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.

OK, anger it is

Honestly, the sheer cheek of some people is breathtaking.

Not content with his spectacular and very public failure to predict something that will never occur, Harold Camping is now at it again. The Rapture won't be on May 21st 2011 but October 21st 2011, after all that.

Quite why this date is a dead cert when the previously predicted two also were and then weren't is not clear. I'll have a guess though. It has something to do with Harold Camping being a clueless lying fuckwit trying to impose his ridiculous interpretations of a ridiculous superstition on the real world, then desperately trying to cover it up when it all goes tits up because he knows the truly stupid won't miss a beat as they accept this new date and his rationalisations.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say the real world is going to win this one. Again.

The sad thing is that people will still suck this shit right up and pretend its chocolate. Who knows though, maybe it'll be third time lucky. But I wouldn't cancel any plans you have for the 22nd October 2011.

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.

How can you call yourself a skeptic if...

... you accept things on faith or believe in the supernatural? The answer is, I believe, you can't. And you don't get to call yourself a critical thinker either. What you would be is a hypocrite. Or, maybe a little more charitably, a part timer. At best, you'd be someone capable of fooling yourself.

Thinking about writing this post is what prompted me to write yesterday's post as well, and its all about getting my thoughts down on this whole silly shit about accommadationism and people trying to exclude atheism from skepticism, and those people trying to define who the real skeptics are and who gets to join in and how they should do it (this last I covered yesterday). So here goes.

Fuck you. And other thoughts on being 'a dick'

Not for the first time I am late to the party on this.

For quite some time there's been an argument raging around the skeptical blogosphere that comes down to, as Dr. Phil Plait (the Bad Astronomer) describes it, "Don't be a dick." You can find the talk he gave on the subject on YouTube, in three parts. Basically, it's an argument about tone - why do we have to be mean? Why are we insulting? Why do we use bad words? Your demeanour gets in the way, why can't you be nice when shattering people's ignorance and delusions?

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.

Looking for an excuse to be a psychopath or a sociopath? Try "The Secret".

It's no secret (see what I did there) that skeptics don't like the Law of Attraction or "The Secret". That's because it is complete and total bollocks invented by charlatans to fleece money out of people who don't bother to stop and really think about it, but who do like its feel good message.

But it is more than that as well. It's the type of attitudes it promotes and the implications of its claims. It also attracts a lot of complete wankers to it. Take this recent anonymous commenter who showed up on a previous Secret post I'd made.

This is what they had to say, the quote lifted right from Wikipedia:

"In a letter written shortly before his escape from the Glenwood Springs jail, Bundy said "I have known people who...radiate vulnerability. Their facial expressions say 'I am afraid of you.' These people invite abuse... By expecting to be hurt, do they subtly encourage it?""

Yea it is the victim's fault. Shut the fuck up.

Yes that's right folks - this defender of "The Secret" uses a quote from Ted Bundy to defend it. Ted Fucking Bundy. Unless this is a Poe, you really couldn't make this shit up.

Vatican's latest stupidity

Ah the Vatican, truly the largest shit stain in the underpants of humanity.

Of course, now the Vatican is seeking to 'clarify' these comments. When did 'clarify' become a euphemism for 'hurriedly back pedal from the blatantly stupid, outrageously bigoted or utterly offensive by lying, obfuscating or just flat out pretending they didn't say what they did'?

What a bunch of fucking ignorant ass monkeys. Just to review the current list of Vatican stupidity, here's where they stand on the child sex abuse scandals:

First they covered them up, for decades.

Then they pretended they were nothing but petty gossip.

Then they compared the criticism of the Church to the Holocaust and by extension the critics to the Nazis.

Then they went back to claiming it was nothing but petty gossip.

Now they are claiming that there is no problem in the Church or with the priesthood, it was all done because people are gay and gay people molest children.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said:

Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia.


That is true. I have the documents of the psychologists. That is the problem.

Really? No. Don't be so fucking stupid.

But hey, the good cardinal was told so recently, so it must be true. I mean, we know from their having spent decades covering up child abuse that Catholic priests don't lie, don't we? And hearsay is definitely a good reason for condemning an entire group of people in public when you hold one of the most powerful positions of authority in the world.

Now, I admit I am not as important as the Cardinal, but I was told recently that Catholic priests eat babies and shag goats while drinking horse vomit, all as part of their ordination rites. You can take that to the bank.

But I digress, let me go back to the topic under discussion here. The Vatican, in its clarification, wants to make absolutely clear that it doesn't actually distance itself from the Cardinal's remarks, indeed it has the facts and figures to prove them. Allow me to quote the BBC article:

According to the satistical data collected by the Congregation for the Doctrine the Faith, "about 10% of cases were paedophilia in the strict sense, while 90% were cases of ephebophilia [i.e towards adolescents]", he added [Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi].


"Of these approximately 60% referred to individuals of the same sex and 30% of heterosexual character."

So, statistics gathered by the Vatican organisation responsible for helping cover up child abuse in the first place prove that the Church isn't the problem. Well, you could have knocked me down with a feather. With impartial data like that there is nothing left to argue about, right?

Wrong.
 
So, and just bear with me here, if not all of the cases of abuse can be classed as homosexual then homsexuality can't be the reason for these cases of abuse, can it? I mean, if homosexuality was the problem and if homosexuality and pedophilia were linked, wouldn't all the cases be homosexual and wouldn't they all be pedophilia? But they aren't, are they? In fact, the Vatican's own figures quite obviously disagree with the conclusion they are trying to make. 
 
So what is the common factor here? Oh yes, that's right - being a fucking priest. So, given the data that we have available we can safely say that 100% of the children abused in these cases were abused by someone connected closely to the Catholic church. Therefore, I was told recently, people connected with the Catholic church are more likely to abuse children than people not connected with it. The problem is not being gay, but being Catholic. 
 
This is true, I have the documents to prove it. Being Catholic, that is the problem.

And I'm also forced to wonder what the other 10% were, according to the Vatican, since 60% + 30% != 100%
 
And just in case you need it spelling out, here are some quotes from the study I linked to:
 

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members...
 
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children...
 
In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters...
 
It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican's early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained...


The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes...

For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women...

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation...

The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994)...

The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989)...

However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents...

Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children.

So the sleazy lying bastards in the Vatican can go and fuck themselves with rusty pickaxes. Here's a free piece of advice for the Vatican:

If you don't recognise the problem, you are never going to fix it - stop blaming everyone else and accept your responsibility.

"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?

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.

Mike Adams has a meltdown, then has his arse handed to him

A minor ripple has passed through the skeptical blogosphere recently at the doings of Mike Adams aka the Health Ranger, from NaturalNews.com. I'll spare you the details here, but I will direct you to Tom Foss's comprehensive bitch slapping of the sorry fool.

Go read it and see how this sort of take down should be done.

This is the worst Ranger since Turbo.

No really. Your thoughts don't guide, control or create the Universe

There are people out there who think that astronomical objects control or create their destiny and/or personalities. There are people out there who think their thoughts shape the Universe. There are people out there who think that what they experience is created (not 'percieved' or 'interpreted', 'created') by their thoughts. There are people out there who think that their thoughts somehow guide or control what happens in the Universe. There are even people who think that the Universe will align with their thoughts and desires and give them what they want. There are people out there who treat the Universe like it is some sort of sentient being that pays attention to them. There are people out there that think a combination or variation of all of these things. Most of them can be found believing in any form of astrology, The Secret or the Law of Attraction, or all of them, or something resembling any of them.

They're all idiots. Well alright. I'll concede that some of them might just be nuts. Fine, I might even concede that some of them might just be really uninformed. Maybe even just guilty of lacking imagination.

Justice, politics or bollocks?

OK, now the media furore has died down and this has slipped back beneath the short attention span of the American population I wanted to bring this up, the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others in New York.

Is it just me that thinks this is nothing more than political grand standing by President Obama's administration? This strikes me as more of a sop to the 'liberal' side of American life and politics than anything else. It seems like an attempt to look like the current administration is making amends for the fuck ups of the previous one but without actually doing that much.