'Round the tubes...

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.

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…
I somehow missed this in the Washington Post article about Henry Waxman's report on misleading and false statements in abstinence-only programs: Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and…
This essay's title is meant to help candidates like John McCain, who seems unsure about condoms. Asked in Iowa about his views on taxpayer funding of condom distribution in Africa, he sort of fumbled around. Asked about teaching students about contraception in public schools, he said he "support[…
Two new studies are showing the dangers of abstinence-only sex education. Both are reported here. Because abstinence-only programs are forbidden to even mention that condoms can help prevent pregnancy and STDs - it is literally illegal for them to mention anything about condoms other than failure…

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 ?