Busy week; working on getting a grant and a manuscript revision out the door. In the meantime, Jake has a post on abstinence-only versus "abstinence-plus" education, and why neither is working that well, and Orac discusses a topic I want to get to but it's one of those long 'n' involved posts I don't have a lot of time for right now: the reliability of epidemiological studies.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The US government spends millions domestically and billions internationally on abstinence-only education with the intent of lowering the transmission of STIs such as HIV and limiting unwanted pregnancies. Yet abstinence-only education is demonstrably ineffective. The alternative called abstinence…
For those of us who have been wondering whether Bush is really on the so-con bandwagon or was just pretending to be in order to court their votes in the last election, here is one bit of evidence for the first conclusion:
President Bush's re-election insures that more federal money will flow to…
In response to a report put out by Rep. Henry Waxman that detailed a wide range of innacuracies and falsehoods in many of the abstinence-only curricula being used in states around the country, and being heavily funded by the Bush administration, the so-cons are furiously trying to defend such…
The big news here today is all about evolution - we've got the rhesus monkey genome and Tyrannosaurus rex protein sequences published. There's also some cool science policy stuff to look at - there's information on abstinence-only sex ed and more manatee material available. Finally, we've got an…
and Orac discusses a topic I want to get to
Yeah, you really should spend some time on that one. Loved it.
Extract:
The difference between this and complementary and alternative "medicine" (CAM) is starkly shown. Real medicine is tested for efficacy, and abandoned if it doesn't work. When was the last time any CAM treatment was publicly abandoned by its practitioners because they discovered it didn't work?
So, if I get it well, the fact that a certain kind of treatment was never publicly abandoned is hold as an argument AGAINST that treatment. Am I the really only one who thinks that we should try, at least once, to consider things the other way around? That maybe they were never publicly abandoned because nobody ever discovered they didn't work?
Yeah, I'm sure you'll love the article, Tara. It's a good example of scientific goal keeping against the herds of charlatans who threaten to take over control and increasingly find the ear of many people who might not be so totally ignorant as you seem to think they are.
BTW, you still take the avian flu (lol) hoax seriously ?