Herald Column: On Measles & Anti-Vaxxers

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at how news from Britain relates to recent measles outbreaks closer to home: 

It may seem entirely inconsequential to people here that the UK’s General Medical Council has struck one Andrew Wakefield from that country’s medical register.

Unfortunately, however, Wakefield’s foul legacy is very much consequential. His latest comeuppance is hopefully a small step in undoing the damage of that legacy, but either way, so much damage has already been done.

Wakefield is the author of a now completely discredited paper published in 1998 in The Lancet, which implied that the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine was linked to autism.

Numerous studies have shown conclusively that no such link exists (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), but the sensationalism surrounding Wakefield’s paper was a like a lit match tossed into a flammable mix of anti-vaccine hysteria and the fear arising from the mystery of autism’s causes.

Wakefield’s research had the predictable effect of scaring people away from the MMR vaccine. Vaccination rates plummeted in the UK, and not surprisingly the number of measles cases soared.

In 2008 in the UK there were almost 1400 cases of measles compared with 56 the year Wakefield’s paper was published. In 2006, a 13-year-old boy died from measles – the first time in 14 years such a death had been recorded.

On top of the multiple studies rejecting the MMR-autism link, The Lancet itself issued a complete and formal retraction of Wakefield’s paper this past February, citing his unethical and irresponsible conduct. At times, it seems, vaccines are a victim of their own success.

Once a disease like measles becomes rare, we tend to drop our guard – either forgetting how serious it is or assuming that it can never come back. Well, as we’ve seen in the UK, it can come back with a vengeance.

Unfortunately, it’s not only the UK where we’re learning that lesson.

This month, Alberta Health Services has confirmed five cases of measles in the Calgary-area.

 

(...)

There are still pockets of the province where vaccination rates are low and, as expected, measles cases there have been higher. Southwestern Alberta, for example is one of those regions. Not only has measles made a comeback in that region – a 2000 outbreak forced the closure of a Lethbridge-area private school – but cases of mumps and whooping-cough have been documented over the past two years.

 

In B.C., meanwhile, 87 measles cases have been confirmed so far this year. It’s believed many of those cases stem from infected out-of-country visitors who attended the Vancouver Olympics. All cases involve people who were either not vaccinated at all, or only partially vaccinated.

 

Eight cases were associated with a single household, where no one had been vaccinated. The reason, according to one official, was that a friend of the family was influential in convincing them not to get vaccinated. They’re now paying the price for these ignorant conspiracy theories.

 

Unfortunately, there are also those who try and capitalize on these fears, and shamelessly peddle these unfounded anti-vaccine claims while selling their own “natural” or “alternative” (i.e. useless) treatments.

 

Understandably, no parent wants to put his or her child at risk. We are all much more aware now of the challenges faced by autistic children, and the mere suggestion that the condition stems from a conscious decision made by the parent is a source of enormous guilt and worry.

 

The blame lies not only with those who have spread unjustified fears over the MMR vaccine, but also to those in the media who devoted far more coverage to Wakefield’s shoddy paper than to the numerous other peer-reviewed studies which found no link.

 

In light of what the science tells us, the real question is why anyone would put their children at risk by not getting the vaccine. We shouldn’t have to learn the hard way that measles is not something we want coming back.  

 

"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"

In response to, of course, this (and this), as well as more recently this, this, and this, today was "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day".

 

Ironically, though, the person who, it seems, came up with the idea has come down with, well, cold feet: 

An American cartoonist whose work inspired the controversial "Everybody Draw Mohammed Page" on Facebook has condemned the effort and issued an apology to Muslims.

"I did NOT 'declare' May 20 to be "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," [Molly Norris] said, adding that her idea was satire but "was taken seriously, hijacked and made viral."

(...)
"I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this 'day' be called off," she said.

The "Draw Mohammed" page has led to Facebook being blocked in Pakistan and sparked angry protests and condemnation from the foreign ministry, which denounced the "publication of blasphemous caricatures of our holy prophet."

Well, Molly has a right to her opinions - I wonder how much of her recanting was prompted by fearrather than principal. That's not to say there aren't Islam-haters who are taking advantage of the event.

 

 

None of that, however, takes away from the fundamental principle involved here. Once someone - the state, angry radical Muslims, or politically-correct censors - say we cannot draw a picture of a man who lived 1400 years ago, then it is incumbent that we demonstrate that indeed we can.

 

Reason Magazine went ahead with their own "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" contest - here's - in part - their explain as to why: 

...Which is to say that Draw Mohammed day is a sign of pushback, not by the groups you would expect to be at the forefront - the organized press and the elected guardians of the Constitution - but by a sea of individuals who will not stand by silently while forces of both hostility and accomodation collude in narrowing the space for acceptable speech. We are proud to be participants in a project that defends the core of our very slogan: Free Minds and Free Markets. Can free societies engage in speech that some may find greivously insulting, and in doing so can they advance both the debate and the ongoing liberal project? It's not just that they can, but that they must.

The accompanying image with this blog post is the winning entry in Reason's contest. Here's why it won: 

...each of the images forces the viewer to actively participate not simply in the creation of meaning but of actually constructing the image itself. This is clearest in our grand prize winner, the image below, which pushes iman and infidel alike to do the work that would condemn them to death under the most extreme reading of injunctions against representing Mohammed.

There is a deeper lesson here: Connect the dots and discover that we all must be Spartacus on Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. And that in a free society, every day is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.

More here and here.

Fear Not the Skull

Careful! Don't look too closely at the accompanying image - you might be compelled to consume dangerous amounts of vodka!

 

Now, I am clearly being facetious, but sadly, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is quite serious: 

Vodka this summer at the LCBO, you're out of luck.

The liquor control board decided not to carry the alcohol, which comes in a bottle shaped like a smiling human skull, out of concern that the product projects the wrong image about drinking.

(...)
"The image of the human skull was problematic for us as a responsible retailer," [LCBO's Chris] Layton said on Wednesday. "It's an image that is commonly associated with death or death by poison."

Layton said that the skull raised concerns because of binge drinking among younger people.

"In some cases, unfortunately, those cases of binge drinking have resulted in alcohol poisoning."

You might be wondering just what on earth the shape of a bottle has to do with consumption of any sort - let alone dangerous consumption. Clearly we're seen dangerous consumption with alcohol that comes in plain old bottles. I'd be curious to see the evidence suggesting that a skull-shaped bottle would lead to more binge drinking.

 

Let's say though, for sake of argument, that the LCBO's concerns are somehow grounded in reality. All this decision has done is resulted in great deal of free advertising for Crystal Head Vodka, which will likely lead to higher sales and... who knows what horrors?

 

I suspect for most people this is a novelty purchase - a collector's item of sorts. The people that want to get wasted on vodka have much cheaper alternatives.

 

More from Globe & Mail wine columnist  Beppi Crosariol: 

The LCBO has banned or delisted other questionable packages, arguably to the public’s benefit, including sexually degrading labels depicting topless women and a vodka brand called Kalishnikov that was presented for sale in a bottle shaped like an AK-47 assault rifle.

But a smiling skull? I find it kind of cute.

Plus, if British Columbia’s experience with the product is any indication, this may be a tempest in a decanter. BC Liquor Stores have been selling Crystal Head since March, 2009, and have received no public complaints about the spirit or its packaging, said Tarina Palmer, spokeswoman for the British Columbia Liquor Distribution Branch.

 

How Much of an "Armageddon Factor" Is There?

You can listen to the first segment of our interview with Marci McDonald, author of "The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada"  via the audio player at right.

 

The entire interview - including phone calls from our audience after the fact - is available at our podcast page.

 

For me, as a non-believing, pro-secular, libertarian-leaning conservative, I've got little time for the religious right and its agenda, and particularily for those who would attempt to blur the lines between church and state - be they Christian, Muslim, or whatever.

 

There is no doubt that a religious right exists in Canada, and Marci's book does lay out the names and organizations that comprise that movement.

 

There is also no doubt that within the Conservative caucus or within the backrooms of the Harper government there exist people whom one would describe as social conservatives or even religious conservatives. The question is: so what?

 

Much of this book - or at least the reaction to it - seems more about resurrecting the old "hidden agenda" canard against the Conservative Party. Look, judge the Conservatives on what they've done - judge their policies on the merits, or lack thereof, of those policies.

 

What exactly do all of these allegedly influential Christian conservatives have to show for all of their efforts? Very little.

 

What's more, Marci McDonald seems to conflate all religious and social conservatives together without explaining at what point she believe such views cross a line and become a sinister agenda.

 

I agree with Jack Layton and the NDP on very little, but I would consider them to be mainstream. You can disagree with social conservatives all you want (and I do on many matters), but I would consider them for the most part to be mainstream.

 

If social conservatives are mainstream, what is so sinister about them stating their position or organizing to advance their positions?

 

There are those more fundamentalist Christian conservatives who do want to make this country an explicity Christian country - to ban abortion, scale back gay rights, ban the teaching of evolution, etc.

 

Ironically, Canada is a country that once banned abortion, banned homosexuality, banned Sunday shopping, and banned blasphemy. Those who still support such policies are very much on the losing end of things.

 

This is where McDonald's approach becomes muddled and convoluted. On the one hand she talks about these Christian conservatives, who in her words, have a "vision of Canada ...(that) is both retrograde and exclusionary". She states that "on their watch, multiculturalism would be expunged from the policy books" and that they seek "the enshrinement of Christianity as the nation's official belief system".

 

Yes, such people clearly exist.

 

However, she then speaks of the Harper government's approach, which as she says, involves reaching across faith and ethic lines to a broad range of social conservatives.

 

Even Harper's 2003 Civitas speech, which McDonald frequently cites, she quotes Harper as saying, "the social conservative issues we choose should not be denominational but should unite social conservatives of different demoninations and even different faiths".

 

Reaching out to Jewish, ethnic, and immigrant Canadians hardly seems like an exclusionary agenda.

 

When McDonald gets to the chapter which shares the name of the book - "The Armageddon Factor", she is entirely unconvinving in laying out the alleged influence of fundamendalist dispensationalists - those End-Timers pre-occupied with The Rapture.

 

On the one hand, McDonald muses "to what extent is this country’s role in the Middle East being influenced by ... the idea that the end of the world is at hand?”

 

However, when it comes to identifying influential people - or any Canadians - who hold that view, she fails miserably. She speaks of Americans like John Hagee and Hal Lindsey and Jerry Falwell. She spends a lot of time discussing someone named John Tweetie, who appears to be a fringe figure, as is even quoted in the book as saying "we don't find it profitable to get too specific about end-times prophecy".

 

Again, judge the Harper government on its policies, not wild conspiracy theories about who might have influenced these policies. I see much merit in the government's pro-Israel position - others see it differently. Reaching a conclusion either way is possible based on the facts of the matter not whether or not there are some crazy evangelicals whose support for Israel is tied to Biblical prophecy.

 

As for the broader point of the status and influence of religious conservatives and/or social conservatives on the Harper government, Gerry Nicholls makes some important observations: 

I worked with Harper for five years (1997-2002) at the National Citizens Coalition. During all the time I knew him, he never displayed an ounce of zealotry. He never even talked about religion. He did, however, talk a lot about the intersection of religion and politics. And his views in those days would probably shock Marci McDonald.

 

Harper did not have much affinity for social conservatives. He viewed them as "culturally isolated" and a dwindling political force in Canada. That's why he also believed a conservative political party would be successful only if it talked less about social and moral issues, and more about economic and fiscal issues. In other words, he was a libertarian.

 

(...)
Harper's strategy has been pretty simple. To keep social conservatives happy, he likes to make symbolic moves. These please religious types, but doesn't set off alarm bells in the rest of the country.

 

(...)
Overall, for the Christian right, it's pretty thin gruel. Indeed, many social conservatives I have talked to have expressed frustration at Harper's failure to promote their agenda.

Others reviews of Marci's book have been less than flattering:

 

Ezra Levant points out a number of factual errors McDonald has made.

 

In The Globe & Mail, Moll Worthen accuses McDonald of missing some important fundamentals:  

The evangelicals that McDonald meets occasionally declare their “biblical worldview” or denounce the myth of neutrality in the public sphere. What she takes for the language of Christian Reconstructionism is actually a feature of Reformed cultural theology, a broad tradition that urges Christians to engage in all spheres of life through a unified worldview. To miss this point is fundamentally to misunderstand the intellectual position of many evangelicals. They have critiqued secular ideas of objectivity and the exclusion of religion from the public square by suggesting that in this postmodern age – when even atheist philosophers doubt there is just one true understanding of reality – Christian presuppositions are no less valid grounds for a worldview than those of secular rationalism. McDonald does not take on this argument, nor give the reader any hint of this broader context. McDonald sees Christian nationalist conspiracy everywhere she looks. Yet much of what she describes sounds merely like politics as usual, which perhaps makes it no less disturbing to some.

Maclean's magazine columnist Paul Wells is equally unimpressed: 

First, it’s irresponsible to write a book about a phenomenon that systematically overstates the extent of that phenomenon. All the more so if you adopt a constant tone of near-panic.

 

Which leads us to the second, bigger problem: McDonald nowhere specifies which religious attitudes, or which secular policies derived from religious attitudes, she finds unacceptable. Bill Blaikie ran for the NDP leadership on a platform explicitly derived from the social gospel; is that OK? McDonald quotes Scarborough Liberal MP John McKay saying he finds the Harper gang scary. Wow. Really? Why? What are the specific differences between John McKay’s okay Christian nationalism and Dave Quist’s scary terrifying Christian nationalism? ‘Cause it was kind of hard to tell the difference during the Commons vote on abortion in international development assistance.

More from Wells here. Further thoughts from Naomi Lakritz and David Frum.

 

Herald Column: Why Conservatives Should Oppose Prohibition

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the Conservative government's enthusiasm for the war on drugs and why that is something "conservatives" should oppose:

...Broadly speaking, conservatism can be defined as a belief in less government intervention and more personal freedom (a philosophy I would subscribe to). Perhaps that is the standard by which we should judge the Conservatives.

For example, they have shown admirable respect for this ethos in their determination to put an end to Canada's long-gun registry.

There is merit in much of what's been proposed in the way of changes to the justice system, and dealing more harshly with violent and serious criminals need not be at odds with a mantra of less government.

However, the most profound disappointment is the government's unwavering and illogical support for the abysmal failure that is the war on drugs.

Perhaps this is the break-off point for conservatives and libertarians; where many conservatives draw the line in their belief that state has no business with the individual who is not a threat to others.

It is ironic that so many conservatives take such an approach to gun owners, but view marijuana smokers as in need of state intervention.

Conservatives are generally - and rightly - aghast at the nanny-state impulse to control our lives when it comes to unhealthy food, alcohol, or tobacco. But far too many conservatives become enthusiastic nanny-statists themselves when it comes to smoking a joint.

In every respect the war on drugs means less freedom and more government, so isn't it time that conservatives rethink their support of prohibition?

A recent Angus Reid poll found that 53 per cent of Canadians support legalizing marijuana - in Alberta support was at 59 per cent.

The Harper government, however, is doubling down. They've reintroduced a bill which, among other things, imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of six months for anyone convicted of growing as few as six marijuana plants.

Why is such a bill needed? What will it accomplish? The government seems incapable of offering a coherent explanation to either question.

Moreover, every problem the government claims it is addressing is a symptom of prohibition.

It is farcical to speak of a tougher approach to organized crime when prohibition itself remains a major boon to those same criminal organizations. Taking away that gift is what would make life difficult for them.

A recent report from the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS shows us clearly why the Harper government approach is doomed to fail.

Their review of 15 international studies found that 13 of them demonstrated that increased drug law enforcement was associated with increasing levels of drug market violence.

In addition, they note that US marijuana usage rates are higher that Europe, and that Portugal - which recently decriminalized all drugs - has the lowest rates in Europe.

I suppose to many conservatives, the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS might seem like some left-wing outfit, but it is worth noting that one of the study's peer-reviewers is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

The Fraser Institute is a strong and eloquent defender of conservatism, and it's very relevant to note that it's been harshly critical of the war on drugs.

What we have in prohibition is a grim chimera of the worst features of the nanny state and the police state. It should be anathema to anyone who truly believes in less government and more freedom.

 

"Cartoonist" Suddenly a Dangerous Profession

Well, no actually, being a cartoonist is a rather safe profession - so long as you are in no way depicting a man from 1400 years ago named Muhammed.

 

You may be familiar with the situation facing Dutch cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. There's also the recent controversy involving the creators of "South Park".

 

Now, there's the case of Lars Vilks: 

A Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was assaulted Tuesday while giving a university lecture about the limits of artistic freedom.

Lars Vilks told The Associated Press a man in the front row ran up to him and head-butted him during a lecture, breaking his glasses but leaving him uninjured. It wasn't immediately clear what happened to the attacker.

Vilks has faced numerous threats over his controversial drawing of Muhammad with a dog's body, but Tuesday's incident was the first time he has been physically assaulted.

As the story notes, there are those who would just as soon do much worse to Mr. Vilks. Here's the video of the assault:

 

 

As for why I've included Vilks' cartoon - which could, conceivably, offend people who are just as aghast as this violence and intimidation as I am - PZ Myers puts it well: 

I think it's only appropriate that Vilks' sketch of Mohammed as a mangy cur should receive wider circulation because of the vileness of their response.

Or to put it another way, intimidation should always backfire.

 

More here and here.

 

UPDATE: Blaming the victim.

Banff Booze Ban Brouhaha

At long last, long-weekend campers in Banff National Park will no longer have to face the menace of people having a beer or glass of wine around the campfire:

Banff National Park is banning alcohol in its campgrounds on long weekends.

 

Parks Canada staff say they've had too many complaints from campers about intoxicated people ruining their experience in the park.

 

Wardens say ever since Alberta parks banned alcohol, people have been coming to Banff to drink and party at campgrounds.

 

Starting this May long weekend, campers will be greeted by wardens and RCMP. They won't let anyone into campsites with alcohol. If campers are caught with booze, fines range from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars with jail time. 

 

This is in addition to 10 provincial campgrounds with booze bans in effect for the May long weekend.

The response from Parks Canada raises a question, however: if we're concerned about rowdiness and we have all this manpower available to search people for booze, why not devote that manpower to those actually causing the problems?

Why are we punishing everyone for the actions of a small few?

Moreover, why have we suddenly rushed to the nuclear option here?

We seem to have skipped over many logical steps, notably an education campaign helping people clearly understand the rules and making it clear that there's zero tolerance for drunken rowdy behavior.

Policies based on knee-jerk reactions invariably tend to be bad policies. This one is no different.

 

UPDATE: An excellent editorial from the Calgary Herald on this subject.

Thank You, Jenny McCarthy

Alberta Health Services today confirmed a case of measles in the Calgary-area: 

Alberta Health Services has confirmed a case of measles in the Calgary-area, and is advising of potential exposures.

 

(...)

 

There is no cure for measles, but it can be prevented with vaccination.

“This Calgary case, as well as the ongoing measles outbreak in British Columbia, are reminders of the importance of vaccination,” says Dr. Gerry Predy, AHS Medical Officer of Health. “We need to be proactive to prevent further spread and we strongly encourage parents to ensure their children are up to date with all immunizations.”

The MMR Vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps and rubella, is part of the routine Childhood Immunization Program in Alberta. Children in Alberta typically receive their first dose of MMR Vaccine at 12 months of age and their second dose between the ages of four and six years. Both doses are required to be fully protected.

“Unfortunately, there are pockets of the province where Alberta reports low vaccination rates, and unvaccinated individuals in these areas are at increased risk for certain diseases, including measles,” says Dr. Predy.

 

Unfortunately, to some extent, vaccines are a victim of their own success - because diseases like measles have become rare (thanks to vaccines) there's less impetus to guard against them. These diseases can and do comeback, so we must not be complacent.

 

The other problem, of course, is the conspiracy theories about vaccines - that they're dangerous, that they cause autism, that they cause sterilization, etc... Clearly that message is part of the reason we see declining vaccination rates.

 

The science is clear about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines. These issues were explored in a fascinating recent documentary on PBS's "Frontline":

 

 

The rest here. More here, here, here, and here.

 

Also, this interesting piece from Reason TV:  

 

Caution, Not Hype, Needed on MS Claims

You may have heard about the sensational claims by an Italian researcher about a possible cause of - and a possible cure for - multiple sclerosis.

 

Given all the attention these claims are receiving, this response is completely unsurprising: 

A fast, easy cure for multiple sclerosis has been found, but Canadian health officials won't let MS victims have it, protesters said Wednesday on Parliament Hill.

About 200 people, many in wheelchairs, called on the federal government to get behind a new treatment they believe can cure the degenerative disease.

"I feel like (health officials) are dangling my life in front of me, and laughing, 'Can't have it! Can't have it!'" said Christin Benoit, her voice trembling as she spoke to the crowd from her wheelchair.

(...)
Italian vascular surgeon Paolo Zamboni found that 90 per cent of MS patients in his 2008 study had malformed or blocked veins that could not adequately drain blood from the brain.

 

 

While there is an understandable impatience on the part of those suffering with MS, one might expect a little more prudence from politicians. Unfortunately, that's not the case: 

Two Liberal MPs are calling on Ottawa to provide $10 million in funding for research on a potential cause of multiple sclerosis: chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency.

Liberal public health critic Dr. Carolyn Bennett and Liberal health critic Dr. Kirsty Duncan wrote an open letter to Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq. In it, they ask the government to intervene in the growing national debate over whether MS patients should be tested and treated for a novel vein disorder known by the acronym CCSVI.

 

 

Back in February, we spoke with Dr. Mark Freedman, one of Canada's leading MS experts - you can listen to that interview via the audio player at right. He outlines a number of serious problems with Dr. Zamboni's research and a number of risks associated with Zamboni's treatment.

 

More here: 

Dr. Zamboni and colleagues should certainly not be recommending at this point that patients undergo the diagnosis or treatment outside of a clinical trial, said Dr. Mark Freedman, a neurologist at the Ottawa Hospital.

“That is completely irresponsible,” he said in an interview.

(...)
Such symptoms are all subjective, however, and the changes could have been triggered by the placebo effect, said Dr. Freedman. Regardless, the Polish and Jordanian results have yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

And here:

 

The “liberation procedure,” a controversial new surgical procedure that appears to cure multiple sclerosis, is based on circumstantial evidence and MS sufferers should not rush into getting it.

That was the message delivered by Dr. Mark Freedman, director of the MS research unit at The Ottawa Hospital, during an education session hosted by the MS Society of Ottawa on Tuesday night. For many in the audience, his words dashed much of their newfound hope. (...)

 

However, Freedman, like many neurologists, is skeptical. During his presentation, Freedman said he confronted Zamboni at a recent meeting in Lisbon.

“He was there presenting some of his data and had a hard time answering any of the questions from the MS guys,” Freedman said. Among their concerns was Zamboni’s claim that the clogged veins are present at birth, yet no studies had been done on children. Zamboni had not done animal studies, either.

“I said, ‘Why don’t you tie off a few of the blood vessels in animals and see if they develop MS?’ His answer was, ‘I’m not a mouse researcher’,” Freedman said.

“If his observation stands up to other people being able to reproduce it,” Freedman said, “I think we’re going to have something of interest to chase, but we need to have the supporting evidence before we start reaming out blood vessels and pretending that this is going to cure the disease.”

 

In other words, Dr. Freedman and others in the field are open to the possibility that Dr. Zamboni's ideas have merit. They're awaiting - as any responsible scientist would - more scientific evidence. Besides, it's not as though further research isn't ongoing.

 

But all the media coverage - so much of it unquestioning when it comes to Dr. Zamboni's claims - is no doubt partly responsible for the demand that people have immediate access to Zamboni's treatment and that the government pay for it.

 

National Post columnist Terence Corcoan has harsh words for many in the media: 

...However preliminary and hypothetical, it was good enough for W5 and The Globe and Mail, whose sensationalism distorted the science and planted seeds of hope where none was yet warranted. In their hands, helped by Dr. Zamboni himself, a bit of preliminary scientific research became a probable cure. To participate in the miracle, MS sufferers were encouraged by W5’s Avis Favaro to contact their MS societies, put pressure on clinics to push funding, and line up an MRI to get their veins tested.
It became more about the politics of MS than the science. For MS patients, the Zamboni vein-opening procedure “stops MS whenever they are treated.” CTV told viewers they should “let the MS Society know this is something they want pursued.”

(...)

As science journalism goes, the Zamboni MS stories were typical manifestations of junk science — the abuse of science fact via oversimplification, distortion and exaggeration of risk, often to serve some political end.

More here and here.

 

It's also worth noting what the National MS Society says: 

Q: I have MS. Should I be tested for signs of CCSVI?
A: This is a personal decision to be discussed with your health care provider. At this point, no connection has been confirmed between CCSVI and multiple sclerosis, in fact, CCSVI appears to occur in many people who don’t have MS.

Condoning Barbaric Practices?

Under the heading "The Equality of Women and Men", the "Discover Canada" guide says: 

In Canada, men and women are equal under the law. Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, “honour killings,” female genital mutilation, or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada’s criminal laws.

"Barbaric practice" would seem to be an apt description. One of the most heart-wrenching passages in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography "Infidel" is her retelling of what was done to her as a five-year-old.

 

So that's why I was so shocked to come across this news release: 

International human rights organization Equality Now is stunned by a new policy statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which essentially promotes female genital mutilation (FGM) and advocates for "federal and state laws [to] enable pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a 'ritual nick'," such as pricking or minor incisions of girls' clitorises. The Policy Statement "Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors", issued by the AAP on April 26, 2010, is a significant set-back to the Academy's own prior statements on the issue of FGM and is antithetical to decades of noteworthy advancement across Africa and around the world in combating this human rights violation against women and girls.

It is ironic that the AAP issued its statement the very same day that Congressman Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) announced the introduction of new bipartisan legislation, The Girls Protection Act (H.R. 5137), to close the loophole in the federal law prohibiting FGM by making it illegal to transport a minor girl living in the U.S. out of the country for the purpose of FGM.

FGM is a harmful traditional practice that involves the partial or total removal of the female genitalia and is carried out across Africa, some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and by immigrants of practicing communities living around the world, including in Europe and the U.S. It is estimated that up to 140 million women and girls around the world are affected by FGM. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated in 1997 that over 168,000 girls and women living in the U.S. have either been, or are at risk of being, subjected to FGM.

 

Unbelievable.

 

We spoke with Equality Now's executive director on Thursday night's program - you can access that interview via our podcast page.

 

More here.

Galloway & Friends Serve Up More Falsehoods

I am on record as stating that British MP George Galloway, as loathsome as he is, should be allowed into Canada. I don't think that the section dealing with inadmissibility in Canada's Immigration Act ought to apply to Galloway, but a reasonable case can be made that indeed it does.

 

That of course is the matter now before a federal judge: 

Galloway was supposed to visit Canada on a four-city speaking tour in March 2009, but was told he was inadmissible on security grounds after publicly donating vehicles, medical supplies and $35,000 to Hamas while visiting Gaza weeks earlier following the Israeli military offensive.

 

Canada’s federal court is reviewing the ban.

 

Government lawyers argued that Kenney was not involved in the decision to ban Galloway, who they say under Canadian law must be considered a member of a terrorist organization because he provided financial and material support to Hamas, considered by Canada and several other countries to be a terrorist group.

 

“He intentionally chose to give that money and those goods to the elected government in Gaza,” said Marie-Louise Wcislo, a government immigration lawyer.

 

(...) Galloway, who denies supporting Hamas, has argued that his envoy mission was purely humanitarian and the only way he could support Palestinians in Gaza was by dealing with its elected government.

Galloway may deny supporting Hamas, but he is not being honest. Lawyer Barbara Jackman, representing the groups who wished to bring Galloway here, repeats some of these falsehoods, including the claim that Galloway was only bringing "aid" to the people of Gaza.

 

Well, yes some aid was delivered (though nowhere near the amount Galloway claimed.

 

However, there was a special delivery for the leader of Hamas (emphasis added): 

But I, now, here, on behalf of myself, my sister Yvonne Ridley, and the two Respect councillors – Muhammad Ishtiaq and Naim Khan – are giving three cars and 25,000 pounds in cash to Prime Minister Ismail Haniya. Here is the money. This is not charity. This is politics. The government of Palestine is the best people where this money is needed. We are giving this money now to the government of Palestine. If I could, I would give them 10 times, 100 times more.  

 

More here, here, and here. 

UK's Disturbing Free-Speech Double Standard

This is concerning enough on its own - a British preacher charged for calling homosexuality a "sin": 

...McAlpine, a Baptist known to preach from atop a stepladder, was having a conversation on the street with a woman about the Bible’s book of Corinthians, which refers to the sins of blasphemy, adultery, drunkenness and homosexuality.

 

The police support officer, after speaking with the woman, then approached McAlpine and told him there had been a complaint.

 

McAlpine said he wasn’t homophobic, but told him “sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator,” according to London’s Daily Telegraph.

 

The officer, who acts as a police liaison for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, told McAlpine he was gay, to which he replied, “It’s still a sin.”

 

As McAlpine continued to preach, three uniformed officers arrived and took him to the police station, where he was held for seven hours. 

Again, why on Earth someone would be arrested for expressing such an opinion is beyond me.

 

What makes the case even more disturbing is the fact that there are many other cases of Muslim leaders saying the same or worse with no consequences.

 

Take, for example, this: 

A British Muslim leader has told the BBC he believes homosexuality is "not acceptable" and denounced new same-sex civil partnerships as "harmful".

 

Head of the Muslim Council of Britain Sir Iqbal Sacranie said introducing the partnerships did "not augur well" for building the foundations of society.     

Or, this: 

All homosexuals should face stoning to death, a Muslim preacher of hate declared yesterday.

 

Anjem Choudary, the firebrand cleric who wants to see Britain ruled by Sharia law, said such a regime was the only way to fix the country's ills.

 

Under it, adulterers and homosexuals would be killed by stoning. Asked if that would include anybody - even a Cabinet minister such as Business Secretary Lord Mandelson - Choudary responded with an astonishing diatribe.

 What is happening to the UK?

Ignatieff's Puzzling GG Gambit

I'm really not entirely sure what to make of this: 

The immediate future of Governor-General Michaëlle Jean is now an open political debate in Canada, with Liberals publicly arguing for an extension of her term, even as Conservatives are actively looking for her successor.

“The party was consulted about who we thought should be the next governor-general,” Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff told reporters on Sunday. “We’ve considered the question and we think the right way to go here is to reappoint Michaëlle Jean.”

 

 

This is highly unusual for an opposition leader to go public in such a way - highly inappropriate, too.

 

Why would Ignatieff, after being consulted privately by the Prime Minister, rush to a microphone and declare his love and admiration for Michaëlle Jean?

 

Is it simply that he's really fond of her? Perhaps, but that doesn't explain why he'd hastily gather reporters on a Sunday to make those thoughts public.

 

As much as I'd like to give Ignatieff the benefit of the doubt and assume this was poorly thought out, the opposite would seem to be more likely - i.e., that this was very much a deliberate move.

 

Is there a broader strategy here? Andrew Coyne hints at one: 

...Worse, in mounting this highly public lobby for her to be retained, the Liberals have chosen to emphasize her demographic credentials: as a woman, black, francophone and immigrant. These were in large part why she was appointed, of course, and perhaps that’s fair enough, though some of us grumped at her signal lack of other qualifications to the job. But to invoke these in the debate over whether she should be reappointed is deliberately to suggest that the government’s decision to replace her is an insult to these groups — making whoever replaces her, should they happen to be white or male or some other genetically incorrect makeup, the embodiment of that insult. (...)

And so an office that is supposed to unite the people is now to be just another casualty in the culture war. What a cynical, destructive ploy.

 

 

Could that be it? Is Ignatieff staking out a position as the party leader who supports a female Francophone of Haitian descent for Governor-General so as to portray Harper as anti-female, anti-Francophone, anti-visible minority, and anti-immigrant if he selects, say, a Rick Hansen?

 

Others are perplexed by Ignatieff's gambit, too: 

University of Toronto political scientist Peter Russell said the Opposition Leader should not be publicly promoting the re-appointment of an official who may be called upon to referee conflicts in a minority government environment.

“I think it's quite inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to intervene. ... It makes it appear as if the Governor-General is favoured by his party and not the government and that's the very wrong impression to create,” Prof. Russell said.

And:

The irony is that Mr. Ignatieff's hamfisted intercession has made it less likely Ms. Jean will be asked to stay on, rather than more likely. Now even if the government and the monarch wanted to grant her a second term, they could not do so without her appearing to be the Liberals' candidate.

It's clear what went on in the Liberal leader's brain: Ms. Jean is a woman, a visible minority, a francophone and an immigrant, all constituencies the Liberals are eager to retain. But in his effort to pander -- and to encourage the Liberal cliche that the Conservatives are intolerant-- Mr. Igantieff has jeopardized what chance Ms. Jean has to remain in the role she has performed so admirably.

 

And: 

...With that move on his first anniversary as Liberal leader, Ignatieff performed a multi-tasking gaffe that should go into a record book somewhere.

It makes him appear an untrustworthy blabbermouth, kills any (very) faint hope of Jean's term actually being extended, makes Jack Layton appear discreet in handling a private consultation privately and gives Stephen Harper a dignified look for seeking outside input on the viceregal appointment.

(...)
Ignatieff should let Michaelle Jean go without a fuss. After five years as the class act of Rideau Hall, she deserves a dignified exit that isn't reduced to a shameless stunt for his political purposes.

And:

Of course, it's entirely possible that Ignatieff really did come to this position randomly, and there wasn't time to set it up properly. If so, he was beyond help. But it would speak even worse of the opposition's current status if his statement was actually more than a few hours in the making.

 

Now, this doesn't necessarily reflect one way or the other the job Michaëlle Jean has done as Governor-General. The Calgary Herald editorialsts argue that she's served the country well and that most Canadians would approve of her performance.

 

Perhaps. Let's not gloss over, though, the very significant (given her position) head-of-state kerfuffle.