"Author of a Controversial Paper on the Medical Benefits of Prayer Is Accused of Plagiarizing"

And I'm not surprised in the least. How else could you find evidence for a phenomenon that doesn't exist (the healing power of prayer), except to fabricate it?

Author of a Controversial Paper on the Medical Benefits of Prayer Is Accused of Plagiarizing

By ELYSE ASHBURN

A controversial study that claimed to demonstrate the efficacy of prayer in medicine has suffered yet another blow to its credibility, as one of its authors now stands accused of plagiarism in another published paper.

Doctors were flummoxed in 2001, when Columbia University researchers published a study in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine that found that strangers' prayers could double the chances that a woman would get pregnant using in-vitro fertilization. In the years that followed, however, the lead author removed his name from the paper, saying that he had not contributed to the study, and a second author went to jail on unrelated fraud charges.

Meanwhile, many scientists and doctors have written to the journal criticizing the study, and at least one doctor has published papers debunking its findings.

Now the third author of the controversial paper, Kwang Y. Cha, has been accused of plagiarizing a paper published in the journal Fertility and Sterility in December 2005. Alan DeCherney, editor of Fertility and Sterility and director of the reproductive biology and medicine branch at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said on Monday that it was clear to him that Dr. Cha, who has since left Columbia, plagiarized the work of a South Korean doctoral student for a paper he published on detecting women who are at risk of premature menopause.

Jeong Hwan Kim, then a student at Korea University, in Seoul, had published the same paper in a South Korean journal in January 2004, according to Sunday's Los Angeles Times. Mr. Kim brought the matter to the attention of Fertility and Sterility in the spring of 2006, Dr. DeCherney said. In an interview on Monday, he said he had spent the intervening time confirming the accusations.

Dr. DeCherney said he would recommend that the journal's oversight committee publish a statement saying that the paper was plagiarized and bar Dr. Cha, who appeared as the lead author on the paper, and the five other listed authors from publishing in the journal for three years. The publication committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, which oversees the journal, is expected to decide on the issue in April.

Dr. Cha, a businessman whose company owns fertility clinics in Los Angeles and Seoul, could not be reached for comment on Monday. He also did not return calls from the Los Angeles Times, according to that newspaper's report.

Dr. DeCherney said that he had compiled a list of other papers Dr. Cha has published in Fertility and Sterility, and that he would review the list if other complaints arose. As for the validity of the 2001 paper on the efficacy of prayer, Dr. DeCherney said his journal had declined to publish the findings in the first place.

"It's baloney," he said. "That's not in question."

Editors at The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, which is affiliated with several organizations including the Martin L. Stone Obstetrical and Gynecological Society of the New York Medical College, did not return calls for comment on Monday. Lawrence D. Devoe, the journal's editor in chief, said in 2004 that the journal was further scrutinizing the paper (The Chronicle, December 2, 2004).

But Bruce L. Flamm, a researcher who has worked for years to debunk the 2001 paper, said the plagiarism accusations against Dr. Cha should leave the Journal of Reproductive Medicine with no choice but to retract it.

"I'm convinced that paper is fraudulent," said Dr. Flamm, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California at Irvine. "And over the years, everything that has happened has confirmed that opinion, not moved me away from it."

There simply is no magical correlation between faith and health. Sorry, folks, but facts are facts.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion,

The American Taliban

The American Taliban: read it and weep.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Church-state, Politics, Philosophy

Letter to the Editor in the Sun

Surprise, surprise, another backwoods hick is angry that she can't use the government to push her religious views onto others. Tough titty.

Let's really separate
February 17. 2007 6:01AM

The ACLU is suing Dixie County over the Ten Commandments being placed at the courthouse. If the ACLU and the federal judges want separation of church and state, I suggest we do this separation all the way.

Since Christians don't have the right to place the Ten Commandments on property their tax dollars paid for, we Christians and our churches should be exempt from all federal, state, county and city laws and from paying any taxes. If our wishes do not count, then we should not be forced to contribute to the cause. We should be allowed to form our own laws and taxation, to be separated from government. The government should not be allowed to use our churches for voting. If separation is the desire then let's do it all the way.

The original laws of this country were founded on the Ten Commandments. If you were to take the original laws and our new laws and put them side by side, you would be hard pressed to find much resemblance.

The ACLU hates Christians and God. By our new laws and standards they should be charged with a hate crime. One day you will stand before a real Judge, and your arguments won't hold water. May God have mercy.

Beverly Sarra,
Hawthorne

How many non sequiturs can one imbecile make in one LTE? By Beverly's reasoning, if you can't use the government as a tool to advance your cause, then you aren't under that government in any way. By Beverly's reasoning, people's "wishes" matter more than inalienable rights granted by the Constitution. By Beverly's reasoning, the original laws which followed Bible teachings about slavery and burning witches and stoning homosexuals should be reinstituted. Wake up, Beverly, but it's the 21st century, and people have progressed beyond the barbaric and savage ways of your beloved Old Testament laws.

I have no problem with taking "separation all the way" -- but Beverly would, because it wouldn't equate to her getting what she wants. No, instead, churches would be treated like every other business, and they are, indeed, businesses -- they generate profits from sales and marketing and advertisements. See, tax-exemption is part of the problem, Beverly -- your churches already don't pay taxes, you numbnuts.

This sort of ignorant drivel showcases exactly the form of freedom that theocratic fascists like Beverly want -- they think that because we all pay taxes, that one sect out of us can use those taxes to promote their religious causes. Even though the entire purpose of a courthouse, or a road, is to serve the public and common good, Beverly think she has the right to use it to proselytize.

It's exactly the same "logic" (sneer quotes) as was displayed on CNN (YouTube link) when Karen Harris said,

HUNTER: Eight to 12 percent. (INAUDIBLE) They're not hurting anyone. I personally don't have a problem with an atheist. Believe or don't believe what you want. Don't impose upon my right to want to have prayer in schools, to want to say the pledge of allegiance, to want to honor my God. Don't infringe upon that right.

Whoa! You have a right to have prayer in schools? No. You have a right to pray yourself. You have a right to believe whatever you want. You don't have a right to use any government entity to push your version of your beliefs on anyone. These people are mind-numbingly stupid. And dangerous.

Beverly, you can put the 10 Commandments in your own yard. That is your right. You can hang them in every room of your house. You can walk into any public building and pray all day long, including your kids praying in their own school. How many times do you dense fucktards need it explained that your freedom to do those things voluntarily is Constitutionally guaranteed, and that the ACLU fights for Christians and their rights to those civil liberties?

And how many times must the truth be drilled into your thick skull that just as you have the right to do those things as an individual, no one has the right to use the government, or government authority, to promote their own religion? You retrograde theocrats are going through your death throes, screaming and wailing as you realize the utter failing of your own religion, manifested in empty pew syndrome and the general cultural turning away from your ancient beliefs and superstitions. Your only hope is to seize the government and use its power and money to revive and reform society to conform, forcibly, to your religious views. But we won't stand for it, and the Constitution is on our side. You lose. Thanks gods for that.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Church-state

Cedarville U -- Avoiding Intellectual Integrity at All Costs

I had a good laugh this morning, and wanted to share it with you. For a few weeks now, a couple of us smart-ass unbelievers had infiltrated a YEC Facebook Group -- Answers in Genesis. Most of the facetious participants were from another group -- Atheist, Agnostic & Non-religious. Well, I am now banned from AiG, probably because of posts in which I went overboard like this one, where I talked about how it was likely that Noah had filed down the baby T-Rex's teeth to help him survive in the harsh post-Flood environment, because T-Rex was not a predator, since death and predation only came after the Fall (standard creationist fare).

So there are two main fellows running/creating the group, and both are from Cedarville U: Nicholas Matthews and Evan Felmet. Evan was especially active. Well, they banned me, which I saw coming. But I got interested in the fact that two of the main sponsors of the group are from the same college, and one I'd never heard of, and I thought, "Maybe they're close to the AiG Creation Museum..." [Never mind how ignorant they are with geography regarding their crank museum] I was right -- Cedarville is only an hour and 45 mins, or 98 miles, from it.

I decided to take a closer look at Cedarville U. When I did, I got my laugh; what cracked me up was their biology department,

Biology (B.S.)

The bachelor of science degree with a major in biology prepares students for graduate study in the biological sciences by including the course requirements prescribed by many of the leading graduate-level biology degree programs in the nation. This major enhances the student's depth of knowledge in biology and increases the breadth of exposure to chemistry, mathematics, and physics.

I am sure. I'm sure a YEC school models itself after programs in biology at Harvard and Stanford. I'm sure many of Cedarville's finest go on to study at those schools. I noticed that in their description of the Cellular and Molecular Biology program that they were careful to point out:

The bachelor of science degree with a major in molecular and cellular biology will prepare students for graduate-level training in the context of a broad biological background based in a biblical worldview. This degree will allow our students to become holistically thinking molecular biologists, and will enhance the student’s depth of knowledge in this competitive and growing field. [italics/bold emphasis mine]

I would love to see if this includes talking about genetics Jacob-style, where in Gen. 30, he influences the heredity of his flocks using shaved sticks?? Perhaps it includes a course on the biocidal activity of bird blood, wherein bacteria and mold are killed via the prescription in Lev. 14? I bet Evan and friends were all participants in their local "Creation Science Fair".

Also, this disclaimer/warning/comforting sentence to idiots is absent from all the other descriptions given...I naturally have to wonder why. I suppose it's a bit harder to use the Bible to base one's astronomy or geology on than one's molecular biology, as the Bible somehow has more of the latter than the former? I guess the fact that the sun and moon are created on Day 4 while plants were made on Day 3 doesn't sit well with them?

My laughed morphed into a chortle/snort at their "origins statement":

We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are verbally inspired by God and are inerrant in the original writings. Recognizing that God is effective in his communication to man through the Scriptures, we use a grammatical/historical interpretation of the Bible.God also reveals himself through His creation and commands us to understand his creation and to serve and keep it for His glory. Because our rational abilities are finite and we are affected by sin, we must be careful that our interpretation of natural revelation is consistent with His inspired and written revelation, the Scriptures. Having taken this position on God's revelation we believe that the universe, solar system, earth, and life were all created recently by an omnipotent, omniscient God during six literal 24 hour days, as described in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, and as referred to in other Biblical passages.

Our approach to science and origins is based on the presupposition that our highest and ultimate authority is the unchanging Word of God. We do not base our position of origins on our current understanding of the theories of science and mathematics which are subject to change. On the other hand we do not want to minimize the importance of scientific laws, such as the laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, laws of genetics, laws of probability and statistics, law of cause and effect, etc. We feel these laws are well established and strongly support our theological position concerning origins. Studying these laws provides us with an understanding of how God has worked in His creation and allows us to be better stewards of that creation. We also feel that God can use an understanding of origins in the light of scientific laws to prepare an individual to accept by faith the claims of Christ and the Scriptures.

Given the fact that this university claims accreditation from HLC, and that belief in YEC impinges upon almost every academic department, from history to biology to astronomy, I decided to write a complaint to the HLC to ask them why they give accreditation to such unorthodox departments. I will keep you posted on that.

I noticed in their course catalog that the word "evolution" only appears twice, and never in conjunction with an actual biology course! Once in "historical geology" (gods I'd love to attend that lecture and guffaw as the guy tries to explain stratigraphy and paleosols from 'flood geology') and once in a middle-school education course. I mean, this cracks me up -- they refuse to even use the word 'evolution' in any of their course descriptions in the biology department!! Surely they don't deny the undeniable -- that evolution happens!?!?! They can only deny the extent to which it has happened historically, without being certifiably insane.

I find it humorous that kids would think that wasting four years and thousands and thousands of dollars at such a school is the right thing to do. I would say that in most cases, the parents are the ones choosing, and largely out of fear of "secular institutions" -- and for good reason. People like Evan need not worry about or apply to graduate programs in biochemistry or zoology, as he'd be laughed out of the building when he described to them his breadth and depth of knowledge of history, anthropology, stellar evolution, geology, biology, chemistry... Poor sap.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Evolution, Creationism

Worth 1000 Words

Its simplicity is why the DI's ranks keep growing, and they admit it:

HaEris writes, "One of the great things about Intelligent Design is that it simplifies things. Unlike the theory of evolution it passes the test of Occam's razor the universally true scentific axiom that given a choice between a complex theory and a simple one, the simple one has the greatest probability of being right. It's another way of saying that tall-tales and just-so stories are usually false. ID is so simple that even people who are un-trained in biological sciences can make great and astounding progress. What could be a greater indicator of it's truth than that?"

(HT: PZ)
________________
Technorati tags: Religion