CNN Scaring Christians and Minorities about Healthcare Reform

[populistdriven]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/18/cancer.God.religion/

Wow! Who knew people turned to God when they were dying. National Freaking News!?!?

In one damn article CNN is portraying both Christians as extending life end care (Expensive) and Minorities for being most expensive. So Christians & Minorities need to be thrown off the cliff when at end of life. The purpose is to bring both Christians and Minorities against Health Care Reform.

Rather than talking about how it can be fixed, the scare tactics are starting. This is laying the groundwork.

This is what they need to be showing.



The future cost is impossible to continue. It must be fixed or low income or elderly will not have health care.

Hey Obama! People with Money will have to sacrifice. Just come out and say it.

[Why Syzygy]

1. The study they cite is a HOAX.

None of the science freaks around here can defend it. It is UNSCIENTIFIC. For starters.

So. Does that mean they will legalize euthanasia? Or is dying only good on someone else's time table?

[trotsky]

2. What the hell are you going off about now?

Where do you get this charge of a "hoax" from? What is a "science freak"? What do you think makes this study "unscientific"?

We'll leave aside your ridiculous slippery slope fallacy for now.

[Why Syzygy]

3. All I want

is someone to explain the scientific methods the linked study used.

If you can. I hypothesize it can't be done because it isn't scientific research.

[trotsky]

4. What's to explain?

Factors of religiosity: belief in god(s), dogma agreement, church attendance, self-ratings, etc.
Costs of medical treatment and use thereof: self-explanatory.

They simply took two sets of data and looked for correlation. So what exactly are you complaining about? I really don't understand your problem.

[Why Syzygy]

5. oooh. Correlation.

mm hmm Not science based research, just as suspected.

I will point out that the scientists aren't objecting to the results of that particular non-scientific study. I postulate that is because they want to believe it.

[trotsky]

6. You obviously have no idea what you're even complaining about.

You STILL haven't bothered to explain what is "non-scientific" about this. You sound like you just have an axe to grind, or maybe you're trying to read something into the study that just isn't there.

"We're not saying every religious coper is likely to get aggressive care," said one of the authors, Holly Prigerson, director of the Center for Psychooncology and Palliative Care Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. "Most of them did not. Among those who were getting the most aggressive care, it was disproportionately a function of their being a religious coper."

This data can help doctors work with their patients to determine the amount and type of care they receive. Isn't that supposed to be the primary goal of medicine?

[Why Syzygy]

7. You haven't expalined what is scientific.

No double blinds. No control group. They adjusted for "age" and "race", which has what to do with religion?

They collected data. It isn't a scientific study.

[trotsky]

8. Wow.

I'm going to let your scientific illiteracy just stand right there in that post for all to see.

[beam me up scottie]

9. I'd rather be a science freak than a hypocrite

Science freak: a person who asks for evidence and/or is skeptical of faith-based medicine

In some forums on DU, this person is also a member of the "truth and facts gestapo at DU", assumes "Science" is a static entity and worships it "as their god"

[trotsky]

10. Fascinating, isn't it?

Here you've got someone who doesn't even know that valid studies can use entirely different methodologies, that "double blind" is only logical in certain kinds of investigations, or that a "control group" is meaningless when you're not changing anything in the subject's environment... and that person bashes "science." Well heck, if I had such a colossal ignorance of what science is, I'd probably bash it too. And those evil "truth and facts" jack-booted thugs.

[Why Syzygy]

11. That's all I wanted from you.

And you failed to provide it, substituting mockery instead. If there is a scientific methodology in that study, what is it?
I know correlation isn't it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=247x23090

You're one of the experts on scientific method. I'm not. Never pretended to be. But, I know enough to know it matches none of the criteria that have been put forward by the 'scientific' community in this forum. I'm sure if there were any there, you would have made that clear by now.

eta:
We're alone now.

[beam me up scottie]

13. Who said trotsky was "one of the experts on scientific method" ?

He's an Evil Pharma Apologist.

[Why Syzygy]

14. I had you off when you were fun.

Now you're not.

[trotsky]

15. You never once established what exactly your problem was.

You don't understand what "double blind" means and when it is needed.

You don't understand what a "control group" is and when it is needed.

You don't understand that correlation can be scientific in that you can determine statistical relationships instead of a causal effect. The excerpt I provided showed that this study isn't making a direct causal relationship - you totally missed that, didn't you?

If you launch an attack at "science" and "science freaks" when you have such a miserable understanding of what science is, you should be prepared to be mocked.

[Why Syzygy]

16. I did make it clear.

But you can't prove something that isn't there.

I just want to mark the occasion when the 'scientists' are not bellowing about a non-scientific study.

You have no idea what I understand or don't. You only know what I type.

[trotsky]

17. What you type clearly shows what you do not understand.

And on this thread, it's science. I'm glad you launched into this tirade because it showed exactly what it takes to bash science and scientists: ignorance.

[beam me up scottie]

18. This thread is hilarious!

:popcorn:

[populistdriven]

25. wow! my du only showed ONE reply and i find a couple dozen!

:popcorn: is right

[beam me up scottie]

64. We should thank you.

This is a great resource, so many examples of science viewed from the other side of the rabbit hole - all in one thread!

:thumbsup:

Bookmarked.

[cosmik debris]

37. And after marinating over night, it's even better! n/t

[Why Syzygy]

78. No Eagle Scouts in the Skeptics club.

What? You can't recognize a hyperbolic red herring from 30,000 feet? <sigh> Just didn't try hard enough.

What this forum (some members) really need is overall improvement in reading comprehension/synthesis and awareness of literary device.

Begin by investigating "hyperbole", "irony", "amplification", "rhetorical".

It would also be helpful to actually possess an intelligence factor significant enough to recognize adequate mental abilities in others.
But, some things can't be helped. (I originally gave higher marks than warranted to the skeptics. Expectations have been revised.)

[trotsky]

80. And now, with nothing left,

all you can do is resort to insults. Thank you for clearing up any misconception I had that you were actually interested in learning.

[Why Syzygy]

82. I'll facilitate my own

*learning*. You already passed up the opportunity.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Like watching slime mold.

:D

[varkam]

20. So it's a hoax because you don't know what scientific methods were used?

This one really hit a nerve with you.

[Why Syzygy]

22. You noticed.

Thank you. The hypocrisy is suffocating. We have another thread in forum with 'scientists' screaming for SCIENCE BASED RESEARCH, and why are alts so opposed to SCIENCE!!!1 And there are DISEASES!!1

Yet, here is a CANCER institute with the stated study:
Objective To determine the way religious coping relates to the use of intensive life-prolonging end-of-life care among patients with advanced cancer.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/11/1140
(You know, I just noticed I failed to post the JAMA link in this thread.)

For what? This is good science? Good use of research funds? Not in my portfolio.

eta: Oh! And 354 subjects. *SNARF* That would be laughed out of the forum.

And, none of the 'scientists' here can explain any scientific methodology in this study. There is nothing here that they cry out for, when mention is made of something that jeopardizes the cozy little Pharmco mafia.

Why? Why the double standard?
Because it gives them one more IV bump for their self righteousness.

See the disparity?

Plus the fact that my own devout father, rejected all forms of life-prolonging aid for the last two intense weeks of his life. He wouldn't even take oxygen, as his stomach bled him to death from the inside and out the mouth. My idiotic mother told the nurse he could swallow pills, when he hadn't swallowed for months! Lucky they had a five gallon bucket in the room.

Life prolonging religious. My white hiney.

Do yourself a favor and catch this thread >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x285487

[varkam]

31. Oh wow. Where to begin...

Yet, here is a CANCER institute with the stated study:
Objective To determine the way religious coping relates to the use of intensive life-prolonging end-of-life care among patients with advanced cancer.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/11/11...
(You know, I just noticed I failed to post the JAMA link in this thread.)

For what? This is good science? Good use of research funds? Not in my portfolio.

So now you're the arbiter of what is useful research and what is not? :rofl:

eta: Oh! And 354 subjects. *SNARF* That would be laughed out of the forum.

It would? Why's that?

And, none of the 'scientists' here can explain any scientific methodology in this study. There is nothing here that they cry out for, when mention is made of something that jeopardizes the cozy little Pharmco mafia.

You know that they make decaf that tastes just as good as the real thing, right?

So, the methodology has been explained to you and presumably you have read the abstract...but you still assert that no one can explain it? Honestly, I would rather have someone who actually understands things like methodology decide what is good use of research funds and what isn't - otherwise we're just going to keep researching vaccines and autism from here until the sun turns into a red giant.

Why? Why the double standard?
Because it gives them one more IV bump for their self righteousness.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Plus the fact that my own devout father, rejected all forms of life-prolonging aid for the last two intense weeks of his life. He wouldn't even take oxygen, as his stomach bled him to death from the inside and out the mouth. My idiotic mother told the nurse he could swallow pills, when he hadn't swallowed for months! Lucky they had a five gallon bucket in the room.

Life prolonging religious. My white hiney.

I must have missed the bit in the study where they said that everyone who is religious will opt for life-prolonging measures. I also know people who have smoked their whole lives and never developed lung cancer. Smoking causes lung cancer. My white hiney.

Point being, your anecdotal evidence isn't exactly a sound refutation of the study - especially since the study did not claim that everyone who is religious invariably chooses life-prolonging measures (indeed, such a conclusion would be insane unless you could accurately study everyone on the face of the planet) nor did it even claim that being religious causes one to do those sorts of things. For all we know, maybe they just really wanted to participate in the church easter egg hunt again.

It does seem odd, though, that if you believe that you're going to be going to heaven (as so many who are religious do) that you would try so hard to avoid death.

[Why Syzygy]

34. Causes schmauses

I thought you were a reasonable one.

Your last line is the IV bump I mentioned. (as in hitting a vein with a hypo full of smack)
If the study doesn't show that the religious seek more life prolonging care, why make such a statement?

It does seem odd, though, that if you believe that you're going to be going to heaven (as so many who are religious do) that you would try so hard to avoid death.

I asked for methodology explanation from the 'experts'. I have learned enough to know bias and inconsistency when I see it.

No, I do not believe funding for studies to IMPLY the religious are hypocrites is a wise use of resources. There is ample evidence all around, for each of us, to support such a speculation.

I must have missed the bit in the study where they said that everyone who is religious will opt for life-prolonging measures.

So, you can see correlation in the 'study', but not the outcome of such?

Religious patients more likely to get intensive life-prolonging care
CNN - ‎Mar 18, 2009‎

Finding Religion at the End of Life: Patients of Faith Seek Lifesaving Care
ABC News - ‎Mar 18, 2009‎

Terminally ill religious patients fight up to the end: study
Chicago Sun-Times - ‎Mar 18, 2009‎

Terminally ill faithful want aggressive therapy: study
AFP - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎

Pious 'fight death the hardest'
BBC News - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎
Religious belief + cancer = Prolonged life?
Livemint - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎

Religious dying patients more likely to get aggressive care
Boston Globe - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎

Faith can lead people to seek more aggressive treatments
Newsday - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎

Aggressive end-of-life care more common among faithful: study
CBC.ca - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎

Religion's Impact on End-of-Life Care
WebMD - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎

Religious Patients More Likely to Seek End-of-Life Cancer Care
Bloomberg - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎

Link Between Religious Coping And Aggressive Treatment In ...
Science Daily (press release) - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎

Study: Cancer patients of faith more likely to get intensive ...
USA Today - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎

Terminally ill cope with faith, intervention: study
Reuters - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎

Highly Religious Patients Fight to Live Longer
Christian Post - ‎Mar 18, 2009‎

Religious Cancer Patients Tend to Seek Life-Prolonging Care
eMaxHealth.com - ‎Mar 18, 2009‎

http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ncl=1316479469

Thanks for nothing.

[varkam]

36. You should stop. You're making a fool of yourself.

I thought you were a reasonable one.

Owie. My poor wittle feewings.

If the study doesn't show that the religious seek more life prolonging care, why make such a statement?

The study shows a correlation between them - as has been explained to you. What the study doesn't say is that all religious people inevitably seek life-prolonging care. I invite you to use a dictionary and look up the word "correlation".

I asked for methodology explanation from the 'experts'. I have learned enough to know bias and inconsistency when I see it.

I can certainly understand that you would ask if the abstract was too difficult for you to parse, however the methodology has been explained to you a few different times in this thread. Perhaps it would be easier for you to understand if you were to take your fingers out of your ears.

No, I do not believe funding for studies to IMPLY the religious are hypocrites is a wise use of resources. There is ample evidence all around, for each of us, to support such a speculation.

The study, of course, could have come out the other way. Seems that your problem is not with the research per se, but with the conclusion - that is precisely the type of person we don't want controlling the field of scientific research as that's exactly how we ended up with things like the Vioxx mess.

So, you can see correlation in the 'study', but not the outcome of such?

So your gripe is that science reporting in the media sucks? :rofl: Here's a shocker - it has sucked for a looong time.

[trotsky]

39. You nailed it, varkam.

Seems that your problem is not with the research per se, but with the conclusion

[Why Syzygy]

41. No study shows "all".

Unless it's a study of hypocrisy of the smug.

This is the base line. My points are made. Those with ears... eyes...

[varkam]

45. What in the hell are you babbling about?

I mean, I love our little discussions and all, but if you want a response then you're going to have to be a little less cryptic.

[Why Syzygy]

47. If you love our little discussions.

you are screwed big time.

[varkam]

48. Awww, are you going to take your ball and go home now?

Whassa matter? Were the big 'scientists' mean to you?

[Why Syzygy]

51. .

[varkam]

54. Well, I guess that answers that. eom

[beam me up scottie]

66. Actually, it wasn't this thread that did it,

it was this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x55993

[HamdenRice]

27. I think Why Syzygy's point is that some of you are using "science" criteria inconsistently

How many times have the pseudo-science group members said, "correlation is not causation" -- arguing in essence that just because two phenomena are statistically correlated, doesn't prove that one causes the other, for example in cases of drug side effects or environmental pollution.

This study "proves" something through statistical correlation, but none of the pseudo science group people object to it.

It suggests that the "correlation is not causation" mantra is only used to disprove studies whose conclusion that you a priori object to.

Correlation is in fact a valid inductive form of research that is critical in forming epidemiological hypotheses, despite what some here think.

But if you don't think it's valid for some studies, you can't argue it's valid for others.

[Why Syzygy]

28. That's right.

There are other nuances as well. But, that's the overarching position.

Using two different methods and/or outcome standards blows any claim of "scientific" right out the door.

This is why I fail to be intimated. We all need to realize that, much like the overlords worshiped by the 'science' community,
they do not use the same measure for all players. It would be called "cheating" on any legitimate playing field.

[trotsky]

29. But no one is SAYING that correlation means causation.

This study was simply observing end-of-life treatments and their relationship to religious coping. If you'll note, neither the study nor anyone else says that a person with stronger religious coping tendencies is always going to opt for more life-extending measures.

Correlation is in fact a valid inductive form of research that is critical in forming epidemiological hypotheses, despite what some here think.

Yes. So please explain that to Why Syzygy.

But if you don't think it's valid for some studies, you can't argue it's valid for others.

It all depends on what the purpose of the study is, and what conclusions you are drawing. Again, please explain to Why Syzygy.

[varkam]

32. There's no objection to it, because no one's claiming a causal connection.

For instance, no one is claiming that being religious causes one to opt for life-prolonging measures. It's a simple correlation - which is interesting in and of itself.

[HamdenRice]

33. "no one's claiming a causal connection" -- huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x200748

[Why Syzygy]

35. That's what I indicated.

It's another hit of speed for the self righteous. More fuel to inflame massive ego.

[varkam]

38. Would you kindly point out for me...

where in that thread is anyone claiming that being religious is a causal mechanism for getting life-prolonging care? Most of the responses in that thread seem to be harping on the fact that it's correlation and not causation. If your point is that the news article misconstrues the research, well I've got a real surprise for you: science reporting in the media blows and it has blown for quite some time now.

[HamdenRice]

40. Oh, come on Varkam, you can read as well as I can

The thread is all about speculation about causation -- especially about how religious people are more fearful of death.

It's not like you to play dumb in these threads.

[trotsky]

42. C'mon, HR, you're smarter than that.

WS's outrage was initially focused on the study, claiming unnamed flaws or problems with the methodology. You are talking about the observations/comments by DUers. As if those are ever going to be consistently rational or scientific. If you and/or WS have problems with the comments people are making on another thread in another forum, why aren't you taking it up there instead of throwing around ridiculous accusations here?

[Why Syzygy]

46. No it wasn't.

I was building a case. The first STEP was to nail down methodology. When that was done, we saw that it is full of contradiction compared to the standards usually demanded. The rest flows from there.

The study is posted in THIS forum. It's being discussed HERE.

[HamdenRice]

49. I think we need a consensus about correlation -- that's the underlying issue

I don't see WS's objection the same way you do. She says pretty clearly that she is criticizing the double standard. When I posted my interpretation, which was that there is a double standard about correlation, she agreed. I think we have to take her at face value that this is indeed her objection.

I've also seen it, and I think it's an underlying source of conflict in this and other boards. Correlation isn't proof of causation, but it's a very good indicator of a fruitful hypothesis. And in some scientific and legal settings (like the science evidence in environmental mass torts and certain medical/drug cases), it's conclusive.

Yet a lot of rhetoric is expended around here suggesting anyone who infers causation from correlation is some kind of anti-scientific woo woo.

Either correlation is a valid way of making a prima facia case or it isn't. You can't pick and choose the cases in which it is acceptable.

[varkam]

52. The problem is...

Yet a lot of rhetoric is expended around here suggesting anyone who infers causation from correlation is some kind of anti-scientific woo woo.

Either correlation is a valid way of making a prima facia case or it isn't. You can't pick and choose the cases in which it is acceptable.

The folks who are anti-scientific woo-woos tend to take a study that shows a correlation and say "OMGZ!!! You guyz!!! Dis proofs IT!!" when that's not exactly the case (as you yourself admit to). It's also true that correlations could be an indication of a causal mechanism - or it could be any number of things.

I still don't know why you're claiming that there's some sort of vague double-standard.

[beam me up scottie]

65. "OMGZ!!! You guyz!!! Dis proofs IT!!"

Nailed it! :applause:

[trotsky]

55. "I think we have to take her at face value that this is indeed her objection."

Then why was her FIRST POST on this thread - indeed THE first post on the thread:

Why Syzygy
Wed Mar-18-09 04:39 PM

1. The study they cite is a HOAX.

None of the science freaks around here can defend it. It is UNSCIENTIFIC. For starters.

So. Does that mean they will legalize euthanasia? Or is dying only good on someone else's time table?

Where does that talk about double standards? Do you agree with her that the study is a "hoax"? Do you agree with her that the study was "unscientific"?

[HamdenRice]

59. I think the study has lots of problems, but I wouldn't call it a hoax

It raises a lot of issues that are interesting, but I don't think that a correlation study alone is the best way to approach it. I also think it verges on being unscientific because I don't know what other factors they controlled for (but I like everyone have only read the abstract so I don't want to jump to conclusions).

I also think that most of the speculation about causation in the R/T forum is unfounded and unfair. I don't think that religious people would be hypocritical for wanting to prolong life more than others.

For example, religious people tend to be "pro-life." But beside the knuckle draggers, there are some pretty thoughtful defenses of the pro-life position that worry about things like euthanasia and eugenics, and some of it comes out of the progressive Catholic tradition. This could be its own long thread, but to make a long story short, Europe was so traumatized by the Holocaust, that some religious traditions (especially certain strains of Catholic thought) adopted the position that people should never decide when it's appropriate for other people to die. It's the "slippery slope" problem -- once you start cutting off heroic medical methods, what's next? So I would expect a certain number of liberal (and not so liberal) Catholic families to prolong the lives of loved ones, simply because the idea has been preached to them that no one has the right to say when another life should be terminated. This isn't very outlandish, and in fact governs a lot of what doctors can and can't do, so the medical establishment itself has adopted a view somewhat like this, leaving the decisions to the patient and family even when the situation is hopeless and expensive. It seems to me that the appropriate way to understand this phenomenon isn't correlation, but to sit down and do interviews and treat people's ideas seriously.

I also think that adjusting for race and gender is fine, but I'm puzzled that they did not adjust for education level. "Brain death" and "terminal" are a complicated concepts for many people. I would expect that being less educated is correlated with being more religious (not that there are not very highly educated people who are religious). People with less education tend not to understand the idea that a loved one is "brain dead" or "terminal." So again, I'm not sure that religion is what is driving religious people to use heroic methods to sustain life.

I think the study is interesting and more research is needed, but I'm a bit worried about the way it was framed in the abstract, and I thought that a lot of the rhetoric in the R/T Forum about what it probably meant was simplistic and unfair.

[Why Syzygy]

61. I admit

I constructed my opening post in this thread poorly.

Thank you for explaining the life issue so well. One thing that goads me is the apparent presupposition that the religious value death more than living. And, the whiff I get of, "why them"? They've got HEAVEN. There are also stereotypes of what beliefs a 'religious' person holds. One may not believe in instant heaven, for example. There is no mention made of any subject's after life expectations. We only have the scope of "religious".

I have briefly reviewed studies that attempt to correlate religious with uneducated. I see that a lot. So far, I've been even less satisfied than with the current study topic. So far, inconclusive. It's an almost universal assumption of the non-religious.

Thank you for your participation. Part of the reason I'm here is to increase my understanding, and I appreciate your willingness to facilitate.

[trotsky]

62. The adjustment for age is certainly needed.

I mean, if you're 90 with advanced cancer, you (and/or your support network) going to have a different attitude toward treatment than if you're 30. But you're right, a correction for education level would be useful. The full study might address it.

But I think your point about not wanting to decide when people should die could swing both ways. If the guiding principle is essentially "only god can take a life," then again, why are we artificially extending it? Aren't people circumventing god's will in the other direction then? Especially when as the abstract notes, the primary outcome measure was:

Intensive life-prolonging care, defined as receipt of mechanical ventilation or resuscitation in the last week of life.

[Jim__]

58. The thing about correlation is that it's relative.

What does a correlation of .3 indicate? .5? .7? To me it's always meant a need for more research. But, that probably depends on what you are looking at.

I don't think we can tell from the abstract exactly what the correlation was, but using the percentages, it looks like it's about .13 for religious people to have intensive measures and .04 for non-religious people. I don't know if those are generally considered to be large correlations in health care studies or not, but I've always considered any correlation of about .1 to be extremely small. The relative difference between religious and non-religious people is interesting.

I am curious about the settings in which you say correlation is accepted. Would they accept a correlation of about .1 as indicative of anything other than a need for more study? If so, do you know why this level of correlation is considered significant?

[varkam]

44. I'm getting a sense of Deja Vu.

Because it's exactly like you to vaguely reference a thread and then shift the focus. I think this is the third or the fourth time that you've done this with me.

I read through every reply in that thread - and other than some vague responses, it doesn't seem like anyone is out and out claiming that being religious causes one to get life-prolonging care. In fact, several people are in that thread harping about how there could be other causal mechanisms.

But let's say that someone, somewhere, makes a post that does make that claim. What am I supposed to do, in order to avoid having a double-standard in Hammy's eyes? Put on my skeptic's police uniform and go berate that poster? :rofl: Sorry, Hammy, but I got shit to do - I can't be monitoring all of teh internets 24/7.

Going back to your post, though, I think that part of the problem is that you're interpreting that this study "'proves' something through correlation" - well, it proves that there's a correlation and not much more.

[Why Syzygy]

50. I posted the HEADLINES

that are proclaiming such. Forget about the other forum. Someone released a press release. You can't lay the entire thing at the door of the sorry media.

[varkam]

53. I can't lay it at the door of the media when what you're complaining about are the headlines?

What do you propose that I do? Storm the BBC and take over the science department? :rofl: As I posted above, science reporting sucks, has sucked, and will probably always suck.

[Why Syzygy]

43. .

It does seem odd, though, that if you believe that you're going to be going to heaven (as so many who are religious do) that you would try so hard to avoid death.

[trotsky]

56. You don't find it odd?

Let's say an Olympic swimmer trains for years, watches their diet closely, does everything possible to win an event. And then, when they are in the clear in the last lap, they choose to slow down despite not being tired or hurt. Wouldn't that be odd? It's not making a judgment on that person (or certainly swimmers in general), but doesn't it seem odd that the whole goal of this person's efforts is within reach, and they delay reaching it? Doesn't it make you wonder why?

[Why Syzygy]

60. I find it odd

that the reporting is being blamed, while the same conclusion is being stated independently by the so-called scientific minds.

I constructed my opening post poorly. I'll try to get back later to put it in perspective for you.

[Jim__]

63. I don't, not without more information.

However, we have no information on what other factors were in play. what percentage of the people who had intensive measures were concerned about some event that was ongoing? According to the CNN report, 80% of the people involved in the study were religious copers:

In this study, nearly 80 percent of the 345 patients with advanced stages of various cancers said religion helped them cope, and about 32 percent reported that their faith was "the most important thing that keeps you going."

I believe that fits with society in general. So, for example, it may well be true that religious people tend to be more involved in community affairs, may want to try to live to see something completed before they die.

Without more information, it's hard to draw any conclusions about the fact that 10 - 15% of religious people had intensive measures verus 3 - 5% of non-religious people.

[Why Syzygy]

68. False analogy.

Assumes the only goal for living a Christian has is the afterlife.

[trotsky]

70. You may have other goals, certainly.

But when you are terminally sick with no way of accomplishing anything else (it's not like you're going to get up and volunteer at the soup kitchen while hooked up to a ventilator), and ultimately the goal for any Christian is to spend eternity with their god, I think the analogy is close enough.

[varkam]

57. You do know the difference between correlation and causation, right? Right?

Where, in that statement, is there a claim of causation? I know that in your mind you were thinking "Ohhh! I'm gonna git 'em! He says that no one is claiming causation and here he is claiming that very thing! Bam! Checkmate!"

Except that, well, it's not a claim of causation. It's actually sort of just what the study said - that people who were religious tended to go after life-prolonging care more often than others. That's not to say that being religious causes you to do that, as it could be some other variable influencing the results.

Please, I beseech you, run, don't walk, to your nearest dictionary and look up correlation.

[Why Syzygy]

69. Checkmate.

Rationalizing faulty assumptions doesn't save the King.

[varkam]

75. Shocker - you completely dodged the substance of my post. Please try again. eom

[Why Syzygy]

79. .

[varkam]

81. Well that's better, but you're still not quite there yet.

[Why Syzygy]

83. I have my moments of indecision. nt

[varkam]

84. How fortunate for me. eom

[Why Syzygy]

67. For the Record ...

I never intended to bring religion into this thread. It is irrelevant to my position. I posted on the thread in the Religion forum on the same study, as is appropriate.

However, concurrently there was a discussion in this forum about scientific study:

* http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x55993

A couple of the comments prompted me to ask two well know skeptics on that thread to explain the scientific methodology used in the JAMA study. I even said, "Please". Evasion ensued.

For the same reason that religious folk don't like it when science comes poking around them: science-based research has a disturbing tendency to shatter deeply held beliefs.

I don't understand how people can be so dense when it comes to this issue, if the alternative medicine industry wants our money, they should have to use science based research to prove their products are effective and safe.
*(MODS if it is not okay to post these excerpts, I will happily supply the permalinks instead)

Shortly thereafter, populistdriven posted this thread. Since none of the skeptics had shown a willingness to offer explanation on the "scientific method" of the JAMA piece, in a thread discussing the "scientific method", I opened with an attention grabbing subject line, hoping someone would come forward for discussion. I was so hasty in my post, I failed to post the study abstract link. My oversight. The euthanasia remark was a tag on to open the door for another potential conversation related to additional points made by populistdriven. I can understand why there was confusion at the beginning.

However, I restated my request clearly. More evasion resulted, and swarming commenced. Since they are always at the ready for proving alternative studies WRONG, I believe it to be reasonable and rational to ask for quid pro quo to examine the difference between ACCEPTABLE study methods from one field to the other.

Revealing a double standard based on their preconceived prejudices was my objective, UNLESS they could systematically show otherwise. They failed to do so. I am satisfied that the double standard has been revealed and established.

Mission accomplished.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Stay tuned, we'll have more on this breaking story as she makes it up!

trotsky and varkam tried to communicate with you, but, as usual, you preferred to remain willfully ignorant.

And look at poor salvorhardin, he's still waiting for you to answer his questions:

Revealing a double standard based on their preconceived prejudices was my objective, UNLESS they could systematically show otherwise. They failed to do so. I am satisfied that the double standard has been revealed and established.

All you've revealed was the depth of your ignorance.

Well done! :applause:

[Why Syzygy]

72. You have some good points

and some extremely irritating asinine ones.

And I've found you never have anything meaningful to communicate.

[beam me up scottie]

73. I wish I could say the same thing about you.

All you bring to the table is your ignorance of science, your irrational hatred of skeptics and your anti-science-based medicine agenda.

Yet you continue to proudly wave them around this forum, like a peacock strutting and showing off his tail end.

You are apparently oblivious to the fact that no one listens to you anymore, the toxic combination of sneering contempt for all things science,
anti-intellectualism, and logical fallacies has destroyed any credibility you might have once possessed.


Oh, and didn't you say you put me on ignore yesterday?

Either you're not being truthful or you take people off ignore just long enough to snark at them and put them back at your discretion.

Either way, your hypocrisy is appalling.

[Why Syzygy]

74. Wow. That must be why your floatie is green. All that envy. My my. nt

[varkam]

76. Well, they do say ignorance is bliss.

So what of it, BMUS? Are you envious of her ignorance? I know I am.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Gosh, yes, I am so jealous.

If I plucked my eyes out, I could never be so blind.

I could drive ice picks through my eardrums, but my deafness would not compare.

No matter how long I lived or how hard I tried, I could never achieve that level of ignorance.

How does she do it?

Do you think one must be born with such gifts?


sigh...I suspect we'll never know how it feels to reach the nirvana of willful ignorance.

[Jim__]

19. I don't think the study was a hoax.

Looking at the abstract that you cited elsewhere, the conclusion that is drawn looks valid:

Positive religious coping in patients with advanced cancer is associated with receipt of intensive life-prolonging medical care near death. Further research is needed to determine the mechanisms for this association.

They say that further research is needed. The study only claims that there is an association between religious coping and intensive measures. It doesn't draw any conclusions about why this association exists. When I look at the variables that they controlled for (according to the abstract):

Results A high level of positive religious coping at baseline was significantly associated with receipt of mechanical ventilation compared with patients with a low level (11.3% vs 3.6%; adjusted odds ratio , 2.81 <95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.03-7.69>; P = .04) and intensive life-prolonging care during the last week of life (13.6% vs 4.2%; AOR, 2.90 <95% CI, 1.14-7.35>; P = .03) after adjusting for age and race. In the model that further adjusted for other coping styles, terminal illness acknowledgment, support of spiritual needs, preference for heroics, and advance care planning (do-not-resuscitate order, living will, and health care proxy/durable power of attorney), positive religious coping remained a significant predictor of receiving intensive life-prolonging care near death (AOR, 2.90 <95% CI, 1.07-7.89>; P = .04).

I am curious about other variables: strength of family and community ties, frequency of visitors, general attitudes toward life, etc. There may be a strong correlation between these variables and intensive measures and religious coping may also be correlated with them.

[Why Syzygy]

24. Like the BMJ,

I wish JAMA would make the entire study available at no charge.

How in the name of Vioxx, does "age" and "race" correlate to "religion"?

[Jim__]

26. If we could read the whole article, we might see how they adjusted for race and age.

In the CNN article, they do say that African-Americans are more likely than whites to have intensive measures. I can certainly understand how age could factor into intensive measures - I think when I was young, I would have been much more likely to want intensive measures. If you want to give religious coping an equal weight for each individual involved in the study, you need to adjust the numbers for other factors that weigh in on people wanting intensive measures.

I wish the whole article were available, but I can understand why it's not.

[salvorhardin]

21. Two questions

1) A hoax is a type of deception. What do you think is deceptive about this study?

2) Why do you think this study is unscientific?

[Why Syzygy]

23. I'm still waiting for someone to

name the methodology. "Correlation" ain't it.

[salvorhardin]

30. You didn't answer my questions

Why do you think this study is a hoax and why do you think this study is unscientific?