ALS Association admits 73% of funds don't go to research - or lies, damn lies, and Facebook statistics

I suppose the backlash against the popular Ice Bucket Challenge and its main recipient, the ALS Association, was as predictably inevitable as the tabloid outing of a virulently homophobic Christian preacher or a crassly stupid statement by the celebrity you just described as "A genuinely nice person, despite being rich and famous." That doesn't stop me being disappointed in people falling for it though - especially when the backlash is so jaw droppingly stupid.

Take this article from politicalears.com, which seems to be an Internet home for the intellectually challenged. The headline reads:

ICE BUCKET FRAUD: ALS FOUNDATION ADMITS THAT 73% OF DONATIONS ARE NOT USED FOR ALS RESEARCH

A more misleading headline you would struggle to find. The article begins:

We've been duped.

No, you haven't. The article continues:

But wait? Ice Bucket Challenge donations are nearing $100 MILLION. Where is that money going?

According to the ALS Foundation, not towards ALS.

Bullshit. I often wonder how people manage to type English, without being able to read or understand it first.

Then, the articles shocking reveal:

Over 73% of all donations raised are going to fundraising, overhead, executive salaries, and external donations. Less than 27% is actually used for the purpose we donated for.

Wrong again. The really worst part is that the article actually links to the chart that the ALS Association uses to explain how it spent funds in a recent year. Then proceeds to lie and twist it anyway. Got to admire the cheek at least, I suppose. You can find the ALS Associations financial information here. The chart in question is this one:

So, yes, 73% of expenses for the year ending January 31, 2014 were not for research. However, the description of how this 73% was spent is exceptionally dishonest and misleading. Not to mention that the most recent update to the financial information on the ALSA website states the figure spent on research is actually 28%, they originally miscalculated - so these backlash articles can't even get that right. So it isn't less than 27% - it's more than!

Only 7% was spent on administration and only 14% on fundraising - that includes overhead and salaries for everyone working for the Association (it isn't just executives that get paid you know - from what I can tell from looking at their IRS forms, combined executive salary was approximately $1.8 million of approximately $5.8 million spent on salaries and benefits) AND if they didn't spend money on fundraising, they wouldn't have any money to spend at all - it's an operating cost for goodness sake. That's 21% of the Association's expenses. The remaining 51% is dismissed by this silly article as "external donations". Well that sounds appropriately underhand and sketchy right? I bet it went to those dirty immigrants and unwed mothers. Or maybe abortions. Or ISIS. Or maybe ISIS abortions run by immigrants for unwed mothers. Amirite?

No.

It went to fund the other stated purposes of the ALS Association - public and professional education and patient and community services. In other words, it went "towards" ALS. I say "towards" because the money isn't going to the disease, who would write such a stupid phrase?  It is going to efforts to fight it, and to educate people about it, and to help those suffering with it. You know, the purposes of a charity devoted to fighting ALS. These other purposes are explicitly stated on the ALS Association website:

How does The ALS Association use its annual budget?

The ALS Association has posted its audited financial statement online here. On that page you can see a pie chart which breaks down our expenses from this document from the fiscal year ending in January 2014. Please note that our expenses are broken down by two major types of activities as required for not-for-profit voluntary health agencies – Program Activities and Supporting Activities. Below is a brief description of what services and activities are included in each category:
Program Activities

• Research: Our research entails involves funding for global studies to find the causes of and treatments - and ultimately a cure - for ALS. These activities encompass grants and funding for ALS research and associated costs related to our research program. This program takes a collaborative approach by interacting with scientists around the world and academia, government agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry.

• Patient and Community Services: Our Care Services program provides compassionate care and support for people living with ALS and their families. Our 38 chapters assist those living with Lou Gehrig’s Disease by offering them access to loan closets, support groups and information about local resources to help them better cope with the demands of this disease. In addition, our Certified Treatment Centers of Excellence deliver the best of multidisciplinary care to individuals with ALS, and our Recognized Treatment Centers serve the medical needs of those living with the disease.

• Public and Professional Education:  Through public and professional education, The Association educates healthcare professionals, scientific communities and the general public about Lou Gehrig’s Disease and the work we do in assisting those battling ALS. Our Public Policy Department works with national and local legislators as well as government agencies to advance legislative policies that benefit ALS families. Each year, The Association’s Public Policy Department hosts National ALS Advocacy Day and Public Policy Conference, whereby members of the ALS community travel to the nation’s capital to educate Congressional members about ALS and to share their stories about how this disease has impacted their lives with these national legislators.

If the author of the article was interested, even remotely, in getting to the truth of what he or she was writing they could have found this out very easily. I wonder why they didn't bother to mention it? And notice that there are no comments allowed on this article. Wouldn't want people correcting the author now, would we?

But it doesn't end there. Stupid never quits. 

That pie chart shows the figures for the year ending in January 2014 - so it doesn't even include the funds donated because of the Ice Bucket Challenge. To say, or imply, that only 27% of funds raised by the Ice Bucket thing goes to research is a big fat lie. Not even the ALS Association knows exactly how the money raised will be spent yet:

Can you give me a breakdown of how each Ice Bucket donation dollar will be allocated?While research and care services to patients and their families are our top priorities, we cannot provide a breakdown at this time. We appreciate the sense of urgency that exists and are already engaged in discussions on how we’re going to put this money to work in the short term and into the future. Now and in the coming weeks, we will be able to enhance our strategic plan, reformulating and recasting strategies with input from stakeholders, including our donors, our chapters, and most importantly, people living with ALS and their families. We want to move quickly but decisively as our ultimate goal is to use this incredible generosity in a way that has the biggest impact on the disease.
The ALS Association is absolutely committed to transparency and will be communicating regularly with the ALS community, our donors, the media and the public about progress in funding projects and programs to support the cause.

 The money being raised by the Ice Bucket Challenge has not yet been spent - anyone who tells you they know how much of the money has been spent on research is a lying fucking asshat with an agenda.

And what is that agenda?

No moral outrage against current social trends would be complete without throwing religion in, so the author throws in some Christian charity watchdog which claims that you can only be a reliable charity if you give 80% of expenses, or more, to the cause you are recieving donations for. And I am SURE that no religious charity ever broke that rule. But hey, since the ALS Association gets to 79%, who is going to quibble? Right wing religious nuts, that's who. I think we can see the real reason for these silly attacks now, can't we?

Oh, you didn't notice that the standard they cite is a Christian one? That's because they left that bit out, they wrote:

According to the ECFA, a charitable watchdog

No - a religious charitable watchdog. A Christian watchdog with an agenda. That watchdog requires charities to be Christian and have a statement of faith. The ALS Association has funded embryonic stem cell research which is opposed by Christian religious pro-life groups. You do the math.

Congratulations, by quoting or re-posting this article you are serving the religious right's agenda. Bravo.

Anyone who keeps repeating this stupid article, and others like it, without bothering to check facts first should hand in their critical thinking card when they leave please.

Pity? Anger? Amusement? I'm just not sure

Well, you didn't really think I was going to let the failed Rapture pass without comment, did you?

Now, I'm honestly not sure exactly what I should be feeling about this whole thing. Should I pity the people who believed Harold Camping and gave up money and more? Should I dismiss them as gullible and stupid? Should I feel they got what they deserved for their lack of critical thinking and arrogance? Should I direct my feelings towards Camping in the form of anger and disgust? Or should I just point and laugh?

Right now, I'm going for a mixture of most of the above. But I think I can rule out pity, except for the innocent victims. Those who have no college fund now because their parents are fucking morons. Those who will suffer because others fell for this fast burning stupidity.

Syvlia Browne fans - why so quiet?

A quick look at my Sitemeter statistics at the foot of the page tells me that by far the overwhelming number of visitors to my blog are people who search for some variation of "Sylvia Browne 2010 predictions". And I mean overwhelming. In fact, almost every visitor to the blog comes from someone searching for Sylvia Browne's 2010 predictions. Yet none of them seem to stay very long once they get to my page talking about Sylvia Browne's 2010 "predictions" and only one person has ever left a comment that tried to defend her.

Why is that? No-one wants to defend the indefensible? They don't like having their delusions shattered so disappear in a huff? They think I'm wrong? They have absolute proof of Browne's powers so ignore the ranting of a know nothing skeptic? Or are they scared? Are they scared that the house of cards they built and called their belief system will come tumbling down if just for one moment they actually have to think about what they believe? Is it because deep down they know I am right about Browne and people like her?

Are these people so scared of having to think that they run away every time they are challenged?

Why are Sylvia Browne's fans so quiet?

Here's what I think - Browne's fans don't have an answer to what skeptics say about her, so they just ignore the criticisms and hope they go away because they can't handle the truth. Reality is just to scary for them.

Browne fans: prove me wrong. Have the guts to actually say something that isn't a childish insult or unthinking devotion.

I dare you.

Really America? I mean, really?

The 2010 midterm elections in the USA have, at different times and with varying measure, filled me with despair, disgust and disillusionment. I've also been reminded of three quotes from two great men:

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
                                                                                                                -- Albert Einstein

And:

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
                                                                                                            -- Winston Churchill

And finally:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
                                                                                                               -- Winston Churchill

Unfortunately, I don't see much of the right thing happening, plenty of the same thinking that got us into this mess and then democracy in all its horrendous glory.

One bunch of right wing nuts spent eight years fucking everything up, and then a large portion of the voting population of the USA gave the next bunch of slightly less right wing nuts just 2 years to turn absolutely everything around, and when that didn't happen instantly they went for a bunch of extremely right wing nuts as if that would fix things. Hence the ridiculous corporate entity referred to as the Tea Party, brought to you by the Koch brothers. Grassroots political movement my arse. Like everything else in this country, it's all about money. The Tea Party isn't fighting the establishment, it IS the establishment. Same shit, different name.

Trade deficit under Bush? Going up. Unemployment under Bush? Going up. Wall Street bailout that everyone was so angry about? Bush administration (although Obama added to it). The National Debt the Tea Baggers were so worried about? Doubled under Bush. Where was the outrage then? If it was the ideology of rampant free markets and relaxed regulation that contributed to the current economic disaster, how would a bunch of people even more fanatical about said ideology help? If all these economic woes are the cause for the backlash against Obama's administration then where were these champions of America when Bush fucked it all up in the first place?

If it looks like shit and smells like shit, it probably isn't chocolate.

How is it that problems that took 8 years to create under Bush and the Republicans are now being blamed on Obama and the Democrats after just 2?

The answer, it would seem, is that a large proportion of the American voting population is either irredeemably stupid or shamefully ignorant. Or possibly both. How else can politicians get away with campaign adverts that are blatant lies AND still have people vote for them? How else can people proclaiming their lack of experience make them seem like ideal candidates for the job? How else can a politician that doesn't know what the First Amendment is even get on the ballot anywhere, never mind be a serious contender? How else could a misogynist fascist prick like Ken Buck come a very close second in a race for a position in the Senate? OK, fascist might be an exaggeration, but not by much. How else can the people that caused this mess be exonerated and greeted like saviours?

But the Democrats have to accept some of the blame - they didn't vote or didn't engage their base and get them out. And of course, Obama couldn't ever live up to the hype, he's a politician. Business as usual. In the end what you had was old privileged white people voting for privileged white people. And privileged white people came out the winners. What a surprise. I thought a couple of weeks ago that the Democrats were being too soft but I was wrong. The Democrats basically just rolled over and died. If you don't vote, you get the government you deserve.

And as for it being about the economy? Fuck off. If it was, then shouldn't the $4 billion dollars spent on campaign ads be a source of shame? At a time when unemployment falls somewhere between 9 and 20%, depending on how it is measured, shouldn't that tell you that the political system here is broken? Politicians spend $4 billion dollars on TV ads packed with lies and slurs whilst also claiming to have the economic interests of Americans at heart? Never mind the secretive nature of the people behind most of the adverts - this campaign has all the hallmarks of being bought and paid for by big business. This was not democracy in action, it was the vested interests of big business and special interest groups doing what they do best. Buying people and buying votes.

As a non-voting resident I have one question: why do you put up with this? As a result of this election I have to ask:

What the fuck is wrong with this country, and how long will it take it to try everything else?

You know what else isn't in the Constitution, Christine?

Carbine, Handgun, Rifle ('the right to bear arms' who could mistake that?), Abortion, God, Jesus, Christian, Gay, Lesbian, Homosexual, Marriage, Pornography, Torture, Lord appears only in the common contemporary usage as part of the date, the phrase "Death Penalty", the phrase "Don't ask, don't tell",  the phrase "Special Rendition", the phrase "Patriot Act", the phrase "Intelligent Design",  the phrase "Tax Cut", the phrase "Tea Party", the phrase "War on Terror", the phrase "Everyone has the right to own an automobile", the phrase "Everyone has the right to shop where they want to", the phrase "Everyone has the right to choose which doughnut is their favourite",

These exact phrases or words don't appear either, what was your point Christine? I confess, I don't really see what she was trying to get at other than trying to make herself look stupid and appealing to the sorts of people who are likewise ignorant of the Constitution.

Was she trying to say that since these exact words aren't in the Constitution it has nothing to say about the principle outlined by them? That since the exact words "seperation of church and state" are not present in the Constitution or the Amendments to it that there is nothing in them about that subject, that the Constitution does not guarantee the separation of church and state? As far as I can see that would rule out an awful lot, wouldn't it? It would rule out an awful lot of things that Republicans and Tea Baggers seem to hold dear, in fact.

Or was Christine O'Donnell really trying to imply that there is nothing regarding the separation of church and state in the Constitution at all, not just the specific words? Is she that, well, ignorant? Shouldn't someone who is going to take an oath to uphold the Constitution actually understand what is in it? Indeed, if you watch the video of the debate she does in fact seem surprised that the first amendment does guarantee the separation of church and state. She doesn't seem to know about one of the most important aspects of the first amendment. Wow.

Or was she simply making, as she is now trying to claim, the banal point that those words just don't appear in the Constitution? Yes we know, we can read to - why even make that point as if it was important? The word "buttock" doesn't appear either, what is the relevance? Saying those words don't appear is hardly a rebuttal to someone pointing out the nature of the establishment clause, so it just seems childish.

Here is a crazy idea. Could it be you actually have to read the Constitution and its Amendments in order to actually understand what is in them, rather than just believing what some people equally as ignorant have told you is in them (like Rush Limbaugh)? Let me explain it for you (and I've mentioned it in the past). Yes Christine, on the purely superficial and banal level you are right, those words don't appear, but the exact wording of the First Amendment establishes the principle of separation of church and state, and the framers of the Constitution were quite clear about it, as the MSNBC article points out.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" means that Congress stays out of religion. The state cannot interfere with the church. The two shall remain separate. The state can favour no particular religion. The state shall remain seperate from the church - it was a principle Jefferson and Madison held dear, and fully intended.

To say otherwise proves you ignorant and unfit for office.

Not that this is a surprise. Please tell me people see through all of this, that the right wing isn't going to make massive gains in the upcoming elections. PLEASE.

If only there was a deity to pray to....

Don't talk bollocks, cancer isn't 'man made' and did exist in the ancient world

Every now and then when I'm looking for something to write about I come across or I'm sent something so spectacularly stupid that really a new word needs to be invented to describe it, and this article on a study published in Nature Review: Cancer is no exception. I am fairly certain that just by reading it a portion of my intelligence was sucked away, So thanks to my brother David and his friend Clare for making me stupiderer.

Nazis, atheists and a Pope

With a title like that, you know this one has got to be interesting. Right? OK, maybe not. But this post will put me in the schizophrenic position of kicking the Pope in the arse and then picking him up and fetching him a cup of tea afterwards.

It may or may not have escaped your notice that the Pope recently visited the UK, an event that had the BBC falling all over itself to cover favourably. Anyway, whilst the child rape covering up pontiff was there he made a statement that was guaranteed to set off both the atheist and the historian in me.

Coexistence won't help as much as you think it will

Well OK, maybe not you, exactly, but certainly the people who sport those silly 'coexist' stickers on their cars.

Here's the culprit, in case you have no idea what I am talking about:

Now I know what you're thinking, "How can he possibly be against a bumper sticker that promotes religious tolerance and encouraging people of different faiths to understand rather than kill each other?" So let me answer you.

Easily.

Andrew Wakefield - Dishonest lying assbag

Via Orac I saw this great summation of the Andrew Wakefield MMR controversy, and I also found out something about Wakefield I didn't know before.

Apparently, before his paper was published in the Lancet, he had filed a patent for a single measles vaccine. And what did Wakefield recommend after his paper came out? Why, that parents should not use MMR but single vaccines for measles and mumps.

Mother fucker. And the anti-vaccine morons have the cheek to call "Big Pharma" (and by that they mean real science and medicine) dishonest?

This just highlights one point I always try to make to woos and their like when they claim you can't trust a source I or other skeptics give out but you can trust the ones they use:

What makes your source completely trustworthy and reliable when ours aren't and why?

I have never had an answer yet. This is a good example of why.

The 'right' wing, big government and hypocrisy

It will come as no surprise to you that I find many instances of hypocrisy or stupidity in the 'right' wing positions on a great many things, but whilst sinking a couple of beers with a few friends last night something occurred to me that I hadn't considered in any great detail before. We got on to politics, as you inevitably do when shooting the shit with friends, and the subject of gay marriage came up. And it occurred to me that this is perhaps one of the best examples of just how hypocritical the 'right' wing can be.

The traditional conservative or 'right' wing political position is the less government the better. Government should stay out of people's lives as much as it possibly can, there should be minimal interference - there should be no "Big government." Another position that is taken for granted by political conservatives or the 'right' wing is a ban on gay marriage.

If you can't see the problem here then you are probably a 'right' wing nut.

Mike Adams and like minded woos - Liars or ignorant fools?

So, via Orac over at Respectful Insolence, I saw that Mike Adams is still a clueless buffoon when it comes to discussing medicine and health care. I don't have much to add to what Orac has said or what has been said about Mike Adams and his need to lie about skeptics and health care.

But I do want to mention something that I find repeatedly when woos start to talk about science based medicine - it seems they have never experienced it. One of the most common lies that woos like to spread about science based medicine is that doctors ignore things like exercise and nutrition and just want to pump pills down your throat because they are, after all, just tools of Big Pharma. Adams is a good example of this, as you'll see if you read Orac's takedown.

Jimmy's Rants: woos, at least try to say something new

OK I lied, there is one blog post I wanted to do.

Why is it that woos (and here I include almost all, if not absolutely all, religious believers in the definition of 'woos') never seem to have a new argument when defending whatever it is they are trying to defend?

After all, it is the constant repetitions of the same arguments over and over again that means Bronze Dog is still going with the Doggerel Index, there are so many arguments that we hear again and again from woos that they make the index. It isn't that they are new and so must be added, it is that they meet a critical mass of repetition that prompts people to tag them as doggerel and beseech Bronze Dog for their inclusion.

Arrogance on display - religious license plate frames

It's not that I think having a license plate frame with a religious message on necessarily makes a person arrogant, it's the type of message they choose to display. So two days ago whilst driving to work I saw one that read:

WARNING: IN CASE OF RAPTURE THIS CAR WILL BE UNMANNED

And my first thought was "What an arrogant prick."  Well, actually, my first thought was probably "Wish I didn't have to go to work today, I'd rather be doing something else and getting paid for that instead, like being a virgin converter or something cool like that." But it was probably soon after my first thought upon seeing that particular license plate frame.

"Don't hate." say haters.

I know, sounds like an 'Onion' headline. Indeed at some point I am sure it probably has been an 'Onion' headline. Unfortunately it isn't though, which goes to show exactly how brilliant 'The Onion' is as satire.

Now, before proceeding, please switch off any irony meters you may still possess in working order, I don't want to be responsible for any injuries caused by resulting overloads.

Done?

Christopher Maloney is a quack

Well heck, who am I to argue with PZ Myers?

Christopher Maloney is a quack.

I mean seriously, what kind of addle brained fuckwit claims black elderberries can block the H1N1 virus? Block it how? And where? And when?

Christopher Maloney is a quack.

Did I mention that Christopher Maloney is a quack?

Jimmy's rants: Cherie Booth fail

Via Pharyngula I came across this takedown of Cherie Booth's recent idiotic and discriminatory judgement passed down on a man for violent assault.

A C Grayling on why being religious shouldn't mean you get away with shit.

Apparently punching a man inside a bank and then following him outside to punch him again and break his jaw is really bad, unless you are a religious man, in which case it is only slightly naughty and your punishment can be suspended. This man is so clearly religious that he thought it was acceptable to break someones jaw over an argument about who was next in line. Deeply religious fella.

So, whilst I agree with Booth that this kind of behaviour is clearly indicative that Miah was a religious man (Islam, a peaceful religion) it is utter bollocks that Booth's subjective opinion about religion and what it is and does is used to let him get away with what he did.

The Crusaders were religious men too, after all. Oh wait, Booth is a Catholic, bad example. How about the Aztecs?

No, I can't think of a good reason to seperate church and state.

Jimmy's Rants: Complementary/alternative/quack medicine

Let me make one thing clear right before I start - this is not meant to be a fair or scientific appraisal of complementary, alternative, holistic, whatever new age term people use for non-science based, medicine. There's so much of that out there it is frankly baffling that people still try it or claim it works. Try looking on Pub Med or any of the many skeptical and critical thinking websites (Steven Novella's NeuroLogica blog, Science Based Medicine and Orac's Respectful Insolence being some of the best) that have over many years carefully demolished the claims of the alt-med crowd.

This is just me, ranting about alt-med nonsense.

Not YOUR religion, ALL religion

The subject of this post may seem a little obvious to many people, but apparently some others still don't get it.

A friend of mine got into an argument on Facebook about Obama and how Christian he wasn't - the evidence for this was, apparently, that he wouldn't allow Christian prayer in schools and he had held a Ramadan break fast at the White House. Leaving aside the fact that, as my friend pointed out, Bush held plenty of Iftars and no right wing nuts complained about him not being Christian, I want to vent my spleen about the whole prayer in school thing.

Nothing new to anyone who reads atheist blogs I know.

Holy Scripture not working for you? Then re-write it!

Just when you think that the ultra conservative right wing hardcore religious inhabitants of this planet couldn't possibly extend and expand their capacity for preposterousness you will find yourself, as I recently did, running across the simpletons and buffoons that inhabit the world of Conservapedia. There apparently really is no depth of intellectual absurdity to which these imbeciles will not sink, and here is the proof. In case you haven't heard, Conservapedia are re-writing the Bible to remove, astonishingly, its liberal bias!

Wait, what now? Yes you read that right, translations of the Bible are apparently too liberal for ultra-conservatives. Just exactly how delusional or detached from any real connection with reality do you have to be to consider any translation of the Bible as liberal? For crying out loud, Hitler was more liberal than any translation of the Bible ever was. At least he was a vegetarian.

Don't upgrade to IE8 - at least if you're me

Well, not much blogging this week because I've spent a large part of it trying to get my internet browsers working again!

Here's a piece of advice for everyone - Don't upgrade to Internet Explorer 8!

The story starts with our hero deciding to remove ESRI's ArcGIS student version - only the uninstall function won't work because some of the files are corrupt so instead I have to do a manual delete since I can no longer find the disk to fix the files either. And that means using some registry cleaner tools to remove all the references to ArcGIS so my registry isn't filled with junk. And hey it is probably filled with junk anyway. So I did.