newcorporationforyou.net

Sunday, December 17, 2006 

Nobel Prize winner Professor Paul J. Crutzen has stated he has data to support his controversial claim that injecting sulfur into the atmosphere would negate the greenhouse effect.

The data is intended to quiet critics of the theory he first discussed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August, 2006.

The 1995 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry stated “Our calculations using the best models available have shown that injecting 1 million tonnes of sulfur a year would cool down the climate so the greenhouse effect is wiped out.”

The theory uses the idea that an added layer of sulfates in the stratosphere, approximately 16 kilometres above the earth, would reflect sunlight back into space and reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.

Critics have shown that the earth has struggled for decades to reduce sulfur pollution, and how it is a component of acid rain that kills plantlife and animals.

A large-scale experiment would be impossible to conduct, however scientists have noticed that massive volcanic eruptions have had similar effects on the earth. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines lowered temperatures around the world for two years, according to data taken at the time.

Crutzen resparked discussion on the topic, a theory which has been dismissed up until now as dangerous. “Until August this was a taboo issue. But the paper I published really set off some movement in this area. It never hit the level of seriousness which it has taken in the past months,” Crutzen said.

Environmental groups are skeptical but agree the idea should be investigated. “This idea should be examined and as a last resort it can buy us a few decades,” said Steve Sawyer, a policy adviser for Greenpeace International.

Wednesday, April 6, 2005  A landmark study comparing effectiveness in reducing major depression of two forms of initial treatment — cognitive therapy which involves discussing thought processes with a qualified counselor, vs medication — has revealed that both forms of therapy reduce depression, but that the benefits of cognitive therapy last longer than those of medication. The study finding contradicts current treatment guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

The 16-week study, by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and Vanderbilt University, was the largest trial yet undertaken to resolve the years-old debate. Two-hundred-and-forty patients with moderate-to-severe depression were given one or other of the treatments, or a purposely-ineffective placebo. Study representatives described the two treatments about equally effective — both much more effective than the placebo — but with the positive effect of talk-therapy lasting longer.

In fact, the cognitive therapy group saw only as many relapses as a another group that had continued to receive drug therapy.

“We believe that cognitive therapy might have more lasting effects because it equips patients with the tools they need to learn how to manage their problems and emotions,” said Robert DeRubeis, professor and chair of Penn’s Department of Psychology. “Pharmaceuticals, while effective, offer no long term cure for the symptoms of depression. For many people, cognitive therapy might prove to be the preferred form of treatment.”

“Medication is often an appropriate treatment, but drugs have drawbacks, such as side effects or a diminished efficacy over time,” DeRubeis said. “Patients with depression are often overwhelmed by other factors in their life that pills simply cannot solve. In many cases, cognitive therapy succeeds because it teaches the skills that help people cope.”

Researchers pointed out that while the effectiveness of cognitive therapy depended largely on the experience of the practitioner, the same was true of medication, due to the judgement required in prescribing correct dosages of drugs.

The APA declined to comment, on the basis that a quote appearing on Wikinews could be distorted by subsequent edits of the article.

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

The following page links to this file:

The following other wikis use this file:

View more global usage of this file.

Sunday, April 25, 2010 

The British foreign office has apologised, after a leaked memo about a visit by Pope Benedict XVI suggested that he might launch a “Benedict” brand of condoms, bless a gay marriage, and open an abortion clinic during a papal visit to the UK.

The memo followed a brainstorming session, where members of the Papal Visit Team came up with ideas for the first papal visit to Britain in 28 years, and was sent to senior civil servants via email on the 5th of March, with the title “Policy planning ahead of the Pope’s visit”. Attached files included an “ideal visit list”, and said “Please protect; these should not be shared externally.” However, the memo was leaked, and published in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper.

The ministry apologised, saying that it was “ill-judged, naive and disrespectful,” and that the responsible member of staff had been transferred to other duties.

Other suggestions were that the pope should change policy to allow female bishops, sponsor AIDS clinics, “spend night in council flat in Bradford” and “do forward rolls with children to promote healthy living.” A further idea was to change the national anthem to a charity song “God Save the World”, performed as a duet by Queen Elizabeth II and the pope.

It also said that the Pope should acknowledge clerical sex abuse scandals; British-papal relationships are strained, following the recent resignation of an Irish bishop and other allegations of Catholic Church child sex-abuse. The pope has been criticised for not taking a firm stance. In March 2010, the Pope sent a letter to Irish Catholics, expressing sorrow for the sexual abuse by Catholic priests to minors, and promising reform.

The four-day papal visit to England and Scotland is scheduled to take place in September 2010, but a “highly-placed source in the Vatican” said, “It’s even possible the trip could be cancelled as this matter is hugely offensive.”

Saturday, September 20, 2008 

The United States Federal Trade Commission filed charges against five companies for “deceptive advertising of bogus cancer cures”. An additional six companies also named in the federal agency’s complaint have settled and their cases will not go into litigation; however, they will be required to send letters to their former customers, and four will be forced to offer reimbursement

The five companies charged are Omega Supply, San Diego, California; Native Essence Herb Company, El Prado, New Mexico; Daniel Chapter One, Portsmouth, Rhode Island; Gemtronics, Inc., Franklin, North Carolina, and Herbs for Cancer, Surprise, Arizona. According to Lydia Parnes, director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, “There is no credible scientific evidence that any of the products marketed by these companies can prevent, cure, or treat cancer of any kind.”

Attorney Richard Jaffe who represents the firm Native Essence, one of the companies charged, protested against the FDA’s action. “In our view it’s a battle between the right to speak and the government’s censorship.” Native Essence sells herbal supplements and informs customers of herbs that have historic use for cancer and other ailments. Jaffe asserts the claim of historic use is truthful and does not necessarily mean that the herb is effective. Other items marketed by the companies named in the action include laetrile, essiac tea, mushroom extracts, and black salve. FDA representative Douglas Stearn expressed concern that people who have cancer may select these items instead of treatments that have been studied and found effective, or that unstudied herbal treatments could produce drug interactions with conventional medicine.

Before filing legal action the FTC sent over 100 warning letters and many firms dropped or changed the health claims for their products. In conjunction with the announcement the FDA announced a new website http://www.ftc.gov/curious that urges cancer patients to discuss all treatments they consider trying with their physicians, warns about the dangers of delaying or stopping cancer treatments in favour of alternative medicine, and gives advice about spotting and reporting false health claims.

This category has the following 19 subcategories, out of 19 total.

The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 1,101 total.

A debunker is a person who attempts to expose or discredit claims believed to be false, exaggerated or pretentious.^[1] The term is closely associated with skeptical investigation of controversial topics such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, cryptids, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or exploratory or fringe areas of scientific or pseudoscientific research.

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to “debunk” is defined as:

The American Heritage Dictionary traces the passage of the words bunk (noun), debunk (verb) and debunker (noun) into American English in 1923 as a belated outgrowth of “bunkum”, of which the first recorded use was in 1828, apparently related to a poorly received “speech for Buncombe County, North Carolina” given by North Carolina representative Felix Walker during the 16th United States Congress (1819–1821).^[3]

The term debunk originated in a 1923 novel Bunk, by American novelist William Woodward (1874–1950), who used it to mean to “take the bunk out of things.”^[4]

The term “debunkery” is not limited to arguments about scientific validity; it is also used in a more general sense at attempts to discredit any opposing point of view, such as that of a political opponent.

Australian Professorial Fellow Stephan Lewandowsky^[5] and John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (and author at SkepticalScience.com)^[6] co-wrote Debunking Handbook,^[2] in which they warn that debunking efforts may backfire. Backfire effects occur when science communicators accidentally reinforce false beliefs by trying to correct them.

Cook and Lewandowsky offer possible solutions to the backfire effects as described in different psychological studies. They recommend spending little or no time describing misconceptions because people cannot help but remember ideas that they have heard before. They write “Your goal is to increase people’s familiarity with the facts.”^[2][7][8] They recommend providing fewer and clearer arguments, considering that more people recall a message when it is simpler and easier to read. “Less is more” is especially important because scientific truths can get overwhelmingly detailed; pictures, graphs, and memorable tag lines all help keep things simple.^[2][9]

The authors write that debunkers should try to build up people’s egos in some way before confronting false beliefs because it is difficult to consider ideas that threaten one’s worldviews^[2][10] (i.e., threatening ideas cause cognitive dissonance). It is also advisable to avoid words with negative connotations.^[2][11] The authors describe studies which have shown that people abhor incomplete explanations – they write “In the absence of a better explanation, [people] opt for the wrong explanation”. It is important to fill in conceptual gaps, and to explain the cause of the misconception in the first place.^[2][12] The authors believe these techniques can reduce the odds of a “backfire” – that an attempt to debunk bad science will increase the audience’s belief in misconceptions.