license AND he is the Dean of a 'divinity' school. Coincidences abound."

"I know very little about the Wakefield controversy but have wondered WHY the atheists seem to be sooo 'involved' in the work of some researcher with so many papers published."

Now you know the paper that you put up as proof of a good Christian producing a good paper was not written by the dean of a divinity school - and you have said you really didn't know much about Wakefield when you posted him as a good example.

Your ranting was about godless atheists picking on the dean of a divinity school. In fact, there were hundreds of people "picking" on Wakefield because he was a common criminal who put lives in danger and had no interests in divinity school. Shouldn't you be retracting some of your rants?
DamienS
5 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
...frankly just interacting with atheists leaves kind of a foul taste due to their lack of class morals and bravado. Which in my world are ALL that MAKE a man.

Appalling grammar notwithstanding, I'm sick to death of god botherers equating a lack of a self delusional belief in a magic man in the sky with the absence of a moral compass. What kind of morality is it that has to be forced under threat of eternal damnation?
ironjustice
1 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2010
Quote: What kind of morality is it
Answer: If I recall correctly the last meeting by you atheists in Australia had you all rallying about how to screw a dog. The kind of morality that DOESN'T teach full grown men HOW to screw a dog.
Now .. atheists .. giiiiit ..
You seem to be gathering ..
DamienS
5 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2010
Quote: What kind of morality is it
Answer: If I recall correctly the last meeting by you atheists in Australia had you all rallying about how to screw a dog. The kind of morality that DOESN'T teach full grown men HOW to screw a dog.
Now .. atheists .. giiiiit ..
You seem to be gathering ..

Nice ad hominem. I'll just turn the other cheek. BTW, I learned that by living in a civil society and not by indoctrination in make-believe mythology.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
ironjustice: You didn't answer my question. With your mistaken identity of Wakefield and your claim he was driven out of his job by vile atheists due to him being a dean of divinity shouldn't you be withdrawing your comments as a courtesy to those you were cursing? Surely, you are not a godless atheist (redundant) without a moral compass who would let off a person who caused the deaths of children if he is not a dean of divinity? Or who would forgive a lonely priest if he spent a little extra attention on his alter boy (even if the alter boy is scared for the rest of his life) - he is a priest after all...

Maybe, being one of the gods favorites you don't have to worry about that moral compass.

Go ahead, just retract it and all will be well. You will feel better showing your superiority.
otto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2010
Quote: What kind of morality is it
Answer: If I recall correctly the last meeting by you atheists in Australia had you all rallying about how to screw a dog. The kind of morality that DOESN'T teach full grown men HOW to screw a dog.
Now .. atheists .. giiiiit ..
You seem to be gathering ..
Well THAT wasn't in the newsletter... Now we know what is on his mind as ironjustice sits in front of his computer with his pecker in his hand.
Yes
1.7 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2010
Nice thing to observe.
Doing some observational science on these posts.
All ironjustice comments rank (1/5) 3.
All others rank mostly (5/5) 3.
reason? A good Christian does not seem to rank to 1 for an opinion, unless he finds an error that is objective from his standpoint?
Atheists rank to 1 for the same reason? To me it appears that they think it is objective to rank to 1 for religious comments. However sometimes the atheists seem to loose objectivity and rank 1 blinded by some subjectivity.
That is bullying.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
Nice thing to observe.
Doing some observational science on these posts.
All ironjustice comments rank (1/5) 3.
All others rank mostly (5/5) 3.
reason? A good Christian does not seem to rank to 1 for an opinion, unless he finds an error that is objective from his standpoint?
Atheists rank to 1 for the same reason? To me it appears that they think it is objective to rank to 1 for religious comments. However sometimes the atheists seem to loose objectivity and rank 1 blinded by some subjectivity.
That is bullying.

That'd be wrong. "Atheists", which is a term that doesn't accurately describe the 3 people downranking IJ, is a generalization.

I'm downranking IJ because his commentary is factually inaccurate. If you disagree, show me where he has been correct in so much as one statement.

I downranked you for blind supposition and inaccurate generalization.
Thrasymachus
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2010
Well, the observations are good, provided we accept your divisions in the categories. The speculation as to the reasoning behind the rating have no evidence whatsoever. Personally, I rate these religious comments a 1 because Medieval superstition has no place on a science website, because the poster is only interested in proselytizing rather than discussion and learning, and because their attitude is insulting to generations of people who've spent their lives trying to understand the world a bit better, and make it a better place. I rate SH's, otto's, and thermo's (among other's don't mean to leave anybody out) a 5 when they make a particularly good point, bring in new and relevant information, and to express support for their confrontation of the mouth-breathers.
Peteri
4 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2010
I think that "ironjustice" must be a mischievous person taking the urine and having a good laugh as he eggs you all on. Surely, no normal sane person could be such an arrogant bigot!
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
I think that "ironjustice" must be a mischievous person taking the urine and having a good laugh as he eggs you all on. Surely, no normal sane person could be such an arrogant bigot!
You'd be surprised.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2010
Nice thing to observe.
Doing some observational science on these posts.
All ironjustice comments rank (1/5) 3.
All others rank mostly (5/5) 3.
Yep, this correlation is significant.
Atheists rank to 1 for the same reason? To me it appears that they think it is objective to rank to 1 for religious comments.
It's not simply atheists. It's militant atheists. Comparable to militant animal right fighters, to militant anti-smokers, etc. They use to rate any statement from any of their chosen adversaries with "1".
However sometimes the atheists seem to loose objectivity and rank 1 blinded by some subjectivity.
That is bullying.
No - it's just showing one's flags in order to maintain that comfy group feeling.

Essentially, the "discussions" between militant atheists and militant believers are boring as they don't yield any cognition. That's the reason few non-militants, if any, take part. Thus, the rankings are confined to the extreme values.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
No - it's just showing one's flags in order to maintain that comfy group feeling.


I'm surprised that you aren't seeing the distinction between this conversation and many of the prior conversations that actually do follow that vein of reality on these boards. Although your above synopsis is typically accurate, this time you are quite wrong.

Anyone calling Dr. Andrew Wakefield "a good christian and scientist" is doing favors for neither Christianity nor Science.
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
I think that "ironjustice" must be a mischievous person taking the urine and having a good laugh as he eggs you all on. Surely, no normal sane person could be such an arrogant bigot!


Peteri... I was once so optimistic, you should flee, run away from this place, this board, this Internet, it will destroy you, and that bright happy innocence will be lost forever to the dark soul sucking abyss that is... human nature... and stay way from sociology, anthropology, and economics... that's no place for optimism either... Flee! and don't look back. Stay happy.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
That's the reason few non-militants, if any, take part. Thus, the rankings are confined to the extreme values.


No. I gave all of IJ's posts here a one. They were ALL blatantly idiotic, most were blatantly wrong.

Yes and YOU are both on this. Ironjustice did not make one single post worthy of even a two. I notice that NEITHER of you two have felt that he deserved so much as a two either.

So why the bogus complaints about people giving ones to someone YOU YOURSELVES can't stomach enough to score higher than a one. Abstention in this case where you shown interest is ample evidence that you don't think he deserves even a two.

Ethelred
Yes
1 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
Anyone calling Dr. Andrew Wakefield "a good christian and scientist" is doing favors for neither Christianity nor Science.

No idea about Wakefield's Christianity, however must be said that saying that vaccination is dangerous is indeed unpopular. Do not expect the state to respond objective.
That said I would add to Dr Wakefield's statements that if we lower the speedlimit on the roads by 20%, then we will see a reduction in deaths by car accidents.
If we lower the speedlimits by 40% then we will see an even bigger reduction of victims.
While the state is not thinking about speedreduction we can conclude that the state needs to draw a line where the amount of deaths is acceptable.
In other words the state sacrifices people for the sake of "need for speed". Correct me if I am wrong.
If vaccines cause sporadic cases of autism then be it..
Problem is just that none of such statements can be said aloud. 99% of the people are not able to eat any of those statements. Even if true.
Yes
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2010
(1/5) 3 for that comment, so you guys do have a heart and do not like the reasoning of the devil.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2010
In other words the state sacrifices people for the sake of "need for speed". Correct me if I am wrong.


Those decisions weren't made by some nebulous secretive state. In the US people got PISSED about the 55 mile an hour speed limit. The PEOPLE decided they would rather risk going faster than go slower.

If vaccines cause sporadic cases of autism then be it..


Only there isn't any evidence to support the claim.

Now if we were discussing the oral polio vaccine with the live virus you would very much have a point. The Salk Vaccine is safer.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2010
Problem is just that none of such statements can be said aloud.
They can and have been. The reason no one says them is because it is a hallmark of ignorance. It's almost akin to telling someone in a board meeting that you just wet your mental pants.
99% of the people are not able to eat any of those statements. Even if true.
And those statements aren't true. "The sky is green" can be said aloud, most people tell you it's wrong, and that's because it is demonstrably wrong, just like vaccinations causing autism.
danman5000
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2010
if we lower the speedlimit on the roads by 20%, then we will see a reduction in deaths by car accidents.
If we lower the speedlimits by 40% then we will see an even bigger reduction of victims.

Why not lower it by 100%, then you'd see no victims at all! Let's outlaw cars to keep everyone as safe as possible. Have fun walking to work, or better yet just stay at home to really minimize your risk.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2010
Have fun walking to work, or better yet just stay at home to really minimize your risk.


I take the bus.

However that was pretty silly. The difference in getting somewhere when going 55 instead of 65 is fairly small, at least when commuting. The change in death rates was quite significant. The energy of a crash goes up as the square of velocity so a small change can have a significant improvement in survival.

I used to ride a motorcycle. I am not completely adverse you see. On a motorcycle, without a fairing, the difference between 55 and 65 is COMFORT not safety, the buffeting was tiring over 60. Any collision over 30 is pretty nasty on a bike. The helmets are only rated to 20 MPH at impact. I hope that has improved since I last rode.

Ethelred